As the blogger community found out today, Gen. Wesley Clark has endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for the presidency.

Clark's enthusiastic endorsement, and his assertion that she would make an excellent Commander-in-Chief, one around whom he's certain the troops in the field would rally around, is clearly a boost to a candidate who unfortunately, because of her gender, is going to have to prove that she's as tough as the boys are -- perhaps tougher.

Hillary Clinton is the biggest dilemma for progressives that we've seen in my lifetime. It grieves me to no end that the first truly viable female candidate for the presidency that we have is someone for whom 46% of the voting public has already said they won't vote under any circumstances, and one who also has her work cut out for her in rallying the base.

I am part of that base, and the increasing likelihood that Hillary Clinton will receive this nomination before a single primary vote is cast, by sheer power of money and endorsements, illustrates just how rotten the system is, how hard-wired it is to corporate cash, markers called in, name recognition, and schmoozy networking.

I respect Wesley Clark, I respect his judgment, and I have no doubt that he is right on at least part of his assertion -- that she will make an excellent wartime Commander-in-Chief. Where I'm skeptical is whether she will make a good peacetime civilian military leader, only because I am by no means convinced that she has any commitment to roll back American empire-building in the Middle East.

I'm not going to make this a Hillary-bashing post. I used to be on the e-mail list of a woman in my area who sent links to news and blog articles every day, until I dared question the notion that any Democrat is better than any Republican. Of course when you have a Republican party that denies the reality of evolution and that has as its front-runners a guy who thinks having his sons ride a bus around the country stumping for him is national service on a par with fighting in Iraq, a guy who thinks spending 29 hours on the pile at Ground Zero and twice that at Yankee Stadium makes him just like the guys dying of lung diseases now because he said the air quality was just fine, and a mediocre actor who says he doesn't remember the Terri Schiavo case, any Democrat IS better than any Republican.

But is a warhawk, corporatist Democrat who has not spoken out against the insanity of expanding the war in to Iran, is a supporter of expanding the H-1B program and outsourcing American jobs, and triangulates on anything that represents the best that progressive values have to offer, really the best we can do? Does Hillary Clinton really represent that for which the Democratic Party should stand?

There's this meme put forth by conservatives and their lapdogs in the media that America is a conservative country. I don't believe that's true. After six years of fearmongering and "I've got mine and fuck you" economics, I think many Americans are starting to look at themselves and realize that we are better than this. Yes, the Republicans have had some success in morphing immigrants into Al Qaeda, just as they did in morphing Osama bin Laden into Saddam Hussein. Yes, Gen-X loves to blame the baby boomers for everything that's wrong with this country, just the way we used to blame the WWII generation. Americans afraid for their own economic security respond with fear and loathing to the poor because when we look at the poor we see our own future, and it terrifies us. So as long as we can make the poor "the other", we think it insulates us from financial ruin resulting from outsourcing and overleveraged houses and debt and catastrophic illness.

But when push comes to shove, we are better than what we've looked like over the past six years, and we are better than our government. Not good enough, but better. When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf coast, Americans all over the country mobilized. We sent canned goods and bed linens and clothes and furniture to help people rebuild their lives. Some went down there and volunteered to rebuild houses. Some went and rescued abandoned pets. If we have a fault, it's that our memories are short, or that we give up, or that we finally realize that simple volunteerism, while admirable, works best when it is combined with a government that cares for its people. I remember watching television in one of the conference rooms at work, where they had set up TV sets for those who wanted to see what was going on. I remember a group of ironworkers headed to downtown Manhattan on foot to see what they could do to help. I'm sure that some of these same ironworkers ended up supporting the war in Iraq because they believed what the president and the media told them. But on that day, when people in trouble needed them (or so we still thought), they didn't think about the danger to themselves. And in the ensuing days, when other rescue workers toiled tirelessly, they didn't care whether the people for whom they were searching were rich or poor -- or even American.

And THOSE are progressive values. Those are the progressive values that people like me hold dear, and that is why we hold our representatives' feet to the fire. That is why we get so frustrated when we see leaders like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and yes, Hillary Clinton, try to finesse and compromise with evil people who have no conscience and long ago gave up their souls. Because we know that in their hearts THEY are better than this. And they know Americans are better than this. And we want them to be the standard bearers for the progressive values that gave us Social Security, and the civil rights movement, and guaranteed free public education for all of America's children, and the G.I. Bill after World War II. We want them to remember the progressive leaders that came before them, people with courage who did what was right even if it meant political trouble for them. When Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he knew that it meant losing the south. But he found the courage to do it because it was the right thing to do; because it was an American value.

American values aren't about who has sex with whom and how they do it. It isn't about punishing women who have sex by making them have babies they don't want. It isn't about who goes to church the most often and who reads the Bible the most and who believes that God made the earth in six days. It's about remembering WHY this country used to be special, and about restoring us to that beacon of hope and freedom and opportunity that we used to be.

I am not convinced that Hillary Clinton is the leader to do that. I'm sure that Wesley Clark is correct, that she is tough enough to handle the military. I'm just not sure that she is tough enough to handle a Republican Party, even if in the minority, that's bound and determined to strip away everything that helps ordinary Americans and turns us back into a 19th century oligarchy.

I am supporting the candidacy of John Edwards for as long as he is in this race. I'm doing so because I think that of the candidates who are running, he best reflects my values. I'm doing so because until the party shoves Hillary Clinton down my throat, I reserve the right to support the candidate I want, not the candidate that the corporations, K Street lobbyists, and the talking heads of the media want (if only so they can enjoy the Clinton scandals all over again).

By November 2008, she will be the nominee. She will be the de facto nominee long before my state's primary, and that's going to be February 5. And when I step into the voting booth, and look at either the name "Willard Mitt Romney", "Fred Thompson", or "Rudolph Giuliani" as the alternative, I will once again be a good soldier and pull the lever for her.

And then I'm going to spend the next four years holding her feet -- and the feet of everyone in Congress who capitulates to Republican insanity -- to the fire. And I'm going to continue to work like hell to change this party -- to stump for candidates who have the courage to be Democrats, not the party of "We're Just Like Them -- Only Not As Batshit Crazy" -- and work to replace those in Congress who think being less crazy than Republicans is enough.

Labels: 2008 election, Democrats

Non-event of the week? In a conference call aimed at bloggers, and dubbed a "major Endorsement," Hillary Clinton's people announced the "major" General Wesley Clark's endorsement of her campaign...ho hum...
OK, I guess that its a good endorsement and anyone would want to have Clark on their equipment belt, and good for her, but what about the state of the world? What does this military build-up mean?
Hillary is a machine, and people like the robotic Clark, even with is military cred, seem to be no-brainer additions to that tidal wave. What troubles me is that a guy with experience like Clark has, is not being more cautious at the hawkishness that seems to exude from every pore in her body.
Mom was over this morning and she was assuring me that all of this is just some kind of ruse that Hillary "has to" put forward in order to get into office. She is so sure that once in place, Hillary will become whatever it was that she was trying to project as first wife. I'm not getting the secret messages that Hill's people seem to be sending out, so maybe its just Mom being hopeful about someone who would bring Bill back into the White House.
I have been thinking lately about who Hillary really is, spurred on by
a podcast of Ring of Fire in which Mike Papantonio talks about her ties to religious fundamentalist groups.
I didn't realize how deeply she has been in with The Fellowship and for how long. If this is true, then we have alot to worry about with a Clinton candidacy.
According to Mother Jones:

throughout her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection. "A lot of evangelicals would see that as just cynical exploitation," says the Reverend Rob Schenck, a former leader of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who now ministers to decision makers in Washington. "I don't....there is a real good that is infected in people when they are around Jesus talk, and open Bibles, and prayer."

