"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, April 07, 2007

Rudyuctio ad absurdum
Posted by Jill | 4:45 PM
Sunni, Schmunni; Shiite, Schmiite, as long as I'm president:

What are his qualifications for dealing with foreign policy matters? He cited his experience as mayor of an international city, and recalled that he had once kicked Yasir Arafat out of a United Nations celebration at Lincoln Center on the ground that he was a terrorist.

And since leaving office five years ago, Mr. Giuliani said, he has made 90 trips to more than 40 countries. In the last few years, “I have probably been to more foreign lands than any other candidate for president,” he said.

At a house party in New Hampshire, Mr. Giuliani suggested that it was unclear which was farther along, Iran or North Korea, in the development of a nuclear weapons program.

Asked about his policy toward the North Koreans, he said he backed the administration’s approach, mentioning in particular a Chinese role in efforts to pressure them. “I think the strategy has produced enough results so far that you have to stick with it,” he said.

As for Iran, Mr. Giuliani said that “in the long term,” it might be “more dangerous than Iraq.”

He then casually lumped Iran with Al Qaeda. “Their movement has already displayed more aggressive tendencies by coming here and killing us,” he said.

Mr. Giuliani was asked in an interview to clarify that, inasmuch as Iran had no connection to the Sept. 11 attacks. Further, most of its people are Shiites, whereas Al Qaeda is an organization of Sunnis.


“They have a similar objective,” he replied, “in their anger at the modern world.”

In other words, he said, they hate America.


Sounds like someone else we know, eh? If you think George W. Bush is a foreign policy genius, you'll just LOVE Rudy Giuliani, for he promises more "all dick, no brain".

It's astounding that at a time when almost 70% of Americans have had quite enough of this kind of bellicose, counterproductive foreign policy, all of the Republican candidates seem to be sticking with the Big Swinging Dick Doctrine.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Why Bush hasn't started bombing Iran yet
Posted by Jill | 8:33 AM
Apparently it's because, when he offered military action to Britain to "help" in the release of the 15 British sailors, the British told him to back off:

In the first few days after the captives were seized and British diplomats were getting no news from Tehran on their whereabouts, Pentagon officials asked their British counterparts: what do you want us to do? They offered a series of military options, a list which remains top secret given the mounting risk of war between the US and Iran. But one of the options was for US combat aircraft to mount aggressive patrols over Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases in Iran, to underline the seriousness of the situation.

The British declined the offer and said the US could calm the situation by staying out of it. London also asked the US to tone down military exercises that were already under way in the Gulf. Three days before the capture of the 15 Britons , a second carrier group arrived having been ordered there by president George Bush in January. The aim was to add to pressure on Iran over its nuclear programme and alleged operations inside Iraq against coalition forces.
At the request of the British, the two US carrier groups, totalling 40 ships plus aircraft, modified their exercises to make them less confrontational.

The British government also asked the US administration from Mr Bush down to be cautious in its use of rhetoric, which was relatively restrained throughout.

The incident was a reminder of how inflammatory the situation in the Gulf is. According to some US and British officers, there is already a proxy war under way between their forces and elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.


This week has been a strong repudiation of the Big Swinging Dicks foreign policy to which the Bush Administration adheres. First you had the release of the British soldiers without a drop of blood being spilled, then you had Nancy Pelosi showing the power of diplomacy in her dealings with Syria.

I would hope that Congressional Republicans and the military would look at these events and perhaps for once try to put the brakes on this bunch of lunatics that would blow up the world rather than admit that their dicks aren't as big as they think they are.

(h/t: Cernig)

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

We need another inarticulate boob in the White House like we need a second navel
Posted by Jill | 8:07 AM
It's really sad to watch what's happened to John McCain. I remember that in the very early days of the 2000 campaign, I would say that I wished for a John McCain/Bill Bradley matchup, because while I might not like McCain, at least it would be a matchup where I could feel my intelligence wasn't being insulted.

There was a time when McCain, while still being a staunch conservative, was at least a thoughtful one. Then he sold his soul to George W. Bush and now he's trapped in a hell of his own making. I wonder if he even believes the stuff that comes out of his mouth or if he, like Mitt Romney, will say or do anything to get this nomination.

Now, after claiming that anyone can walk freely through the streets of Baghdad, and after a ridiculous photo op in which he required 100 soldiers, three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships to keep him safe; after 21 people were ambushed and shot dead in the photo-op's aftermath, McCain admits he misspoke:

The remarks made headlines and he now regrets saying them. "Of course I am going to misspeak and I've done it on numerous occasions and I probably will do it in the future," says McCain. "I regret that when I divert attention to something I said from my message, but you know, that's just life," he tells Pelley, adding, "I'm happy, frankly, with the way I operate, otherwise it would be a lot less fun."


Fun? FUN? Has McCain forgotten that this election, perhaps more than any other in my lifetime, is deadly serious. 21 Iraqis died in the immediate aftermath of his little photo-op, and more since. If the George W. Bush presidency should have taught us nothing else, it's shown us that words have consequences -- words like "Bring 'em on". Does he think this is some sort of game? Does he, like Bush, think the president is a dictator or king? It would seem so:


I disagree with what the majority of the American people want.


I don't know if McCain's mental capacities have diminished, or if his lust for the presidency has overtaken him to the extent that he can no longer thing straight. But if there is anything more repulsive than a Republican candidate trying to justify this war by using taxpayer-paid military resources to try to score a cheap poltical point, it's that candidate shrugging it off later on, saying "I misspoke and I'll do it again."

Perhaps at one time John McCain might have made a good president. But that time is now long past.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Friday, April 06, 2007

Actually, there WAS a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden
Posted by Jill | 9:11 PM
That link was the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) -- and George Herbert Walker Bush, a.k.a. "Bush 41", a.k.a. the father of the psychopath-in-chief:

BCCI was the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, a dirty offshore bank that then-president Ronald Reagan's Central Intelligence Agency used to run guns to Hussein, finance Osama bin Laden, move money in the illegal Iran-Contra operation and carry out other "agency" black ops. The Bushes also benefited privately; one of the bank's largest Saudi investors helped bail out George W. Bush's troubled oil investments.

BCCI was founded in 1972 by a Pakistani banker, Agha Hasan Abedi, with the support of Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al Nahyan, ruler of Abu Dhabi and head of the United Arab Emirates. Its corporate strategy was money laundering. It became the banker for drug and arms traffickers, corrupt officials, financial fraudsters, dictators and terrorists.

The CIA used BCCI Islamabad and other branches in Pakistan to funnel some of the two billion dollars that Washington sent to Osama bin Laden's Mujahadeen to help fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. It moved the cash the Pakistani military and government officials skimmed from U.S. aid to the Mujahadeen. It also moved money as required by the Saudi intelligence services.

The BCCI operation gave Osama bin Laden an education in offshore black finance that he would put to use when he organised the jihad against the United States. He would move money through the Al-Taqwa Bank, operating in offshore Nassau and Switzerland with two Osama siblings as shareholders.

At the same time, BCCI helped Saddam Hussein, funneling millions of dollars to the Atlanta branch of the Italian government-owned Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL), Baghdad's U.S. banker, so that from 1985 to 1989 it could make four billion dollars in secret loans to Iraq to help it buy arms.

U.S. Congressman Henry Gonzalez held a hearing on BNL in 1992 during which he quoted from a confidential CIA document that said the agency had long been aware that the bank's headquarters was involved in the U.S. branch's Iraqi loans.

Kickbacks from 15 percent commissions on BNL-sponsored loans were channeled into bank accounts held for Iraqi leaders via BCCI offices in the Caymans as well as in offshore Luxembourg and Switzerland. BNL was a client of Kissinger Associates, and Henry Kissinger was on the bank's international advisory board, along with Brent Scowcroft, who would become George Bush Sr.'s national security advisor. That connection makes the Bush administration's surprise and indignation at "oil for food" payoffs in Iraq seem disingenuous.

Important Saudis were influential in the bank. Sheik Kamal Adham, brother-in-law of the late Saudi King Faisal, head of Saudi intelligence from 1963 to 1979, and the CIA's liaison in the area, became one of BCCI's largest shareholders. George Bush Sr. knew Adham from his time running the CIA in 1975.

Another investor was Prince Turki bin Faisal al-Saud, who succeeded Adham as Saudi intelligence chief. The family of Khalid Salem bin Mahfouz, owner of the National Commercial Bank, the largest bank in Saudi Arabia, banker to King Fahd and other members of the ruling family, bought 20 to 30 percent of the stock for nearly one billion dollars. Bin Mahfouz was put on the board of directors.

The Arabs' interest in the bank was more than financial. A classified CIA memo on BCCI in the mid-1980s said that "its principal shareholders are among the power elite of the Middle East, including the rulers of Dubai and the United Arab Emirates, and several influential Saudi Arabians. They are less interested in profitability than in promoting the Muslim cause."

The Bushes' private links to the bank passed to Bin Mahfouz through Texas businessman James R. Bath, who invested money in the United States on behalf of the Saudi. In 1976, when Bush was the head of the CIA, the agency sold some of the planes of Air America, a secret "proprietary" airline it used during the Vietnam War, to Skyway, a company owned by Bath and Bin Mahfouz. Bath then helped finance George W. Bush's oil company, Arbusto Energy Inc., in 1979 and 1980.

When Harken Energy Corp., which had absorbed Arbusto (by then merged with Spectrum 7 Energy), got into financial trouble in 1987, Jackson Stephens of the powerful, politically-connected Arkansas investment firm helped it secure 25 million dollars in financing from the Union Bank of Switzerland. As part of that deal, a place on the board was given to Harken shareholder Sheik Abdullah Taha Bakhsh, whose chief banker was BCCI shareholder Bin Mahfouz.

Then, in 1988, George Bush Sr. was elected president. Harken benefited by getting some new investors, including Salem bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's half-brother, and Khalid bin Mahfouz. Osama bin Laden himself was busy elsewhere at the time -- organising al Qaeda.

The money BCCI stole before it was shut down in 1991 -- somewhere between 9.5 billion and 15 billion dollars -- made its 20-year heist the biggest bank fraud in history. Most of it was never recovered. International banks' complicity in the offshore secrecy system effectively covered up the money trail.

But in the years after the collapse of BCCI, Khalid bin Mahfouz was still flush with cash. In 1992, he established the Muwafaq ("blessed relief") Foundation in the offshore Channel Islands. The U.S. Treasury Department called it "an al Qaeda front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen."

When the BCCI scandal began to break in the late 1980s, the Sr. Bush administration did what it could to sit on it. The Justice Department went after the culprits -- was virtually forced to -- only after New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau did. But evidence about BCCI's broader links exist in numerous U.S. and international investigations. Now could be a good time to take another look at the BCCI-Osama-Saddam-Saudi-Bush connection.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

The Daily Knut
Posted by Jill | 7:25 AM


If you have to ask, you just don't get it.

Meanwhile, Knut's reign of terror and the Germans' flagrant disregard of the Bush Edict to not mention polar bears continues. I'll let the little guy (or his ghost writer's translator) speak for himself:

Well, there´s a DVD out now – with great pictures of me and everything. You can get it in the zoo or at RBB (yes ok, it´s advertising, but there have been so many questions about it and then a great deal of the money is for my place here, so ...) But „pictures“ was the subject. How about painting a picture for me and e-mail it to knut@rbb-online.de!? I´ll pick out my favorites and put them online here for everyone to watch and see. The top five also get my new DVD. What else? Tomorrow I´ll show you two more videos – a new part of „Hello Knut!“ and the first part of the announced Interview with my Daddy!!! Oh - if you want to come and see me there are some new zoo-rules so that everyone CAN really see me. Take a look here. Ok - take care and see you tomorrow.


Smart little momzer, isn't he?

But as you can see, Knut's reign of cuteness terror is going to reach the end of its half-life relatively soon. Already he looks more like a polar bear and less like a Steiff toy. However, this song, with its visuals of cranium-exploding levels of cuteness and its horrific brain-lodging catchiness, is forever:



Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Every now and then South Park gets it right
Posted by Jill | 7:06 AM
If you ever want to see a Christofascist zombie's brain go into blue screen of death mode, try asking what eggs and bunnies have to do with the resurrection.


I often find that South Park is the modern-day equivalent of the Three Stooges -- comedy that requires a Y chromosome to find it funny. Small doses of South Park are usually quite enough, and when Trey Parker and Matt Stone take the easy way out and resort to poop and fart jokes, I know it's time to see what's on the DIY Channel.

However, this week's Easter episode is arguably the most incisive, sidesplittingly funny twenty minutes of television you're likely to see this year. Comedy Central is running it in heavy rotation all weekend. If you don't have a DVR, find a convenient time here. But do NOT miss it.

Here's just a taste:





UPDATE: Alternet has more video.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

The psychopath-in-chief
Posted by Jill | 6:01 AM
Though technically psychopathy is not an "official" DSM-IV category of psychological disorder, the term is often used interchangeably with "sociopath" and the "official" term, antisocial personality disorder. Yet through common use it's become a far more weighted term, and so we will use it here for the purpose of describing the man with his literal finger on the button; the man half of American voters believed not once but twice was the best man for the job.

Psychopathy is diagnosed using Robert Hare's Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). It would be interesting to see how the current president would score if administered this particular diagnostic instrument. Hare describes psychopaths as:


"...intraspecies predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs. Lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they cold-bloodedly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret." (The Harvard Mental Health Letter, September 1995)


Remember the Washington Correspondents Dinner where George Bush joked about not being able to find Iraq's WMD and looking for them under his desk? That was just a taste of this president's pathology. Dan Froomkin reports on Bush's visit Wednesday to Fort Irwin in California's Mojave Desert:


Is Bush taking all this seriously enough? Or is it all just a game? In his tour of the deadly-serious training facility yesterday, Bush repeatedly joked around, with journalists serving as the brunt of his humor.

"The first stop was a card table set up in front of a cinderblock-type hut," New York Times reporter Jim Rutenberg wrote in his pool report. "Sitting on top of it were suitcase devices used to view the images sent back from predator drones. 'Train it on Holland,' POTUS said as a soldier held up the drone, about two feet long and pointed it at Steve Holland of Reuters. Peering into the image received in the suitcase device's monitor, POTUS said to Holland, 'You're as rough looking here as you are regular.'"

Later, Rutenberg writes: "We arrived at another display of robotic rovers built to handle and search for road side bombs. With your pool assembled before him, POTUS grabbed the joy stick on a remote control and started sending a rover with a grab claw into the photographers, telling Jason Reed of Reuters - who was right in its path - 'You're not debris, you're still a human being.' . . . POTUS then turned his attention to your humble pool reporter, 'Rutenberg, come here,' then saying, 'Put your hand there by the claw.' LOL."

Rutenberg left out what happened next, but local reporter Tatiana Prophet of the Victorville (Calif.) Daily Press was fascinated by the conduct of the White House press corps, and wrote a story about them: "While this administration has been characterized by a ban on reporters' questions outside of a formal news conference, the media nevertheless have a familiarity with the commander-in-chief. . . .

"'Rutenberg, come over here,' Bush said to New York Times reporter Jim Rutenberg. 'Put your hand up right by the claw.'

"The 'claw' was a robot arm of the Talon 3, a diminutive robot designed to disarm improvised explosive devices, which have become the biggest threat to troops involved in the Iraq War. . . .

"Rutenberg, kneeling in the desert dust, was a good sport as the president sent the robot toward him, to laughter from the soldiers and the media as well."

Nothing like a little physical abasement to keep the president in good spirits.


Disgusting. The way this president has had the White House press corps tap-dancing to his tune for the past six years; the way he goes to military bases and mock-threatens reporters with weapons and goes to tractor factories and tries to run over them while test-driving a tractor reminds me of this guy:





Even NBC's David Gregory, who's been known to ask Bush a tough question every now and then, can be reduced to playing Stepin Fetchit in a tux for this president.

What on earth are these people so afraid of? Is it all about access? Is it about losing access to this president? What kind of access do they have now, where they are only permitted to regurgitate what the Administration wants them to write? What kind of access is this? Or is it that like a harem of abused wives, they regard the jokes and the nicknames as some kind of expression of affection?