Clinton's faith is grounded in the Methodist beliefs she grew up with in Park Ridge, Illinois, a conservative Chicago suburb where she was active in her church's altar guild, Sunday school, and youth group. It was there, in 1961, that she met the Reverend Don Jones, a 30-year-old youth pastor; Jones, a friend of Clinton's to this day, told us he knows "more about Hillary Clinton's faith than anybody outside her family."

Because Jones introduced Clinton and her teenage peers to the civil rights movement and modern poetry and art, Clinton biographers often cast him as a proto-'60s liberal who sowed seeds of radicalism throughout Park Ridge. Jones, though, describes his theology as neoorthodox, guided by the belief that social change should come about slowly and without radical action. It emerged, he says, as a third way, a reaction against both separatist fundamentalism and the New Deal's labor-based liberalism.

Which is worrisome to me, as is this part, which keeps coming up all over the place in one form or another:

During a Democratic candidate forum in June, hosted by the liberal evangelical group Sojourners, Hillary Clinton fielded a softball query about Bill's infidelity: How had her faith gotten her through the Lewinsky scandal?

After a glancing shot at Republican "pharisees," Clinton explained that, of course, her "very serious" grounding in faith had helped her weather the affair. But she had also relied on the "extended faith family" that came to her aid, "people whom I knew who were literally praying for me in prayer chains, who were prayer warriors for me."

Such references to spiritual warfare—prayer as battle against Satan, evil, and sin—might seem like heavy evangelical rhetoric for the senator from New York, but they went over well with the Sojourners audience, as did her call to "inject faith into policy."

When you get to the injecting faith into policy part, you've lost me. Its the secretive part of this that troubles me, and the knowledge that Hillary polls as one of the least religious of the field of candidates on either side. But in secret she is meeting in the basement of the caverns of power with the real agenda makers.
That is not what America is supposed to be about. Call me naive, but I'm not ready to just lay down yet in the face of what the settlers did to get here, kill the Indians, steal their land, and form this less than perfect union.
People like my Mom think that this is just a show to try to get to certain groups and that deep down Hillary is really very liberal and peaceful, but I don't buy it.

So, Clark thinks shes a good bet? Whatever....
The die may be cast already in this thing, but to me there is an awfully long time to go before the primary and alot can happen....and among those things, I hope, will be some sort of answer on this question and if she is still a working member of the Fellowship...I'm looking for answers....

Labels: fundamentalism, Hillary Clinton

And more and more recently, I’ve been thinking of officially making myself and this blog politically independent, with no allegiance or affiliation to the Democratic party. It would be a defection that, to quote the man who put the “lie” in “Lieberman“, would really hurt.

And how pathetic is it that time and again, we have to depend on liberal activist groups like the ACLU and Moveon.org to drag ugly truths kicking and screaming into the harsh light of day while so-called Democrats like Nancy Pelosi (who, you may recall I never wanted as House Speaker while misinformed liberals on Daily Kos were having squirting, gleaming clusterfucks over the prospect last fall) and Harry Reid keep clutching their pearls?

I doubt that even Moveon’s top level management never anticipated that their full page ad in the NY Times would stir up such a hornet’s nest but I’m sure they were pleasantly surprised, as were a good number of liberal bloggers. True, their word play on David Petraeus’ name was obviously stolen from rhyme-conscious bloggers but the ad did more than merely pre-emptively warn that Petraeus would be somewhat less than forthcoming in his two day testimony to 107 members of Congress:

The full-page ad also revealed how hide-bound the Republican party is, how utterly stupid they are in actually basing their platforms on a plainly illegal, costly and losing war at a time when they’re more vulnerable than they’ve been in a decade and a half and at how easily they can revert back to their tried-and-untrue “You’re a traitor if you criticize the war!” tactics.

It forced Giuliani to take out his own ad in the NY Times when he tried to weld, staple, Velcro, Super-Glu and otherwise fasten Hillary Clinton to the Moveon ad despite Sen. Clinton never embracing or even endorsing it. Fred Thompson woke up long enough to drawl some slime out of his manly jowls to insult the New York senator for daring to ask a tepid question of Petraeus.

How soon they forget something that even a well-informed elementary schoolchild knows, that Hillary voted for the war, refuses to apologize for it and is lobbying to not only continue the war under her administration but is even now shaking her bony fist at Iran.

The reason why these invertebrate Democrats are trying to crawl away from the Moveon.org ad and why the likes of John Kerry, who has our eternal gratitude for choosing not to run for president, and Pelosi are so critical of the ad and of Moveon in general is because Moveon.org is trying to keep them honest both on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail.

It’s not good enough to speak truth either to power or to the people and it’s been that way for longer than most of us realize. Whatever the Democrats’ reasons for thinking they can handle this bull by its many horns, whether they still fear Karl Rove now that he’s buried himself in the tall grass beneath our sight or want to claim credit for ending this war after Bush leaves office (Yes, I’m that cynical. How can I not be?), the fact is it’s not working.

Sure, Petraeus may have wined and dined 38 lawmakers with lobster tortellini in Iraq but it’s not quite the same thing as squatting in a trench dug into the sand and witnessing the deaths of US troops (close to two and a half a day since the 3/19/03 invasion) and Iraqis (if we’re to believe the figures that we’re seeing from Just Foreign Policy, then over the course of this nearly 1650 day-old war, we’re talking about over 6365 Iraqis getting killed daily). Getting White House spin from the likes of Crocker and Petraeus is merely a rarified level of embedding.

And the idea of our lawmakers being stuffed with lobster tortellini and being given the ten cent tour of the palatial home of Ryan Crocker neatly encapsulated the entire American attitude in a nutshell: The well-moneyed political elite eating five star restaurant-class food from a four star general with presidential ambitions and being kept in posh accommodations while those not as wealthy or politically connected were dying outside.

Luckily, a few lawmakers, including the ultra-liberal Jan Schakowsky (9-IL) was able to see through the smokescreen but Congress obviously needs a couple of hundred more like her.

And the fact that Hillary Clinton is drawing so much fire from Republicans who ought to be grateful that she’s momentarily the Democratic frontrunner (since her last name alone will drag Republican voters to the polls in wide-eyed terror) over this ad shows how deeply the Moveon.org’s ad struck the national nerve. We never heard any Democrats in Congress predict, as did we and Moveon, that Petraeus and Crocker would be less than completely transparent and honest with them because our Democratic representative are stupid, politically cowardly and gullible.

And the deeper these jackasses fall in the well, the more it becomes obvious that we need activists like Moveon.org more than ever.

Otherwise, if things keep on like this, Americans will start looking longingly at Michael Bloomberg and the superficial attractiveness of a well-moneyed independent third party.

The New York Times isn't the only paper that gave President 28-30% the headlines he wanted; headlines that would give busy Americans the idea that he has agreed to significant troop cuts in Iraq.

Robert Parry at Consortium News:

The New York Times’ lead headline read: “Bush Says Success Allows Gradual Troop Cuts.” The Washington Post went with: “Bush Tells Nation He Will Begin to Roll Back ‘Surge.’”

In a subhead, the Post highlighted a tidbit from its own interview with Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq: that he projected “sustainable security” in that country by mid-2009 (which would fall shortly after the sixth anniversary of Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech).

Granted, the news stories did include some reasons for skepticism about Bush’s latest happy talk, including references to the assassination of the U.S.-allied Sheik Abdul Sattar Abu Risha earlier in the day in Anbar Province and the apparent collapse of Iraqi negotiations over how to divvy up the country’s oil revenues.

Yet, despite Bush’s long history of wishful thinking – or delusions – about Iraq, the major newspapers still gave Bush the headlines he wanted.

So, Americans bustling past newsstands on their way to work would get the superficial impression that Bush was finally moving toward the Iraq exit door when he really was doing all he could to paint the country, and his presidential successor, into a corner.

While the newspapers played up Bush’s relatively modest troop cuts – 5,700 by year’s end and another 20,000 or so by July 2008 – the more significant point was that the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq would still exceed the 130,000 or so who were in Iraq last November when anti-war sentiment led to the defeat of Republicans in Congress.

In his televised address, Bush also made clear that he foresaw an indefinite U.S. military commitment to Iraq reaching “beyond my presidency,” with any possible future de-escalation tied to Bush’s new slogan, “return on success.”

So, the headlines after the Sept. 13 speech could have read: “Bush Vows Indefinite U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq.” Indeed, if Bush’s speech is remembered historically, it will almost surely be for that reason, the clearest indication yet of his imperial impulse in the Middle East.

But the major U.S. news outlets still fear diverging from the message that Bush and his right-wing allies want delivered to the American people.

Here's the reality: few Americans read blogs. More read blogs than did even two years ago, but most Americans still get their news from the headlines they read as they pass the newsstand in the morning, or from the two-minute snippet of news at the top of the hour on Good Morning America while they make the kids' sandwiches. So if the media are playing up a reduction in force without mentioning that this president has essentially already extended his term by implementing a policy that essentially ties the hands of future presidents to reverse, they aren't telling the story.

It makes me wonder how they're going to help this Administration beat the drums for the bombing of Iran that the Decider seems to want so desperately.

Labels: hack journalism

Oh sweet Jesus. She's back.

There are some rich people out there who have a huge savings account of undeserved good fortune. Now, they’re not always evil, stupid, vulgar or mean-spirited. But they are incredibly annoying. It's like you're being tormented by an itch you can't reach because you're tied up in a straitjacket.

For me, the latest itch that won't go away is the fake “actress” and tall blonde skinny corporate pimp Paris Hilton. Oh God, please make it go away.

Because life isn't fair, Ms. Hilton is a rich and famous celebrity whose ego happily spins in a narcissistic orbit around the planet “Paris”. I know she's a big Star because I keep seeing her on magazine covers, TV and movies. There she is, aggressively promoting a new perfume, movie cameo, DWI arrest, an upcoming appearance on Letterman, or a pornographic video of herself leaked on the internet. How long will it be before a made-for-TV dramatization of the half-hour Ms. Hilton spent in jail appears on HBO?

As much as I hate to admit it, although it looks like Paris isn’t doing anything, she really is working very hard.

Do you know what Paris Hilton’s real job is?

No, it's not parading semi-naked in front of a camera with that hateful, “Yeah, I know you want to fuck me” smile on her face. What Hilton and the other empty-headed, toothpick aliens from Barbie World work hard at is making women who don't look like them feel bad. And it's a job they're very good at, too.

Hollywood is a funhouse mirror that reflects distorted images of the real world and the people who live in it. But, in the majority of the movies and television shows, there’s a cruel double standard where men aren’t defined as unrealistically as women are. In short, guys can get away with being slobs and still have a career.

John C. Reilly, Billy Bob Thornton, Philip Seymour Hoffman, William H. Macy, Paul Giamatti, and Steve Buscemi can get away with being regular-looking guys. Unfortunately, Hollywood’s idea of a “regular-looking” woman is to put Uma Thurman in raggedy jeans and an oversized sweater wearing Clark Kent’s glasses. For women, “average-looking” is code for “ugly”.

Too fat? Crooked teeth? Nappy hair? Big nose? What to do? Well, how about botox, yo-yo dieting, plastic surgery, humiliating boot camp exercise programs or shoving a finger down your throat to vomit up breakfast? Huh? You still don’t look like Paris Hilton? Jeez, what an ugly loser you are.

Is it any wonder comedian Margaret Cho, who powerfully dramatized her struggles with self-esteem in I’m The One That I Want, decided to save her life and stop listening to the toxic, soul-destroying propaganda?

“I am so beautiful, sometimes people weep when they see me. And it has nothing to do with what I look like really, it is just that I gave myself the power to say that I am beautiful, and if I could do that, maybe there is hope for them too. And the great divide between the beautiful and the ugly will cease to be. Because we are all what we choose.”

I think the only thing left for women to do who aren’t anorexic freaks is just start whispering to that stranger in the mirror, “I‘m beautiful, damn it!” and get really pissed off at anybody who foolishly tries to tell you otherwise. Or, as Miss Piggy so wonderfully put it, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye.”

Uh, Paris? Duck.

Labels: Margaret Cho, Miss Piggy, Paris Hilton, sexism

Even during the “glory years” with the Not Ready For Prime Time Players, I believed that Saturday Night Live just wasn’t that funny. Oh sure, there were always random moments of savage comedic brilliance, but most of the time I felt as though I needed a few shots and a bong hit for the jokes to work.

I thought shows like SCTV, In Living Color, the Upright Citizens Brigade, The Kids in The Hall, and MADtv were much funnier. Shorter, too.

After seeing Bush and his lying sock puppet of a general in the news the other day, I remembered this classic comedy sketch from MADTV that satirizes both Steve Jobs and the War in Iraq. It’s intelligent, well-crafted, ruthless in its’ logic, and doesn’t overstay its’ welcome. Only the humorless disciples of the Cult of Mac wouldn’t find this textbook example of a perfect comedy routine funny, and even then I’ll bet a treacherous chuckle will sneak out when St. Jobs isn’t looking.

You'll laugh bitterly even as the tears run down your face.

Labels: MADtv, Steve Jobs, The War in Iraq

The die-hards who still believe that we're in Iraq because of the 9/11 attacks can answer this one:

How many deaths till we're "even"?

Over 2900 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks. Add to that the 3700+ American soldiers killed just in the Iraq war. How many Iraqis have to die before these bloodthirsty, vindictive people think we're even? How many dead Iraqis avenge each American death? Ten? Twenty? One hundred and seventy eight?

Because that's what the death toll of Iraqi civilians is going to be:

A car bomb blew up in the capital's Shiite Muslim neighborhood of Sadr City on Thursday, killing at least four people, as a new survey suggested that the civilian death toll from the war could be more than 1 million.

The figure from ORB, a British polling agency that has conducted several surveys in Iraq, followed statements this week from the U.S. military defending itself against accusations it was trying to play down Iraqi deaths to make its strategy appear successful.