Whatever it is, it is doing the American public a profound disservice. History has told us that Henry VIII was fond of dressing up in disguises and surprising people, and a popular account of his first meeting with Anne of Cleves has her mistaking the by then obese and malodorous king for a particularly repulsive kind of commoner and being as repulsed by him as he was by her. Novelist Philippa Gregory adds a fanciful spin to this in her most recent Tudor novel, The Boleyn Inheritance, by having Henry's revulsion a result of Anne spitting into her hand after being manhandled and kissed by the disguised Henry -- and this gesture causing the veneer of pretending among those present that still reflected back to this most egotistical of kings his illusion that he was still young, virile, and attractive to fall away. But whether Anne simply ignored him because she did not recognize him without his finery, or something more, the likelihood that the aftermath of that less-than-auspicious meeting went the way the Tudor court equivalent of the White House Press Corps, Spanish Imperial ambassador Eustace Chapuys described it, is small:

And on New Years Day in the afternoon the king's grace with five of his privy chamber, being disguised with mottled cloaks with hoods so that they should not be recognized, came secretly to Rochester, and so went up into the chamber where the said Lady Anne was looking out of a window to see the bull-baiting which was going on in the courtyard, and suddenly he embraced and kissed her, and showed here a token which the king had sent her for New Year's gift, and she being abashed and not knowing who it was thanked him, and so he spoke with her. But she regarded him little, but always looked out the window.... and when the king saw that she took so little notice of his coming he went into another chamber and took off his cloak and came in again in a coat of purple velvet. And when the lords and knights saw his grace they did him reverence.... and then her grace humbled herself lowly to the king's majesty, and his grace saluted her again, and they talked together lovingly, and afterwards he took her by the hand and led her to another chamber where their graces amused themselves that night and on Friday until the afternoon.


It was one thing to need to placate a king who was by then pretty much acknowledged to be more than a wee tad fickle of nature and volatile of temper. But George W. Bush is not a king, no matter how much William Kristol might want him to be. And it is the job of the press corps not to indulge this president in his worst behaviors in exchange for the privilege of kissing the ring, but to keep Americans informed of what this man is doing in their name.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

It was all lies. All of it, And now not even the delusional can say otherwise
Posted by Jill | 5:42 AM
Some of us knew all along that there was no operational relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Now everyone else will have to know as well that their president took them to war on a lie -- whether they want to believe it or not:

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.

The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.

"This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of al-Qaeda."

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), who requested the report's declassification, said in a written statement that the complete text demonstrates more fully why the inspector general concluded that a key Pentagon office -- run by then-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith -- had inappropriately written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq that the U.S. intelligence consensus disputed.

The report, in a passage previously marked secret, said Feith's office had asserted in a briefing given to Cheney's chief of staff in September 2002 that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was "mature" and "symbiotic," marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics.

Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.

"Overall, the reporting provides no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations," that CIA report said, adding that discussions on the issue were "necessarily speculative."

The CIA had separately concluded that reports of Iraqi training on weapons of mass destruction were "episodic, sketchy, or not corroborated in other channels," the inspector general's report said. It quoted an August 2002 CIA report describing the relationship as more closely resembling "two organizations trying to feel out or exploit each other" rather than cooperating operationally.

The CIA was not alone, the defense report emphasized. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had concluded that year that "available reporting is not firm enough to demonstrate an ongoing relationship" between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda, it said.

But the contrary conclusions reached by Feith's office -- and leaked to the conservative Weekly Standard magazine before the war -- were publicly praised by Cheney as the best source of information on the topic, a circumstance the Pentagon report cites in documenting the impact of what it described as "inappropriate" work.


But this is Dick Cheney's One Percent Doctrine at work -- that there is even a remote possibility -- a one percent possibility -- that something is true, you proceed as if you were 100% certain of its truth. That's like saying that if a woman finds what she thinks may be a small breast lump, she should bypass the exam by a physician, the mammogram, the ultrasound, the stereotactic biopsy, and instead proceed immediately with a double radical mastectomy, radiation, chemotherapy, and throw in a hysterectomy just for good measure. It's ridiculous, it's preposterous, it's reckless, and this is the Cheney Doctrine -- and hang the truth, it's his story and he's sticking with it.

And this is the guy the New York Sun thinks should be the Republican nominee. I kid you not:


Mr. Cheney has virtues as a candidate in his own right. He has foreign policy experience by virtue of having served as defense secretary, and he has economic policy experience, having served as a leading tax-cutter while a member of the House of Representatives. His wife, Lynne, would be an asset to the ticket in her own right, a point made by Kathryn Jean Lopez in a post on the topic at National Review Online back in February. By our rights, Lynne Cheney would make one of the greatest First Ladies in history. Mr. Cheney, in any event, is more than four years younger than Mr. McCain, and, if elected, would be 67 years old at his inauguration, younger than Reagan was when he took office. His health, while a topic of frequent speculation, hasn't interfered with his service as vice president.

Lawrence Kudlow wrote a column a while back saying he hoped President Bush asked Vice President Cheney to run for president in 2008. It was a fine idea then and it still is — not because the current field is particularly weak, but because Mr. Cheney is so much more experienced and shrewd a figure, one who could help settle some of the arguments about the Bush years in favor of Mr. Bush. A White House aiming to get Mr. Cheney elected could also avoid some of the hazards that befall lame-ducks — drift, brain drain, irrelevance. Such a campaign might lift Mr. Cheney 's own standing in the polls.

The vice president's stature would put him instantly into the first rank of contenders on the Republican side. On Monday, speaking in Alabama, the vice president received such a warm greeting that he began his remarks by saying, "A reception like that is almost enough to make you want to run for office again." It is hard to imagine the vice president did not comprehend how tantalizing such a remark would be. He used the same opening line on March 24 when he spoke to the leadership of the Republican Jewish Coalition. This is not an endorsement, and there are things we find attractive about many of the other candidates. But for those of us who are concerned with extending Mr. Bush's campaign for freedom around the world and cutting taxes at home, a Cheney campaign is attractive.

In the same Alabama speech in which Mr. Cheney quipped about wanting to run for office again, he said, " America is a good and an honorable country. We serve a cause that is right, and a cause that gives hope to the oppressed in every corner of this earth. We're the kind of country that fights for freedom, and the men and women in that fight are some of the bravest citizens this nation has ever produced. The only way for us to lose is to quit. But that's not an option. We will complete the mission, and we will prevail." What a contrast to the carping over tactics that has infected some of the Republican field and to the fever among the Democrats for cutting off funds for our GIs and sounding a retreat.


Either the editorial staff at the Sun is collectively insane (which is always a possibility), or it's a diabolically clever device to make Mitt "Elmer Fudd" Romney, John "Pander Bear" McCain, and Rudy "Benito" Giuliani seem less repulsive by comparison.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, April 05, 2007

There's still time to find a way to re-animate Leni Riefenstahl for this one
Posted by Jill | 1:31 PM
Skippy:

our buddy allison of blah3 forwarded us a link to this blog, which is extolling all americans to party hearty on july 7 (lucky number 7-7-07), to prove to the troops that america is behind them and their mission:

one fine summer day, there will be thousands of americans waving flags and holding banners saluting american's finest, the united states soldier. the beautiful red white and blue symbols everywhere will be gleaming from proud people, young and old. "operation america rising" will be the largest support the troops rally in history. on 7-7-07, people will meet in the every states capital for fun, music, and speeches. the american soldier will see their country behind them again. proud americans will show their love and appreciation and media coverage will be everywhere.

instead of being a pot filled, bongo drum beating anti this and anti that rally, this will be a pro troop and proud gathering of americans who support our soldiers that are fighting for our freedom all over the world.

after independence day, we will celebrate those who gave us our independence!

we have several "state leaders" in place now, but we need more volunteers from every state. something of this magnitude requires a lot of help. we need people to spread the word all over the internet, help organize, and to contact media and prominent leaders. in the real american online store, and conservative buys.com have "operation america rising" gear available. everything from shirts, hats, and bumper stickers will be available. significant portions of the proceeds will go to the rally for flags and banners. also, a donation will be set up through the online store and the real american truth web site. various promotions will be ran leading up to the rally to help spread the word as well.
well, we sure wouldn't want a pot filled bongo drum beating anti this and anti that rally, now, would we?

kids, friends don't let friends beat bongos.


Mark your calendars now.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

The myth of the centrist voter
Posted by Jill | 7:11 AM
Buried in Sidney Blumenthal's article in Salon about Matthew Dowd's defection from the ranks of the Bushista is the little tidbit highlighted in bold type below:


Dowd has given a couple of accounts of this painless conversion, attributing it variously to the shining impression made by Bush and the persuasive skills of Rove, whom he came to know well in the hothouse atmosphere of Austin. McKinnon told his friends he wasn't a Republican, but a "Bush guy," while Dowd, for his part, simply left it at that he had become a "Bush Republican." Had they not jumped at the main chance that materialized, they would have been mired as provincial losers. Instead, they chose fame and fortune. Observers viewed their leap as symbolic of Bush's unusual capacity for bipartisanship.

Bush's loss of the popular majority by 543,895 votes in the 2000 election was a shock to his political advisors and prompted an internal rethinking of his strategy. During the Florida contest and before the Supreme Court delivered the presidency to Bush, Dowd wrote a confidential memo to Rove that analyzed data from the recent vote and argued that there was no significant center in the electorate. "Dowd's analysis destroyed the rationale for Bush to govern as 'a uniter, not a divider,'" wrote Thomas Edsall in his book "Building Red America." Bush's confected campaign persona as a "compassionate conservative" was suddenly discarded. The "architect," as Bush called Rove, had an architect. Bush's brain had an outsourced brain. Rove's and Bush's radical imperatives derived from Dowd's conclusions.

With Bush as president, Dowd was put on the Republican National Committee payroll and became an intimate participant in White House strategy sessions. Bush and the Republicans now exploited divisive wedge issues and tactics with a vengeance. After Sept. 11, 2001, fear was bundled with loathing, the terrorist threat from abroad conflated with the gay menace within. By 2004, relying on Dowd's numbers, Republicans made gay marriage the most salient social issue, exceeding abortion and gun control in its inflammatory potential to mobilize conservatives. Dowd prescribed the strategy for targeting of Republican base voters' "anger points," as GOP consultants called them, for maximum turnout.


The myth of the centrist voter that must be courted is a recurring theme in mainstream media discussions of the 2008 race, specifically, the DEMOCRATIC 2008 race. Night after night, Joe Scarborough hammers the point that the Democratic nominee is going to have to appeal to "centrist voters"; the myth that elections are decided "in the middle." If Dowd was correct in 2000, then that center is a myth, and George W. Bush ran the early months of his administration just for the people who voted for him -- and no one else.

It's interesting that as we see all the major Republican candidates racing to see how far to the right they can run, the talking heads of the media are all repeating the meme that Democrats must run to the center in order to win. The Republicans are falling all over each other to see which one can be the most supportive of gun rights, the most anti-abortion, the most disgusted by gay marriage. Republicans embrace their base, and Democrats are told to run away from theirs as hard as they can.

Contrary to what conservatives believe, the Democratic base is NOT the A.N.S.W.E.R. left. It's not about identity politics and freeing Mumia. The Democratic base isn't just the netroots, though the netroots isn't nearly as far left as conservatives and the talking heads in the media think we are. The Democratic base is about a strong defense that's used wisely and not for pre-emptive war based on ginned-up intelligence to serve corporate interests. The Democratic base is about the ability to earn a decent living in this country. It's about workers being treated like human beings by employers. It's about being able to get health care when you need it and not having to lie awake at night because you don't have insurance. It's about being able to keep a roof over your head and food on your table and send your kids to college. Howard Dean said in 2004 that Democratic values are American values, and that's true. Republican values are about eviscerating the middle class, shoveling more money into the pockets of the wealthy, looking the other way at corporate crime and snooping into people's bedrooms.

The Democratic candidate that plays to the Democratic base is the one that will win the election. Ever since Ronald Reagan, Democrats have allowed Republicans to define what they stand for -- and define it inaccurately. This really isn't rocket science. Those middle-class, so-called "centrist" voters have the same concerns now that their lower-income and working class fellow citizens have, and it's not gay marriage. It's time for Democrats to stop playing to this insignificant center and start embracing what the party is supposed to stand for.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

The human toll of the Iraq war that we don't see
Posted by Jill | 6:53 AM
I can't even express how my heart hurts that after not learning the lessons of Vietnam, we are going to have yet another damaged generation of young men:


Blinded and disabled on the 54th day of the war in Iraq, Sam Ross returned home to a rousing parade that outdid anything this small, depressed Appalachian town had ever seen. “Sam’s parade put Dunbar on the map,” his grandfather said.

That was then.

Now Mr. Ross, 24, faces charges of attempted homicide, assault and arson in the burning of a family trailer in February. Nobody in the trailer was hurt, but Mr. Ross fought the assistant fire chief who reported to the scene, and later threatened a state trooper with his prosthetic leg, which was taken away from him, according to the police.

The police locked up Mr. Ross in the Fayette County prison. In his cell, he tried to hang himself with a sheet. After he was cut down, Mr. Ross was committed to a state psychiatric hospital, where, he said in a recent interview there, he is finally getting — and accepting — the help he needs, having spiraled downward in the years since the welcoming fanfare faded.

“I came home a hero, and now I’m a bum,” Mr. Ross, whose full name is Salvatore Ross Jr., said.

The story of Sam Ross has the makings of a ballad, with its heart-rending arc from hardscrabble childhood to decorated war hero to hardscrabble adulthood. His effort to create a future for himself by enlisting in the Army exploded in the desert during a munitions disposal operation in Baghdad. He was 20.

He was also on his own. Mr. Ross, who is estranged from his mother and whose father is serving a life sentence for murdering his stepmother, does not have the family support that many other severely wounded veterans depend on. Various relatives have stepped in at various times, but Mr. Ross, embittered by a difficult childhood and by what the war cost him, has had a push-pull relationship with those who sought to assist him.

Several people have taken a keen interest in Mr. Ross, among them Representative John P. Murtha, the once-hawkish Democrat from Pennsylvania. When Mr. Murtha publicly turned against the war in Iraq in 2005, he cited the shattered life of Mr. Ross, one of his first constituents to be seriously wounded, as a pivotal influence.

Mr. Murtha’s office assisted Mr. Ross in negotiating the military health care bureaucracy. Homes for Our Troops, a nonprofit group based in Massachusetts, built him a beautiful log cabin. Military doctors carefully tended Mr. Ross’s physical wounds: the loss of his eyesight, of his left leg below the knee and of his hearing in one ear, among other problems.

But that help was not enough to save Mr. Ross from the loneliness and despair that engulfed him. Overwhelmed by severe symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, including routine nightmares of floating over Iraq that ended with a blinding boom, he “self-medicated” with alcohol and illegal drugs. He finally hit rock bottom when he landed in the state psychiatric hospital, where he is, sadly, thrilled to be.

“Seventeen times of trying to commit suicide, I think it’s time to give up,” Mr. Ross said, speaking in the forensic unit of the Mayview State Hospital in Bridgeville. “Lots of them were screaming out cries for help, and nobody paid attention. But finally somebody has.”


But Jobn Murtha can't be there for all of them; all the tens of thousands of walking and non-walking wounded; all those who may seem fit on the outside but their psyches are shattered. These soldiers have a commander-in-chief who doesn't hesitate to exploit them as props for political purposes, but these are also men trained to be tough, and tough guys have a very hard time admitting they need help.

What the military needs to do is provide active outreach to every returning soldier. Find a way to fund it somehow. But every returning soldier should receive a phone call or a visit once a month "just to see how you're doing and if you need anything." The military breaks a soldier down to turn him into a killing machine. It has an obligation to put him back together if he's lucky enough to make it home.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, April 04, 2007

The Forgotten Candidate
Posted by Jill | 10:40 PM
While Joe Scarborough, Joan Walsh, Ryan Lizza, and whoever that other guy who looks like Rufus Sewell was were beating the Obama/Hillary money chase to death tonight, remember that sneaky little guy from North Carolina; you know, the one they're ignoring? He's ahead in Iowa by a nose and second in New Hampshire -- just ahead of Obama and within striking distance of Hillary.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Why Sanjaya must win
Posted by Jill | 6:39 PM

Vote for this dork. It's important.


I hate to go against my good friend Jon Swift, especially when he has just delivered some of the best piping hot, delicious, extra-crispy snark it has ever been my pleasure to consume. But I have to differ with him on one thing, and that is on the subject of Sanjaya Malakar.

You have to realize that I don't watch American Idol. Never have, never will. I don't much care for pop singers, so why would I listen to a bunch of mediocre ones? Oh, I'm happy that Jennifer Hudson won an Academy Award, but that's as much because she's a woman of some size as it is because Simon Cowell dissed her. But seriously, everything I know about American Idol I've learned from either ModFab or the tag team of Keith Olbermann and Maria Milito.

But I do know about Sanjaya Malakar. You can't live in this country and NOT know about Sanjaya Malakar. And I want Sanjaya Malakar to win this fucking show. I want him to win so that maybe, finally, this American obsession that has people forgetting that dozens of people are being killed in Iraq while the Lunatic-in-Chief plans to attack Iran, possibly as soon as Good Friday, will get out of my face.