The military has said civilian deaths from sectarian violence have fallen more than 55% since President Bush sent an additional 28,500 troops to Iraq this year, but it does not provide specific numbers.

According to the ORB poll, a survey of 1,461 adults suggested that the total number slain during more than four years of war was more than 1.2 million.

ORB said it drew its conclusion from responses to the question about those living under one roof: "How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003?"

Based on Iraq's estimated number of households -- 4,050,597 -- it said the 1.2 million figure was reasonable.

1.2 million people. You'd almost think the Administration was TRYING to compete with Hitler's death toll.

Labels: Iraq casualties

The New York Times is still on board with the Mighty Surge:


Crap:

President Bush contended on Thursday night that his plan to begin withdrawing some troops from Iraq gradually was based on a principle he called “return on success,” saying that progress made so far could be squandered by the deeper and speedier reductions that the war’s opponents have demanded.

Mr. Bush called for an “enduring relationship” with Iraq that would keep American forces there “beyond my presidency,” arguing that a free and friendly Iraq was essential to the security of the region and the United States. He cast the war in Iraq as a vital part of a strategy in the Middle East to defeat Al Qaeda and counter Iran.

Evidently sensitive to how lower troop levels might be seen — by enemies abroad and critics at home — he emphasized in his address that early drawdowns were now possible only because the strategy of sending more troops to Iraq eight months ago had worked. He did not once use the word withdrawal.

“The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home,” Mr. Bush said, trying once again to win support for a war in Iraq that remains deeply unpopular.

[snip]

In the Democratic response, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a West Point graduate, said that Mr. Bush was making the case for an “endless and unlimited military presence in Iraq,” and he vowed that Congress would prevent it.

"A West Point Graduate." That's how this article describes Jack Reed's military record. It doesn't mention that he also served in 325th Infantry Regiment of the 82nd Airborne Division[2] as an Army Ranger and paratrooper.

More crap:

Democratic leaders did not wait for the formal remarks before they began to render a judgment. “He wants an open-ended commitment with an open wallet by the American people,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

Oh, those mean old Democrats picking on poor Georgie. Of course the article doesn't mention that the text of the speech was distributed in advance of its broadcast. But why bother with facts, when you can paint George Bush as a beleaguered, noble leader forced to deal with Blue Meanies.

And more crap:

Still, it has been clear this week that the Democrats have too few votes to impose any real constraints on Mr. Bush’s policy, leaving the war’s harshest critics frustrated and angry. With so many troops remaining in Iraq well into 2008, the debate over the war is likely to intensify during the presidential campaign.

"...the war's harshest critics frustrated and angry." Ooh! Angry! Angry, angry Democrats. Why does this sound familiar? Because "angry" is always the Scary Boogeyman word that hack journalists use to describe the legitimate outrage that many of us feel about watching the country we love spiral its way down the toilet because we have an unelected president who decided a long time ago that he was going to win a game of Biggus Dickus with his old man.



Oh. Sorry. Got sidetracked there for a minute. Where was I? Oh yes....Angry. The word that hack journalists use whenever they want to defuse the legitimate outrage that 60% or more of the American population feels about this country's prestige, wealth, blood, and future squandered. Howard Dean is angry. Rahm Emannuel is angry. Markos Moulitsas is angry. The bloggers are angry. Oh, it's all so unpleasant and unseemly, isn't it? Not like the genteel outrage of the right:

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." -- Ann Coulter

"When you strip it all away, Jerry Garcia
(former Grateful Dead guitarist) destroyed his life on
drugs. And yet he's being honored, like some godlike
figure. Our priorities are out of whack, folks." -- Rush Limbaugh

"If I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, 'Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead. And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.'" -- Bill-o

Need I go on? You get the picture. These people are hardly sitting around sipping tea with their pinkies in the air.

Sorry, Carl Hulse, but if you aren't angry, you're either an idiot or not paying attention.

Labels: hack journalism

New York Daily News:

Fired Knicks VP puts Rangers' sex book in play

She's going one on one with the Knicks, but Anucha Browne Sanders may know something about a little black book that could have New York Rangers executives skating on thin ice.

The fired Knicks honcho claims she told her Madison Square Garden bosses in 2005 that members of the Rangers' front office were keeping a Kama Sutra wish list they would like to try out on members of the team's on-ice cheerleading troupe, her lawyer says.

"Ms. Browne Sanders received information from her staff . . . that there had been some book being maintained by some Rangers executives," lawyer Kevin Mintzer told Judge Gerald Lynch.

Mintzer said the book "reflected sexual positions and things like that that they were interested in keeping track of versus what they wanted from what skater."

He added that Browne Sanders "was aware from one of her staff members that supposedly the book existed."

That kind of recordkeeping could boost the chances of a second sex harassment case in which a former Ranger cheerleader is facing off against Madison Square Garden brass.

In that suit, Courtney Prince, former captain of the Rangers City Skaters, claims she was fired after complaining to her bosses about X-rated come-ons by members of the team's public relations staff.

The Garden has denied her allegations; a spokesman declined to comment yesterday.

The revelation came during a break Wednesday in Browne Sanders' testimony in the bruising $10 million sex harassment trial pitting the team's former marketing director against coach Isiah Thomas and Garden Chairman James Dolan.

Garden lawyers immediately objected to airing the Rangers' dirty laundry at the Knicks trial.

"The Rangers situation has nothing to do with Ms. Browne Sanders," Garden lawyer Ronald Green said. "It's a different team."

Lynch barred Browne Sanders from detailing the salacious allegation.

She was allowed to tell jurors about the indifferent reaction she got when she brought the information to Garden President and Chief Operating Officer Steve Mills.

"One of my employees, Petra Pope, brought something to my attention with regard to the sexual harassment claims by Courtney Prince at the Rangers, so I wanted to make Steve aware of it," Browne Sanders testified Wednesday in Manhattan Federal Court. "He [Mills] just shook his head."

Browne Sanders claims she got similar reactions when she came to Mills with complaints that Thomas referred to her as a "bitch" and a "ho" and that star guard Stephon Marbury lobbed similar profanities about her behind her back.

Mills' duties included oversight of the Rangers.

Prince's claims are slated to be aired before jurors in the same courthouse early next year.

Last year, she told the Daily News she had to arrange for skaters to "have drinks with the bosses and guests" at bars near the Garden as part of their job.

The bosses repeatedly asked, "Who's loose?" and "Which is the wild one?" Prince said, adding that one even told her "whom he wanted to perform oral sex on" and "who to have sex with from behind."

Garden lawyers have attacked Prince's allegations by saying she tried to impose her sexually obsessed behavior on members of the Rangers skate team.

They say she coached fellow skaters to pad their bras and use explicit terms to describe their anatomy and encouraged them to appear more "f---able."

Pope is central to another of Browne Sanders' damaging claims against Thomas, the Hall of Famer and two-time NBA champ. Browne Sanders told lawyers in a pretrial deposition that Thomas asked Pope to flirt with referees before a 2004 Nets game.

"What she told me was that Isiah asked her to go into the referees' locker room and make them happy," Browne Sanders said. "I asked her to tell me what that meant, and she said, 'Well, he wanted me to flirt with the referees.' "

Thomas claimed he asked Pope, a longtime friend from his days playing with the Detroit Pistons, to check in on the referees after he took over the team in 2003 because Garden management had treated them poorly in the past.