But I'm not just spouting liberal claptrap here. I really want this kid to win. Why? Because it's clear that he SO gets it. He knows he can't sing. But while he's bad, he's not William Hung bad. There's nothing to feel superior to in Sanjaya Malakar, because he is playing this show like a fine violin. Here is this scrawny, 17-year-old kid with a smile as big as all outdoors. He's got the whole 1970's Shawn Cassidy/Andy Gibb thing down pat -- the moves, the sly smiles at the girls, and an even bigger smile for the rest of the audience that says "Fuck you -- I suck, I know it, and what are you going to do about it?" He's all style and no substance. He has an amazing way of distracting people from what's really important even as he gets more outrageous all the time. For whatever reason, he's been able to get millions of people to forget about the damage he's causing the particular ship he's steering at the moment and vote for him. In short, Sanjaya is the perfect American Idol winner for the waning days of the George W. Bush administration.

I'm not alone in rooting for Sanjaya either. Alex Blagg at HuffPo also understands the context of the Sanjaya phenomenon. If George W. Bush is the perfect candidate for the Christofascist Zombie Brigade because, as Marc Maron points out, he's the guy who can bring about the end of the world -- and they're ready to go; then Sanjaya Malakar is the perfect winner for those of us who want to see American Idol, with its cookie-cutter screeching pop singers, dead and buried, with a wreath of garlic around its neck and a stake through its heart.

And now I'm done blogging for the day, because at this point, ModFab is probably standing right behind Atrios, waiting to shoot me in the face.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Katie Couric is going to be SOOOOO disappointed
Posted by Jill | 8:21 AM
I wondered during Couric's 60 Minutes interview with John and Elizabeth Edwards if perhaps she had an eye on Johnny for herself and that's why she was focusing so hard on Elizabeth Edwards' seemingly imminent demise. But now it looks like Katie may have a long wait. Here's some good news about Elizabeth Edwards, reported by AP's Nedra Pickler, of all people:

Elizabeth Edwards said Tuesday that she got some good news: She has a type of cancer that is more likely to be controlled by anti-estrogen drugs.

Mrs. Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, expressed frustration with reports that she's likely to die within five years. She said doctors can't give her a reliable life expectancy and even if they could, the information would be of no comfort to her.

"I don't care," she said in an interview with The Associated Press as she campaigned with her husband. "I'm going to fight exactly as hard if they tell me that I've got 15 years or if I've got 30 years. I'm still going to fight to get rid of this if they tell me I've got 15 minutes I'm still going to fight. It doesn't matter what the prognosis is. So it's not an important piece of information to me."

The Edwardses announced nearly two weeks ago that the breast cancer she thought she had beaten with surgery, radiation and chemotherapy had spread to her bone. They said they had no intention of ending his bid because doctors told her that although she's likely to die from the disease eventually, the campaign wouldn't interfere with her treatment.

Mrs. Edwards had her first post-diagnosis doctor's visit Friday and emerged encouraged. She said her doctor expected she had the most aggressive "triple-negative" cancer, but testing found that she had two of the three key hormonal receptors estrogen and progesterone. She said her the original diagnosis was "slightly estrogen heavy," but this time it's a strong marker and she also has the second marker.

"I consider that a good sign," Mrs. Edwards said in an interview in an art classroom before appearing with her husband at the Prairie High School gymnasium. "It means there are more medications which I can expect to be responsive."


The article indicates that patients with estrogen-receptor tumors in just the bone have a good chance at surviving for 10 years. While at age 57, that hardly seems enough, at least it's a start.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Now this just might be a worthy effort at combatting childhood obesity
Posted by Jill | 7:13 AM
I'd like to see more information on this, but a program to increase the availability of fresh produce in low-income neighborhoods is to be applauded:

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation plans to spend more than $500 million over the next five years to reverse the increase in childhood obesity. It is one of the largest public health initiatives ever tried by a private philanthropy.

The foundation estimates that roughly 25 million children 17 and under are obese or overweight, nearly a third of the 74 million in that age group, according to Census Bureau data and a 2006 study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association.

Many of those children are poor and live in neighborhoods where outdoor play is unsafe and access to fresh fruits and vegetables is limited. “In many cases, the environment makes it almost impossible for them to choose healthy lifestyles,” Dr. Lavizzo-Mourey said. “We’re going to try to change that.”

The foundation plans to invest in programs to improve access to healthy food, encourage the development of safe play spaces, increase research to enhance understanding of obesity and prod governments into adopting policies to address the problem, among other things.


One reason why the consumption of fast food is so prevalent in low-income neighborhoods is that fast food is what is available. These neighborhoods don't have supermarkets or farmer's markets or even the kind of Asian produce markets I see in my area, where beautiful produce is available for sometimes ridiculously low prices. The produce they have is often aging, wilted, and bruised. Just having fresh, colorful fruits and vegetables available for purchase will help people in low-income neighborhoods increase their consumption of healthier foods. But availability is only half the problem; the other half is time. With low-income adults often working two and three jobs just to keep a roof over their heads, and kids left to themselves, the siren song of fast food is still the path of least resistance. But at least it's a start.

Another disturbing trend recently has been the elimination of recess from the public schools. I don't share the linked article's enthusiasm for dodge ball, which in my memory was just was the school sanctioning bullying against kids like me, but I was actually pretty proficient at hopscotch. The article puts the responsibility of programs like No Child Left Behind and its emphasis on testing, but I think it's as much attributable to this new notion that if a kid doesn't go through childhood without ever getting so much as a bruise, it means his parents are neglectful.

I see kids in my neighborhood in what looks like full body armor before they can even get on a bicycle. I agree that helmets are important; I know someone who lost a child after he was hit by a car on his bicycle and wasn't wearing a helmet. But I'm not sure that knee pads and elbow pads are really necessary. Most parents I've spoken to have said that their greatest concern if their kids get hurt is that the school will report it as abuse.

I'm not sure that increasing physical education requirements in schools is going to accomplish much, however, unless those requirements involve choices that students can make with their parents, rather than a one size fits all curriculum. There are always going to be kids who aren't athletic, who are afraid of heights, or for whatever reason just aren't going to be able to succeed at the conventional phys. ed. curriculum of rope climbing, gymnastics, team sports, and the like. As someone who fights a tendency to be sedentary every day of my life because I learned very on in phys. ed. class -- "Can't win, don't try", I wonder how much more willing I would have been to get outside and move if I hadn't spent much of my outdoor time in school being yelled at by teachers because I was afraid of being hit by a ball in dodge ball, unable to gauge where a softball was going to fall, afraid to jump from one uneven parallel bar to the next, and with a fear of heights and without the arm strength to climb a rope to the ceiling. But if schools can offer an array of activities so that any child can find something he or she can do, that's an increase in physical education that I can support.

However, I would hate to see well-intentioned efforts to combat childhood obesity devolve into yet more obsession with thinness and more eating disorders as a result of such well-intentioned efforts. As I've posted before, kids are going to have many different body types. Because schools are oriented towards fitting everyone into the same box, it's important that efforts to get kids eating foods that are good for them instead of just cheap, fast, and filling is geared towards keepting them healthy, rather than expecting them to all be able to wear a designated size.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Around the blogroll and elsewhere
Posted by Jill | 6:51 AM
If you read nothing else today, go to Talk to Action and read about the tenure of Wade Horn, who resigned yesterday as Assistant Secretary of Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services yesterday, and effective this weekend. Horn is a patriarchal advocate of the first order, and all we can say is "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

If American Jewish neocons think that the all-but-certain attack that Bush is planning against Iran for sometime between April 6 and September (depending on what you read) is good for Israel, and what Israel wants, guess again. Cernig has more from Ha'aretz and other sources.

I know that Knut has been hogging all the cuteness factor lately, but let's not forget Jackson Jones, #25 on our Brilliant of 2006 list, who is already only 2-1/2 months away from his first birthday. Jackson's proud papa has posted new photos of Superboy.

From the "Yeah, nice fucking guy" file, and TPM Café;, we have John McCain, who has Richard Nixon's counter-of-Jews as his national finance co-chair.

Muriel Kane at At Largely comments on an ABC News report that the Bush Administration is funding yet another terrorist group, under the "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" doctrine.

Spocko wants to know what the FDA knew and when they knew it about tainted wheat gluten from China.

While Ha'aretz may be trying to keep some sanity in the Israel/US policy toward the Arab world, Jurassicpork (gotta love these screen names!) notes that the Jerusalem Post is admitting that the lunatic leading this country; you know, the guy who thinks he's God's Anointed Architect of the Rapture, is planning his Iran attack for Good Friday -- the day after tomorrow.

Does this mean I'll never finish refacing the cabinets in the kitchen? Does this mean I should have spent all that money I've been putting away for retirement?

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Someone page Bill Donohue -- there's a war on Easter going on
Posted by Jill | 10:27 PM
...and it's taking place at the Berlin Zoo, where Knut was seen recently devouring the Easter Bunny:



Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Blog 'n' Roll
Posted by Jill | 9:54 PM




Shakespeare's Sister has gone from being a queen to presiding over an autonomous collective. The Great and Noble Realm of Sis is now known as "Dennis." No, actually it's Shakesville.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Blog Comment of the Day
Posted by Jill | 3:56 PM
From robert green at Sadly, No:

first, the chinese wheat gluten contaminated with melamine came for my dog, and i said nothing.

then it came for my cat, and again i said nothing.

then it came for my hamster, but still i said nothing.

then it came for a member of my church group, and i was left to wonder if voting against my own economic interests in the name of being afraid of gay people and terrorists was a good idea.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share

Poking the Atrios Bear
Posted by Jill | 3:37 PM
Please join me in welcoming Atrios Alpha Dog purgee The Republic of T to the blogroll of this little Z-list blog. Another Atrios purgee, Orcinus, has been here for a long time.

UPDATE: I must have struck a nerve, as Le Grand Atrios has deigned to make an appearance in the comment and re-affirm B@B's status as a Z-list blog, and correct me: Orcinus is still on his blogroll. My information, which came from Republic of T, who in turn got it from Booman Tribune, is incorrect. Because we here at Brilliant Central strive to not be completely full of shit, I have duly corrected the above. And as I have now expressed the appropriate gratitude to Dr. Black for the correction, I am hoping that he ultimately decides that shooting me, Terrence, or Steven D., or any combination of the above, in the face, would be counterproductive.

Skippy, the ONE TRUE KING of Blogtopia (unlike all those pretenders to the throne), weighs in here.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Atrios, again wasting even MORE of his precious time at this little Z-list blog, insists that Republic of T was never on his blogroll. Because I have to hold down a full-time real job in order to help pay the mortgage and buy gluten-free cat food, I have little enough time for blogging that I really don't feel like spending MY time consulting the Wayback Machine, so I've reworked this post again. Now I can go back to my insignificant and unimportant writing about the horror that is life in the Bush Years, and Atrios can go back to his far more important work:



Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Is isn't just pet food anymore
Posted by Jill | 12:25 PM
In case you thought you had nothing to worry about with wheat gluten contaminated with melamine because you don't have a pet, guess again:

Tainted wheat gluten that triggered a massive nationwide pet food recall also ended up in processing plants that prepare food consumed by people, the Food and Drug Administration said yesterday. While agency leaders offered assurances that the nation's food supply remains safe, they said they cannot yet completely rule out contamination of human food by the suspect wheat gluten, which contained melamine, a chemical found in plastics and pesticides.

According to import records, the wheat gluten was shipped to the United States from Nov. 3, 2006 to Jan. 23 of this year and contained "minimal labeling" to indicate whether it was intended for humans or animals. The vast majority went to pet food manufacturers and distributors, according to the FDA. But some of the processing plants that remain under FDA scrutiny make both human and pet food.


Ask your Republican friends if they still think deregulation and unfettered trade is such a wonderful idea.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Great Moments in Progressive Blogging II
Posted by Jill | 7:24 AM
Nice:



Methinks Dr. Black is feeling a bit defensive these days. Here's the post that drew his ire. And here is Skippy's take on the whole thing.

Poking the bear indeed.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Debunking the Bible
Posted by Jill | 6:16 AM
It's becoming clearer why the Christofascist Zombie Brigade has such an aversion to science and the development of scientific techniques. They HAVE to deny that global warming is man-made. They HAVE to try to defund embryonic stem cell research. They HAVE to ensure a generation believing that evolution and the Biblical account of creation are equally valid shots in the dark. The alternative is that people may start digging around and find things which show that the things they've taken as gospel (sorry) because they're in the Bible are just not true.

Science, however, is an equal opportunity debunker. Right on the first day of Passover comes this New York Times article in which Egypt's chief archaeologist says that the Exodus story that defines Passover just isn't true:


On the eve of Passover, the Jewish holiday that celebrates the story of Moses leading the Israelites through this wilderness out of slavery, Egypt’s chief archaeologist took a bus full of journalists into the North Sinai to showcase his agency’s latest discovery.

It didn’t look like much — some ancient buried walls of a military fort and a few pieces of volcanic lava. The archaeologist, Dr. Zahi Hawass, often promotes mummies and tombs and pharaonic antiquities that command international attention and high ticket prices. But this bleak landscape, broken only by electric pylons, excited him because it provided physical evidence of stories told in hieroglyphics. It was proof of accounts from antiquity.

That prompted a reporter to ask about the Exodus, and if the new evidence was linked in any way to the story of Passover. The archaeological discoveries roughly coincided with the timing of the Israelites’ biblical flight from Egypt and the 40 years of wandering the desert in search of the Promised Land.

“Really, it’s a myth,” Dr. Hawass said of the story of the Exodus, as he stood at the foot of a wall built during what is called the New Kingdom.

[snip]

Egypt today, visitors to Mount Sinai are sometimes shown a bush by tour guides and told it is the actual bush that burned before Moses.

But archaeologists who have worked here have never turned up evidence to support the account in the Bible, and there is only one archaeological find that even suggests the Jews were ever in Egypt. Books have been written on the topic, but the discussion has, for the most part, remained low-key as the empirically minded have tried not to incite the spiritually minded.

“Sometimes as archaeologists we have to say that never happened because there is no historical evidence,” Dr. Hawass said, as he led the journalists across a rutted field of stiff and rocky sand.

The site was a two-hour drive from Cairo, over the Mubarak Peace Bridge into the Northern Sinai area called Qantara East. For nearly 10 years, Egyptian archaeologists have scratched away at the soil here, using day laborers from nearby towns to help unearth bits of history. It is a vast expanse of nothingness, a flat desert moonscape. Two human skeletons were recently uncovered, their bones positioned besides pottery and Egyptian scarabs.

[snip]

Recently, diggers found evidence of lava from a volcano in the Mediterranean Sea that erupted in 1500 B.C. and is believed to have killed 35,000 people and wiped out villages in Egypt, Palestine and the Arabian Peninsula, officials here said. The same diggers found evidence of a military fort with four rectangular towers, now considered the oldest fort on the Horus military road.

But nothing was showing up that might help prove the Old Testament story of Moses and the Israelites fleeing Egypt, or wandering in the desert. Dr. Hawass said he was not surprised, given the lack of archaeological evidence to date. But even scientists can find room to hold on to beliefs.

Dr. Mohamed Abdel-Maqsoud, the head of the excavation, seemed to sense that such a conclusion might disappoint some. People always have doubts until something is discovered to confirm it, he noted.

Then he offered another theory, one that he said he drew from modern Egypt.

“A pharaoh drowned and a whole army was killed,” he said recounting the portion of the story that holds that God parted the Red Sea to allow the Israelites to escape, then closed the waters on the pursuing army.

“This is a crisis for Egypt, and Egyptians do not document their crises.”


That seems to be kind of a lame way out, for a water event of that magnitude would leave some kind of historical record.

Meanwhile, this interview with Elaine Pagels in Salon about the discovery of the Judas gospels reminds us just a few days before Easter -- that strange holiday which purports to be about the resurrection which is supposed to prove Jesus' divinity, but is most commonly celebrated in the U.S. with pagan-looking rituals involving eggs and bunnies -- just how speculative and reliant on unprovable accounts the story of the resurrection is as well:

Does this Gospel of Judas reveal something new about early Christianity?

Yes, the Gospel of Judas really has been a surprise in many ways. For one thing, there's no other text that suggests that Judas Iscariot was an intimate, trusted disciple, one to whom Jesus revealed the secrets of the kingdom, and that conversely, the other disciples were misunderstanding what he meant by the gospel. So that's quite startling.

It's shocking to suggest that Judas wasn't just one of the disciples but was actually the favorite disciple of Jesus.

That's right. And also the idea that he handed over Jesus to be arrested at the orders of Jesus himself. This wasn't a betrayal at all. In fact, it was obedience to a command or request that Jesus had made.

But how do we reconcile this with all the other stories we've ever heard about Judas? He's the symbol of treachery and betrayal.