Browne Sanders takes the witness stand again Monday, when Thomas' lawyers will cross-examine her. Both sides say there will not be a settlement.

You go, girl.

Back when Whoopi Golberg used to be funny, I remember a monologue she did about Loretta Bobbett:

"O.K., I want y'all to know that I don't condone what she did to her husband, no matter how much the asshole deserved it," she said. After a few seconds, a demonic smile slowly grew on Whoopi's face before she laughed out loud and added, "But I understand. Most women do. Even better, although I know it's wrong, it feels damned good to see guys going around being uncomfortable, being nervous, being scared. Why? Because that's how women feel all the time. It's fear, and that fear is a big part of our lives all the time."

Whoopi was silent for a moment. Then she said quietly, "How does it feel, guys?"

I wouldn't be surprised if Ms.Saunders saw that scene in Chinatown where Faye Dunaway coldly says to Jack Nicholson, "I don't get even, Mr. Gittes. My lawyer does."

No, Ms. Saunders isn't using a knife, but by the time this trial is over, the corporate rapists at Madison Square Garden will probably wish she did. Good. What's tying everybody's jockstraps in a knot is the fact that the former vice president of the New York Knicks is refusing to play the Blame The Victim game.

First of all, Anucha Browne Sanders understood from the beginning that it was a lose-lose situation. Offices, factories, and retail stores shouldn't be hostile snake pits of inequitable gender politics. But they are. By the sadistic rules of the armed penises who are either wearing Timberland boots or hiding behind their Armani suits, women are sluts if they say "yes", and whores if they say "no". (Not that the word "No" is in their dictionary, of course) A woman's status is dictated not by her intelligence but by her looks. Women are expected to ignore the inappropriate touching, pretend not to hear the misogynist insults, and not do anything when the raises and promotions they deserve are consistently given to somebody else [men].

So now we're supposed to feel sorry for the MSG honchos crying "Foul!" because Ms. Saunders is fighting back, and she's not playing fair?

How does it feel, guys?

Labels: Browne Saunders, Isiah Thomas, New York Knicks, Sexual Harassment

"We can't do anything....we don't have the votes."

Thus spake the Congressional Democratic Handwringing Caucus. But while the latter part of the statement is, alas, still true, the former isn't.

After last night's speech, it's clear that George W. Bush's plan for Iraq is to continue his life's pattern and leave his fuckup for someone else to clean up; in this case, it's whoever succeeds him in office. Let's just assume for a moment that the Democrats don't blow it (and I know it's a huge assumption) and the next president is a Democrat. It's going to be that president who gets painted with the brush of the escaping people clinging to ladders on helicopters as they're airlifted out of a bloodbath. It won't matter that George Bush invaded a country that had nothing to do with attacking us. What will matter, because Americans have such short memories, is that a Democratic president "lost Iraq." And thus George Walker Bush's legacy will be secured -- or so he thinks.

But there is a way to get him to own at least part of this war after he leaves office, and that is to send him one bill after another requiring -- not asking nicely, but requiring -- a timetable and strategy for withdrawal from Iraq. And when he vetoes it, send him another one. And another, and another, and another. Make the Republicans go on record supporting this disaster of a president and his disaster of a war. Of course this means the gasbags on the right will call the Democrats "obstructionists", but so what? Yes, it's political theatre that don't move the war any closer to ending. But at least it dumps it in the lap of its perpetrator, where it belongs.

Now Barack Obama has joined this handwringing caucus of whiners:

Despite the Iraq war's unpopularity, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday that Congress lacks the votes to force a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops and will focus instead on putting a ceiling on the number deployed.

"One way of ending the war would be setting a timetable. We're about 15 votes short. Right now it doesn't look like we're going to get that many votes," Obama said, referring to the number needed to override an expected veto by President Bush.

The Illinois senator said the most likely scenario would be to grant troops more time at home between deployments, a politically popular step that's difficult to oppose and one that would have a practical impact.

"You have to at least give people a one-year break for every year served in Iraq," Obama said. "At least that would put a ceiling on how many troops could be sent there at any given time."

In his speech before about 300 people at a park in this eastern Iowa town of 6,100 people, Obama focused on his plan to begin pulling troops out of Iraq immediately and complete the withdrawal by the end of next year.

Later, at a town hall-style meeting in Anamosa, Obama vowed to press Congress to confront the president. Voters, Obama argued, are demanding action and candidates must spell out their views clearly.

"They are very frustrated over a disastrous war," said Obama. "I think it's very important for everybody to take home a record of where these candidates stand on this war."

Yes it is, Senator. But right now, until and unless you take the oath of office on January 20, 2009, your plan doesn't mean jack. You and Mrs. Clinton need to find your balls, whether biological or metaphorical, and pressure the Democrats to stop whining about how you don't have the votes and make this president take ownership of this war. Send him a bill with a timetable. And when he vetoes it, tell the American people what he's done. Tell the American people that Republicans want to continue this pointless war forever. Remind them that John Boehner, who is safe at home and whose children are safe at home, said that no sacrifice of other people's children is too much to ask for contining this war indefinitely.

Because if you dont...if you and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats in Congress continue to get up and whine that you don't have the votes to override a presidential veto, mark my words -- YOU and the rest of the Democrats WILL own this war on January 20, 2009.

Labels: Barack Obama, Iraq

That’s about what I’d call Bush’s speech tonight.

What kills me is how Bush is completely blowing off the healthy skepticism he heard in Congress on the 10th and 11th regarding the efficacy of his “surge” and is assuming because Petraeus and Crocker announced that the surge is working, well, by golly, it must be working and we can continue apace.

This part is so fucking divorced from reality, it ought to be getting alimony and even child support from it:

Anbar Province is a good example of how our strategy is working. Last year, an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to Al Qaeda. Some cited this report as evidence that we had failed in Iraq and should cut our losses and pull out. Instead, we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local people were suffering under the Taliban-like rule of Al Qaeda, and they were sick of it. So they asked us for help.

Didn’t the chucklehead who wrote this speech realize that this talking point was shot down days ago by Frank Rich and others? The Sunni sheiks running the 25 tribes in al Anbar began successfully fighting back against al Qaida back in September, five months before the escalation had even started. Those 4000 troops were sent in for little more than photo ops so Bush could claim credit.

So, sure they asked for help. And we withheld it until Bush saw they were making headway then he rushed in with other peoples’ kids and spouses and had his picture taken with one of the sheiks.

And funny thing about that…

Today, a city where Al Qaeda once planted its flag is beginning to return to normal. Anbar citizens who once feared beheading for talking to an American or Iraqi soldier now come forward to tell us where the terrorists are hiding.

Yeah, sheik Sattar Abu Reesha certainly wasn’t beheaded at his assassination hours before the speech (whose name Bush casually didn’t mention even though a week and a half ago they sure looked like bestest buddies to me). No doubt, Vice President Go Fuck Yourself would construe that, too, as “enormous progress.”

Here’s a newsflash:

One year ago, much of Baghdad was under siege. Schools were closed, markets were shuttered, and sectarian violence was spiraling out of control.

Hm. Well, better late than never, as they say, but still I wonder what took the administration so long to admit to this? We knew about all this, of course, but all we’ve been getting since March 19, 2003 is a ton and a half of sunshine pumped up our asses in Halliburton pipelines. I don’t recall the administration admitting schools being closed. All we were hearing was about the schools being built and “children going to school and playing safely in the streets,” as Bush said a year and a half ago in that other success story named Tal Afar.