Well, he has become the symbol of treachery and betrayal. But once you start to look at the gospels one by one, you realize that followers of Jesus were trying to understand what had happened after he was arrested and killed. They knew Judas had handed him over to the people who arrested him. The earliest gospel, Mark, says Judas handed him over, but it doesn't give any motive at all. The people who wrote after Mark -- Matthew's and Luke's gospels -- apparently felt that what was wrong with the Gospel of Mark was that there was no motive. So Matthew adds a motive. Matthew says Judas went to the chief priests who were Jesus' enemies, and said, "What will you give me if I hand him over to you?" And they agree on a certain sum of money. So in Matthew's view, the motive was greed. In Luke's gospel, it's entirely different. It says the power of evil took over Judas. Satan entered into him.

I think Luke is struggling with the question, If Jesus is the son of God, how could he be taken by a mere trick, by a human being? And Luke is trying to show that all evil power was concentrated in Judas. So they are very different stories. However, other gospels, like John's, suggest that Jesus not only anticipated what was going to happen but initiated it. The Gospel of John says that he told Judas to go out and do what he had to do, which Jesus knew was to betray him. So the Gospel of Judas just takes the suggestion one step further. Jesus not only knew what was going to happen but initiated the action.


This actually seems to me to be entirely consistent with the notion of Jesus as either a real (if you believe) or self-professed (if you don't) messiah. It puts forth the notion of a man who knows he must be sacrificed and relies on his most beloved disciple to make it happen.

There's something else that's striking about the Gospel of Judas. The writer is very angry, and he's especially angry at the other disciples.

Yes, that's where we realized that it's not just a story about Jesus and the disciples. It's a story about this follower of Jesus -- the Christian who's writing this story, maybe 60 years after the death of Jesus. Even using the name of Judas is a slap in the face to the tradition. You realize that whoever wrote it was a very angry person. And we were asking, What's going on here? Why is he so angry? And we discovered that it's very dangerous to be a follower of Jesus in the generations after his death. You know, they say his disciple Peter was crucified upside down. And Paul was probably beheaded by the Romans. James was lynched by a crowd, and so were Stephen and other followers. So leaders of this movement were in great danger. And other Christians were also in danger of being arrested and killed because they followed Jesus. The question for many of them was, What do you do if you're arrested?


I have to stop again here and put these executions in a contemporary context. The other day, ShakesSis and Feministe wrote about Catholic League head Bill Donohue's latest screeching, this time about the nude Jesus sculpted of chocolate that was supposed to be exhibited at the Lab Gallery in New York. Donohue threatened the artist right on national television, on Anderson Cooper's show, thusly: "You're lucky I'm not as mean [as the Taliban], because you might lose more than your head."

So if you're a Christian, and you believe in Jesus and his disciples, and you know that they died horribly because they dared to question official doctrine, it seems highly iniconsistent, and an indicator that the spiritual descendents of these disciples have become just as corrupt as the people at the hands of whom their forebears suffered -- and isn't that kind of missing the point?

As I've written before, when you're not a believer and you beat on people who profess to be followers of Jesus and then behave in as un-Christlike a manner as is imaginable, you owe it to yourself to occasionally open yourself up to the possibility that the precepts of Christianity are true. So sometimes I think about a Great White Alpha Male in the sky who creates a mortal son to somehow absorb all the sins of man in perpetuity. I also think about some of the crap this particular Great White Alpha Male pulls in the Old Testament; things like telling Abraham to cheat on his wife to conceive a child, then stirring the family pot by allowing his aged wife to conceive, thereby setting up a sibling rivalry for the ages. Then, for good measure, he tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac to prove his love for God and at the last minute says, "Kidding! Just wanted to see if you'd do it!" Then I think about what kind of a God this is and he sounds like a sociopathic patriarch of an extremely dysfunctional family; a petty, manipulative God who flies into rages for no reason and does things so monstrous that he is hardly what we would associate with the divine. He is a toxic father that only humans could create.

Pagels wonders the same thing:

This was at a time when all followers of Jesus were struggling with the question, Why did Jesus die? What does it all mean? In the New Testament, the gospels say he died as a sacrifice. Paul says Christ, our Passover lamb, was sacrificed for us. Why? Well, to save us from sin.

But this author is saying, wait a minute. If you think God wants his son to be tortured and killed before he'll forgive people their sins, what kind of God do you have in mind? Is this the God who didn't want animals to be sacrificed in the temple anymore? So this author's asking, isn't God a loving father? Isn't that what Jesus taught? Why are we saying that God requires his son to die for the sins of the world? So it's a challenge to the whole idea of atonement, and the idea that Christians -- when they worship -- eat bread and drink wine as if it were the body and blood of Christ. This person sees that whole thing as a celebration of violence.

[snip]

You can see why some early Christians would have attacked this gospel. This is very threatening to other Christian accounts of why Jesus died.

It contradicts everything we know about Christianity. But there's a lot we don't know about Christianity. There are different ways of understanding the death of Jesus that have been buried and suppressed. This author suggests that God does not require sacrifice to forgive sin, and that the message of Jesus is that we come from God and we go back to God, that we all live in God. It's not about bloody sacrifice for forgiveness of sins. It suggests that Jesus' death demonstrates that, essentially and spiritually, we're not our bodies. Even when our bodies die, we go to live in God.


And that notion doesn't differ all that much from the Buddhist notion of stepping off the treadmill of reincarnation and achieving enlightenment, now, does it? The notion of returning to God and living in God sounds a lot like achieving Buddha-hood.

For me, the biggest knock against doctrinaire religions is their insistence on unquestioning adherence to a specific orthodoxy. It seems to me that the purpose of spirituality is to try to make sense of a very random universe; an attempt to take the infinite and reduce it to a size that our own little perspective can handle. If you need blind adherence to words someone else wrote, and if requiring that others adhere to the same explanations for the infinite that you do is what you need in order to validate your system's legitimacy, then I would say that you need to examine the questions in your own heart.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

More Bush incompetence....or a deliberate provocation to justify war?
Posted by Jill | 5:44 AM
This president is insane. We are going to have war with Iran for no reason other than because he wants it:

A failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that 10 weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and Marines.

Early on the morning of 11 January, helicopter-born US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and still holds.

In reality the US attack had a far more ambitious objective, The Independent has learned. The aim of the raid, launched without informing the Kurdish authorities, was to seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment.

Better understanding of the seriousness of the US action in Arbil - and the angry Iranian response to it - should have led Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence to realise that Iran was likely to retaliate against American or British forces such as highly vulnerable Navy search parties in the Gulf. The two senior Iranian officers the US sought to capture were Mohammed Jafari, the powerful deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, the chief of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, according to Kurdish officials.

The two men were in Kurdistan on an official visit during which they met the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, and later saw Massoud Barzani, the President of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), at his mountain headquarters overlooking Arbil.

"They were after Jafari," Fuad Hussein, the chief of staff of Massoud Barzani, told The Independent. He confirmed that the Iranian office had been established in Arbil for a long time and was often visited by Kurds obtaining documents to visit Iran. "The Americans thought he [Jafari] was there," said Mr Hussein.

Mr Jafari was accompanied by a second, high-ranking Iranian official. "His name was General Minojahar Frouzanda, the head of intelligence of the Pasdaran [Iranian Revolutionary Guard]," said Sadi Ahmed Pire, now head of the Diwan (office) of President Talabani in Baghdad. Mr Pire previously lived in Arbil, where he headed the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), Mr Talabani's political party.

The attempt by the US to seize the two high-ranking Iranian security officers openly meeting with Iraqi leaders is somewhat as if Iran had tried to kidnap the heads of the CIA and MI6 while they were on an official visit to a country neighbouring Iran, such as Pakistan or Afghanistan.


They tried to paint Iran with the same kind of "imminent threat" language they used against Iraq five years ago, but this time no one believed them. So they needed more -- they needed to poke the bear with a stick, as Oxycontin Mouth might say.

Meanwhile, Borzou Daragahi, who is very familiar to old Morning Sedition listeners, says that even the tactics about which the Administration has been forthcoming have failed:

It seemed like a good idea at the time: Increase the military, diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran to get the country to bow to the international community on its nuclear enrichment program and curtail its alleged troublemaking in Iraq.

But now, with 15 British sailors and marines held captive and Tehran threatening to withhold its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, that strategy has apparently backfired.

Months of hard-nosed U.S. political and military pressure on Iran may have further radicalized and emboldened the regime, undermining Washington's stated aim of neutralizing the Iranian threat without resorting to war, analysts say.

Elements of Iran's government, painted as a rogue state for its refusal to halt its uranium enrichment program, responded forcefully to the U.S.-led challenge, those analysts say. Not only have they sparked an international crisis by capturing the 15 Britons in disputed Persian Gulf waters, and airing alleged confessions on television, they've ramped up security operations in the gulf with war games and missile launches.

The regime has blamed a fear of U.S. airstrikes for its decision to stop disclosing non-required information about its nuclear program, according to a series of memos described by the Associated Press.

"Iranians are on the offensive because they're in a defensive posture," said Patrick Cronin, a former State Department and Pentagon official who is now director of research at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Cronin, a U.S. Navy intelligence officer in the Persian Gulf during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, called the capture of the Britons a "horizontal escalation" meant both to shift the domestic discussion and to gain leverage against the West.

"They have to go on the offensive to change the narrative," he said. "There's a domestic audience and a fight over who is the rightful voice of Iran. If they don't have outside threats, they're going to lose power. If we slap on sanctions, they can blame the West."

Overstretched militarily in Iraq and Afghanistan and facing no easy options on confronting Iran's rising regional ambitions, the Bush administration appeared to settle months ago on a hard-line strategy, U.S. officials and analysts say.

Ranking U.S. officials for months insisted that "no option was off the table" as far as possible military action against Iran. The Pentagon flooded the gulf with U.S. military hardware and leaked word of a policy to "kill or capture" suspected Iranian agents stirring up trouble in Iraq.

As a result, many Iranian officials are convinced that the U.S. remains committed to "regime change" and plans to bomb Iran.

"You can't divorce [the detention of the Britons] from all the saber-rattling against Iran," said Kaveh Afrasiabi, a former political science professor at the University of Tehran now based in Cambridge, Mass. "There's a concern of a U.S.-British concert to control the Persian Gulf waterways."


Unless, of course, the Bush Administration's attempts to kidnap two Iranian officials were designed to justify the war they had already planned on instigating.

It all sounds so depressingly familiar, doesn't it? The question now is: Will we let him do it again?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, April 02, 2007

Around the Blogroll and Elsewhere
Posted by Jill | 7:21 AM
Cernig wonders why Gen. Petreus is in closed-door sessions with Senate Republicans to map out a political strategy for continuing involvement in Iraq. I wonder when the military became just another political arm of the White House.

ShakesSis on William Donahue's Two Minutes (and more) Hate -- and has a strange sense of déjà vu.

Jurassicpork apologizes for an April Fool joke that fortunately I missed, because if I'd fallen for it I'd be majorly pissed. I'm still ready to smack Dan Pashman if the business on Friday's Sammy Cam about the Sam Seder Show being cancelled turns out to have been a joke.

Pam reports on Bush's visit to Walter Reed, where he called conditions in Building 18 "an administrative failure." No, Mr. Bush, YOUR ENTIRE TERM has been "an administrative failure."

Melina comments on Frank Rich's column from yesterday's New York Times about Elizabeth Edwards.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Sending Circuit City a message
Posted by Jill | 7:03 AM
Peter Cohan at AOL Money and Finance, of all places, lets Circuit City have it with both barrels:

Circuit City Stores, Inc. (NYSE: CC) has really crossed the line with its latest cost cutting move. By chopping 3,400 of its most highly paid retail staffers, the country's second-biggest electronics retailer is making a losing bet that the drop in sales resulting from canning its best sales people will be more than offset by the lower pay that it gives to the less capable replacements.

Comments I received on yesterday's post suggest that Circuit City made the wrong call. Here's an example:

"I was one of the people laid off and I can guarantee that the service will decline by leaps and bounds. The seven of us that were laid off at the CC I worked at, ran the store. All of us had been there 5+ years. Circuit City states they gave us severance- 4-8 weeks pay doesn't go very far. One of the guys that was laid off had been with CC for 20+ years and was number one in the company in selling warranty. They laid off the best people!!! It just doesn't make sense. It is crazy that they think a 5 or 10 year employee could be replaced with an untrained $8 hour employee. Good Luck with that CC. I'll be at Best Buy....with all of my former Circuit City customers!"

Sour grapes? Maybe. But this comment reveals a basic truth about business which Circuit City seems to have completely ignored. It's expensive to spend money on advertising to attract new customers to replace existing customers who bolt to competitors due to lousy service. By contrast, it's far more profitable to get repeat business from your existing customers by giving them great value and super service.

But the key to doing that successfully is to attract and motivate the best people. If employees are happy, they'll give customers better service. And customers will keep coming back for more. As a result, the business will make more money since it doesn't need to keep spending to attract new customers.


That shouldn't be such a difficult concept for even corporate CEOs to understand. But then, it's easier to just cut costs by screwing over your employees and give the Wall Street analysts the numbers they want to see than to actually invest in your business and provide service to your customers.

Home Depot grew to the behemoth it is today with the brilliant "gimmick" of actually hiring staffers who knew something about the department in which they worked. The deal was that you could go to Home Depot to buy a light fixture, and there would be someone there who could explain to you how to hook it up and direct you to aisle 14 where you could find those little plastic wire connectors you would need to do it. Then, in order to feed the giant maw of Wall Street (and the bottomless pockets of the company's executives), the company cut costs, and now if you go to Home Depot and ask if ceiling tiles can be bought individually or if you have to buy the whole box, the response is likely to be either "I'm on my break" or a blank stare. But hey, at least Bob Nardelli got a nice fat golden parachute, right?

Circuit City's plan may have bumped up the stock price in the short term, but over the long term, customers are going to stop shopping there once they are presented with a staff full of disgruntled employees, many of whom had already been screwed over by CompUSA's store closing and in desperation have had to swallow their pride and take the $7/hour job at Circuit City.

I for one don't intend to wait for that to happen. I know I'll never set foot in a Circuit City store ever again. A petition has been started to send a message to Circuit City executives. So far it's been slow to gain traction, but perhaps if enough bloggers provide the link, enough signatures can be gathered to make a difference. I doubt it, but one can hope.

Meanwhile, Republicans continue to fan the flames of worker rage by pointing down the latter at illegal immigrants as the source of their problems, while all the while top executives are picking their pockets while their heads are turned.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

When Headlines Attack
Posted by Jill | 6:40 AM
I'm sure WaPo "journalist" Jonathan Weisman thinks himself oh-so-clever with this headline:



No editorializing here, right? Casting Democratic efforts to restore the Constitution as a war against the poor, innocent, beleagured George W. Bush?


Even as their confrontation with President Bush over Iraq escalates, emboldened congressional Democrats are challenging the White House on a range of issues -- such as unionization of airport security workers and the loosening of presidential secrecy orders -- with even more dramatic showdowns coming soon.

For his part, Bush, who also finds himself under assault for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the conduct of the Iraq war and alleged abuses in government surveillance by the FBI, is holding firm. Though he has vetoed only one piece of legislation since taking office, he has vowed to veto 16 bills that have passed either the House or the Senate in the three months since Democrats took control of Congress.

Despite the threats, Democratic lawmakers expect to open new fronts against the president when they return from their spring recess, including politically risky efforts to quickly close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; reinstate legal rights for terrorism suspects; and rein in what Democrats see as unwarranted encroachments on privacy and civil liberties allowed by the USA Patriot Act.


Message to Weisman: Oscar Wilde you're not, pal.

I'm sure that with articles like this Weisman is attempting to cast himself as the Jon Stewart of the Washington Post -- witty, cheeky, irreverent. Actually, he's ending up sounding more like Dennis Miller -- smug, lame, and desperate.

Apparently this is nothing new for this so-called journalist. In 2004, Jessica Wilson at For the Record chronicled Weisman's feud with economist Brad DeLong. Apparently DeLong had the temerity to point out that Weisman and fellow so-called "journalists" Mike Allen and Fred Barbash, in reporting on Captain Codpiece's 2004 budget, did little more than repeat the White House spin.

And just last Friday, Weisman penned an article with the headline "Liberals Relent on Iraq War Funding" -- a piece peppered liberally (sorry) with that word that is to conservatives as a red flag is to a bull. Jonathan Weisman clearly knows who his audience is.

When people visit this blog, they have a pretty good idea early on what they're getting. I don't pretend to be an objective chronicler of events, nor do most bloggers. But at least we're honest about what we do. While mainstream outlets like the Washington Post wring their hands and call for conferences into blogger ethics, they are touting guys like Jonathan Weisman as "objective journalists" even as these guys rewrite the press releases given them by the White House media affairs office.

Physician, heal thyself.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share