Markets shuttered? Nonsense! Lindsey Graham buys rugs at rock-bottom prices every time he goes with his own bestest buddy McCain! And, as Bush said in that same speech in Cleveland, “You see markets opening…”

Sectarian violence? Oh, pshaw! In fact, the NY Times had reported just over a year ago,

“A day after a Pentagon report described spreading sectarian violence and increasingly complex security problems in Iraq, President Bush painted a rosier picture. "Our commanders and diplomats on the ground believe that Iraq has not descended into a civil war," Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address. "They report that only a small number of Iraqis are engaged in sectarian violence, while the overwhelming majority want peace and a normal life in a unified country.”

So, could we have committed nearly 29,000 more troops in Iraq simply because of a few “bad apples?”

Of course, the Pentagon at the time was warning that the death squads could increase the chance of civil war but what do those armchair generals know, right?

So never let it be said that George Bush never speaks the truth. He gets around to it… eventually. When it suits him and the bad news is a bit too distant to hurt him, anymore…

And if George says that there’s enough progress in Iraq to warrant sending more troops home, then that’s good enough for… Uh oh. Looks like a White House report may queer those warm and fuzzy photo ops when that 8 or 9% of our troops come home for Christmas. Seems only one more benchmark has been met, which is in slowly overturning one of Paul Bremer’s grandest achievements, the one that should’ve earned him a size 56 EEE Timberland boot nestled squarely in his rectum: De-Baathification.

Yeah, seems reversing Paul Bremer’s Presidential Medal of Freedom-winning fuckups has actually become a benchmark in itself, which is in painfully re-admitting some of Saddam’s old cronies back into power since they may or may not have actually committed war crimes.

I’m not going to go into the rest of Bush’s speech because not only is it boilerplate but it’s tarnished boilerplate at that and, as any farm boy can tell you, recycled shit still smells like the same old shit no matter how long it’s been sitting in a compost heap.

But pay heed and make sure you remind your Democratic representatives of this sentence the next time Bush loiters his way into Congress with his hand out: “At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic and security engagement that extends beyond my Presidency.”

He added, “These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America.” And who would that be, Talibani his Kurdish dick puppet? What about what the people want? Shouldn’t it be about what the people of free, democratic Iraq want instead of a couple of cardboard cutout officials?

Or does Bush (gasp) actually have a different definition of democracy than the rest of us?

Some truly extraordinary television this evening, as we watched the Serious People of the Washington punditocracy finally stop trying to put an evening gown, heels, pearl earrings, and a diamond-encrusted tiara upon the pig that is George W. Bush's presidency.

Olbermann was in the kind of fine form that we have come to expect, but the big surprise was Chris Matthews, who could barely contain his disgust at what we were about to hear from the Codpiece-in-Chief. It's hard to have a lot of sympathy for Tweety, given that he's the same guy who used to say things like:

MATTHEWS: What do you make of the actual visual that people will see on TV and probably, as you know, as well as I, will remember a lot longer than words spoken tonight? And that's the president looking very much like a jet, you know, a high-flying jet star. A guy who is a jet pilot. Has been in the past when he was younger, obviously. What does that image mean to the American people, a guy who can actually get into a supersonic plane and actually fly in an unpressurized cabin like an actual jet pilot?

[...]

MATTHEWS: Do you think this role, and I want to talk politically [...], the president deserves everything he's doing tonight in terms of his leadership. He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics. Do you think he is defining the office of the presidency, at least for this time, as basically that of commander in chief? That [...] if you're going to run against him, you'd better be ready to take [that] away from him.

[...]

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Bob Dornan, you were a congressman all those years. Here's a president who's really nonverbal. He's like Eisenhower. He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes West. I remember him standing at that fence with Colin Powell. Was [that] the best picture in the 2000 campaign?

[...]

MATTHEWS: The president there -- look at this guy! We're watching him. He looks like he flew the plane. He only flew it as a passenger, but he's flown --

CADDELL: He looks like a fighter pilot.

MATTHEWS: He looks for real. What is it about the commander in chief role, the hat that he does wear, that makes him -- I mean, he seems like -- he didn't fight in a war, but he looks like he does.

and

MATTHEWS: We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like [former President Bill] Clinton or even like [former Democratic presidential candidates Michael] Dukakis or [Walter] Mondale, all those guys, [George] McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits. We don't want an indoor prime minister type, or the Danes or the Dutch or the Italians, or a [Russian Federation President Vladimir] Putin. Can you imagine Putin getting elected here? We want a guy as president.

...and having learned absolutely nothing, now talks about the equally incoherent dim bulb that is Fred Thompson like this.
Matthews looked this evening like a wife who's just learned that her husband is fucking the kids' nanny; that same mix of betrayal, embarrassment and shame. Tim Russert looked like someone who had just seen pictures of himself in a compromising position with a mule on YouTube.

Over on CNN after MSNBC signed off for some of its post-prime-time Very Important Programming about some sleazeball criminal or another, Candy Crowley made her expected dig that the opponents of this war are all partisan Democrats, but I thought Michael Ware's head was going to explode as he went down the litany of Dire Consequences™ that were certain, according to the Fuckup-in-Chief, to follow a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, pointing out that all of these consequences are happening now.

I'll have video as soon as I can find some. You see, I don't have a TV tuner in my PC, and even if I did, I don't have a wire to our Dish in our home office. So I have to rely on the kindness of strangers.

I'd like to believe that the utter disaster for this country that this president outlined tonight represents some kind of wastershed, a collective moment in which the talking heads of the media realize just what they've been aiding and abetting for the last six years since the 9/11 attacks. And perhaps they'll surprise me. There was no snark about Sen. Jack Reed's rebuttal. They were even kind to John Edwards, who bought two minutes of ad time because it's the only way he can get any face time on television to ask Congress to please look between its legs and find its balls and do something to stop the Madness of King George:



But somehow I think we'll wake up tomorrow, and everyone will be back on message, that this president is "steadfast and resolute", that the 60+ percent of Americans who have had enough are just a bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkey traitors, and that John Edwards got an expensive haircut.

Labels: George W. Bush, Iraq

This is extremely cool. I can't imagine anyone I'd rather see moderate a political debate (or "mashup", as HuffPo calls it) than Bill Maher. Toss in Charlie Rose to at least give it the pretense of gravitas, and you've got an interesting format -- and the questions Americans want asked.

Labels: 2008 election, Bill Maher, Democrats

John Edwards has bought airtime to rebut the Bush speech on Iraq scheduled for tonight:

In the clamor of Democrats assailing President Bush on Iraq, presidential candidate John Edwards has found a way to be heard after Bush addresses the nation Thursday night: He's buying time for a rebuttal.

Edwards has bought two minutes of air time on MSNBC, scheduled to air after Bush's 15-minute televised speech from the White House at 9 p.m. EDT.

Bush is expected to announce plans to reduce the American troop presence in Iraq by up to 30,000 by next summer, but say that he will condition those and further cuts on continued progress.

"Unfortunately, the president is pressing on with the only strategy he's ever had — more time, more troops, and more war," Edwards says in the ad, according to excerpts provided by his campaign.

The ad was taped at Edwards' home in Chapel Hill, N.C., in the style of an Oval Office address, with him sitting at a desk and speaking straight to the camera, with American flag in the background.

Edwards has been pushing Congress — including Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, his top rivals — to block any war funding that does not include a withdrawal date from Iraq. That challenge was part of his ad, allowing him to pack in criticisms of the president and his primary opponents in one shot.

"Tell Congress you know the truth," Edwards says. "They have the power to end this war and you expect them to use it. When the president asks for more money and more time, Congress needs to tell him he only gets one choice — a firm timeline for withdrawal."

The extended air time is an innovative way for Edwards to get his message out as the primary race enters its final months and voters begin to pay more attention.

Now pour yourself a drink, sit back in the recliner, and let's wait for Barry to post in the comments about a) Edwards' hair; b) his bigass house in Chapel Hill and how a REAL progressive would take a vow of poverty; or c) his wealth coming from being a trial lawyer.

Labels: John Edwards

Ane Brun's bio states that the gifted singer/songwriter was allegedly born in Norway, but I don't believe it. Ane came from someplace else. I bet if you open her closet door, there are pods inside.

Ane's voice is eerie, haunting, and unearthly. It's an alien instrument that chills you, enraptures you, and compels you to pay attention. The late Sandy Denny owned this type of voice, as did Nick Drake and Tim Buckley. Early in their careers, Sinead O'Connor did (before she lost her mind) as did Joni Mitchell (before the cigarettes took it away). Listen to those precious LPs your granddad has of jazz vocalist Jimmy Scott to understand what I'm talking about. Think of Björk, Patti Smith, and Diamanda Galás. Hailing frequencies open, Captain.

On Ane's wonderful CD A Temporary Dive, my favorite song is "Laid In Earth", an ominous, heartbreaking yet beautiful elegy of loss. It isn't just another "My lover is dead and I'm sad, boo hoo" song, oh no. It achieves the tragic majesty of Sinead O'Connor's "I Am Stretched On Your Grave" or the great Judy Collins song "Pretty Polly". Yes, it's scary, but in a good way.

Ane Brun is a journey worth taking. Welcome aboard. The starship is right over here.

Labels: A Temporary Dive, Ane Brun, Folk

Two stories of customer non-service in the Republican era.

First, Susie Madrak is robbeed BY a bank:

It’s been one of those weeks. It started Monday morning, when my battery was dead. Then I got three estimates on replacing the battery core and guess what? They all came in at slightly under $1000!

Now, it also appeared that my paycheck cleared earlier than they told me. It was listed as available funds on the 7th. They posted my rent check and charged me an $88 fee for the uncleared check, but they also posted the balance as available funds.

So I, you know, lived my life. I put gas in the car, went food shopping - you know, the usual. (Oh, and in the meantime? They still hadn’t cleared the donations readers had made to Paypal and Amazon last week, which usually takes 3-4 days. Hell, they still haven’t cleared all of them as of this morning!)

[snip]

Then last night, I checked my available bank balance again and I actually gasped. Because no, the check hadn’t cleared - and they’d hit me with an additional $315 in unavailable-funds fees for a grand total of $403!

Read on here.

Meanwhile, Pierre Tristam has his own customer service woes with AT&T:

When I call back to speak with the DSL universe, it’s no longer Bell South, no longer the United States. It’s AT&T, from somewhere in India. This is going on Friday afternoon. I’m dreading a three-day weekend without DSL—the three-day weekend critical to three people in this house: I have that project to complete by Monday. Cheryl is in the middle of her new school year’s recruiting drive for her youth orchestra. Sadie is in the middle of crunch-time with her virtual schooling (all online). And here’s the scratchy man from India telling me we may have a problem setting a DSL technician’s appointment before Tuesday. The pitch of my voice begins to rise. And what’s with the line being so scratchy? The guy at the other end of the line cuts out every sixth word. I mean, this is AT&T we’re connected with, and you’re telling me that we have to be talking on a back-assed Internet connection on the phone, with AT&T? Well, yes. That’s outsourcing.

At least the man manages to set a Saturday appointment. But wait! “I’m sorry, sir, but our computers are down. I’m not able to actually set the appointment.”

You’re kidding. No, this is just a joke. You’re just being funny with me. Outsourcing humor, yes?

“No sir. The computers are down. I can call you back to confirm as soon as the computers are up.”

Yes. And the check is in the mail. But what choice did I have? Sure, call me back. He says he would in an hour. Didn't happen. I call AT&T again sometime after 9 p.m. On hold. Transferred. I ask for a supervisor. I ask for one back in the United States, imagining that somehow there’d be a difference. This whole comedy started at 3:30 the afternoon of Friday. Here we were in bed Cheryl and I, 10 p.m., having an unpleasant threesome with a man in Bombay telling me he’s having a hard time connecting with his supervisor in the United States. AT&T, incapable of connecting with itself. The alleged supervisor finally turns up, only pretending to be a supervisor, telling me he’s in Columbia, S.C., but repeating the very same things everyone else has been saying, and doing so with that revolting obsequious tone that reads placating platitudes from standard cue cards plastered around his office: “I'm sorry you're having all this trouble, sir. I'm going to do everything I can to fix the problem. I'm sorry you feel that way sir.” And under his breath the guy is calling me a motherfucker and picturing me disemboweled and skull-bashed against the shoals of the South Carolina shore. I ask for that Saturday appointment again, now that, I assume, the computers are working.

“Can’t do that, sir. Tuesday is the earliest.”

But you told me I had a Saturday appointment, it was just a matter of computer problems—your computer problems. You have to make it right.

“Can’t do that, sir.”

Labels: bloggers, customer service, outsourcing

Years ago, the rock ‘n’ roll guitarist Ted Nugent announced that he was planning on buying the company that owns Muzak. Why? So he could destroy it. “After being tortured in my dentist’s office, waiting in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles or having that damned noise oozing out of a telephone while the bitch puts me on hold, I’ve had enough,” he explained. But he was unsuccessful.

When I first heard this, even though I initially dismissed it as a stupid publicity stunt, I was sorry he didn’t succeed. “Better luck next time, Ted,” I thought to myself. But now, I’m not so sure.

Surprisingly, considering Mr. Nugent’s right-wing opinions of everything from abortion rights, affirmative action and gun control, this was one of the few times where I found myself in complete agreement with something he said. (O.K., the only time) Muzak has always hugely annoyed me throughout the years because I thought it was a dishonest perversion of a musician’s original vision; a simple-minded shortcut for lazy idiots who preferred skimming through a Cliff’s Notes pamphlet than reading the real thing to avoid struggling with all those sinister words. It’s like choosing to eat a small pink brick of Spam instead of a nice thick juicy steak.

So imagine my surprise when I discovered that I actually missed listening to Musak. Don’t get me wrong: listening to a gooey, coma-inducing version of “Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds” feels like somebody is pouring a gallon of maple syrup into my ears. But it’s preferable to the equivalent of an used car salesman trying to sell me something. Even at its worst, Muzak gave you a few minutes of pleasure, reminding you of a favorite song you forgotten. In spite of yourself, you (almost) enjoyed it. Now, unfortunately, instead of a pleasant memory, you get a sales pitch. And that’s what you’re hearing in place of Muzak these days. Instead of phony music, you’re hearing and seeing omnipresent liars trying to sell you cell phones, magazine subscriptions, car insurance, free samples of Viagra or whatever and it’s not just annoying, it’s incredibly intrusive. What’s made it worse is you’re trapped because while you’re waiting to wash your clothes, buy your groceries or get your car fixed, there’s a television yelling at you.

And it isn’t just television anymore. How many times have you’ve been tortured by pop-ups and Spam (no, not the small pink brick) while sitting at the PC? Going to the movies, instead of trailers you’re seeing commercials that you can’t shut off with your TV remote. If Nugent picked up his cell phone today, he wouldn’t hear that “damned noise”. He’d hear a robotic voice telling him about a great new long distance plan. This is a big media genie that doesn’t want to go back into the bottle and I don’t know what we can do about it.

Lately, I keeping thinking about a scene in the science-fiction movie Minority Report where corporate intrusion into our lives had gotten so bad, even Tom Cruise’s box of breakfast cereal tried to sell him something. Doesn’t seem like a fantasy anymore, does it? Before, just to get some peace and quiet, you needed an iPod. Now, you need a sensory deprivation tank. Maybe we’ll be safe for a little while before we inevitably become a vast herd of obedient Neos with sockets in the back of our necks plugged into the global version of Wal-Mart.

Ted, I think you and me owe Muzak an apology. (But you're still a goddamned idiot)

Labels: Kate Bush, media, Minority Report, Muzak, The Matrix

This is what happens when you don't do the right thing because it's right. This is what happens when you refuse to believer that you are dealing with the most dishonest leaders in the history of this country, and no, I am not forgetting Nixon.

By caving in and not requiring a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, the Democrats have allowed the intransigent Bush Administration to paint itself as the face of compromise:

When top Democratic leaders visited him at the White House this week, President Bush told them he wanted to “find common ground” on Iraq. But when the president said he planned to “start doing some redeployment,” the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, cut him off.

“No you’re not, Mr. President,” Ms. Pelosi interjected. “You’re just going back to the presurge level.”

The testy exchange, recounted by three people who attended the session or were briefed on it, provides a peek into how Mr. Bush will try to sell Americans on his Iraq strategy when he addresses the nation at 9 p.m. Thursday. With lawmakers openly skeptical of his troop buildup, Mr. Bush will cast his plan for a gradual, limited withdrawal as a way to bring a divided America together — even as he resists demands from those who want him to move much faster.

The prime-time address will be the eighth by Mr. Bush on Iraq since the invasion in March 2003, the latest iteration of his efforts to sketch what he calls “the way forward.” It will be the first time he has described a plan for troop reductions, a radical departure for a president who has repeatedly defied his critics’ calls to bring the troops home.

Yet as the president outlines his plan, his critics say he is trying to have it both ways. He is, they say, taking credit for a drawdown that has been envisioned since he first announced the current buildup on Jan. 10 — a withdrawal that had to be carried out unless he was willing to take the politically unpalatable step of extending soldiers’ tours further.

The White House declined on Wednesday to preview Mr. Bush’s speech, but one senior administration official, speaking anonymously to avoid upstaging the president, said the reductions would be heavily conditioned on the situation in Iraq and would fall far short of the rapid withdrawal Democrats want.

Under the plan, at least 130,000 American troops would remain in Iraq next July, down from more than 160,000, decreasing to about the same level as before the buildup began, with any decisions on further withdrawals likely to be postponed until at least next March. The planned drawdowns between now and July 2008 are expected to be of the 30,000 that many assumed the president would suggest after this week’s testimony by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq. But, the senior official said, Mr. Bush’s ultimate goal would be a sustainable force of around 10 combat brigades, down from 20 now, at the end of his presidency, though a large number of support troops would also still be required.

“We want bipartisanship,” said this official, “but not to the point where it sacrifices success.”

One wonders if the entire reason for this "surge" was less to try to get control of an uncontrollable situation and more to allow George Bush some wiggle room in announcing a troop withdrawal, thereby giving him the opportunity to appear to be bipartisan and willing to withdraw some troops without actually reducing the American presence in Iraq.

When Democrats want to roll back tax cuts and return federal tax rates to what they were before a cut, or when they want to stop the next part of a phased cut, Republicans paint that as a tax increase. So it's logical that the Republican way would also to be to increase troop levels in Iraq, then decrease them and call it a reduction in force.

And of course Americans will buy it. They'll buy it because for all that too many Americans don't have a clue about the Constitution or what it means, they are highly tied to our system of government and to the notion that the U.S. government is intrinsically good -- a notion tested strongly by the actions of this Administration. That this surge and planned redeployment is essentially a wash won't occur to them because there's been so little for them to cling to of late.

But those who will be fooled are only fooling themselves. For the reality is that like everything else in his miserable failure of a life, George W. Bush has once again dug a dry hole, run a company into the ground, and traded Sammy Sosa. His policy and his goal, just as it always has been, is to get the hell outta Dodge and leave the mess he created for someone else to clean up:

The talk in Washington on Monday was all about troop reductions, yet it also brought into sharp focus President Bush's plans to end his term with a strong U.S. military presence in Iraq, and to leave tough decisions about ending the unpopular war to his successor.

The plans outlined by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, would retain a large force in the country -- perhaps more than 100,000 troops -- when the time comes for Bush to move out of the White House in January 2009.

Labels: George W. Bush, Iraq, irresponsibility

Always have your eye on the next step on the ladder, and the hell with what your responsibilities are now. Patrick Cocburn's puff piece on Gen. David Petraeus in the U.K. Independent spins Petraeus' pathetic appearance before Congress this week, in which he stated he "didn't know" if the effort in Iraq was making us safer, also reveals the prize on which Petraeus has his eye:

The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, expressed long-term interest in running for the US presidency when he was stationed in Baghdad, according to a senior Iraqi official who knew him at that time.

Sabah Khadim, then a senior adviser at Iraq's Interior Ministry, says General Petraeus discussed with him his ambition when the general was head of training and recruitment of the Iraqi army in 2004-05.

"I asked him if he was planning to run in 2008 and he said, 'No, that would be too soon'," Mr Khadim, who now lives in London, said.

General Petraeus has a reputation in the US Army for being a man of great ambition. If he succeeds in reversing America's apparent failure in Iraq, he would be a natural candidate for the White House in the presidential election in 2012.

His able defence of the "surge" in US troop numbers in Iraq as a success before Congress this week has made him the best-known soldier in America. An articulate, intelligent and energetic man, he has always shown skill in managing the media.

But General Petraeus's open interest in the presidency may lead critics to suggest that his own political ambitions have influenced him in putting an optimistic gloss on the US military position in Iraq .

Mr Khadim was a senior adviser in the Iraqi Interior Ministry in 2004-05 when Iyad Allawi was prime minister.

"My office was in the Adnan Palace in the Green Zone, which was close to General Petraeus's office," Mr Khadim recalls. He had meetings with the general because the Interior Ministry was involved in vetting the loyalty of Iraqis recruited as army officers. Mr Khadim was critical of the general's choice of Iraqis to work with him.

For a soldier whose military abilities and experience are so lauded by the White House, General Petraeus has had a surprisingly controversial career in Iraq. His critics hold him at least partly responsible for three debacles: the capture of Mosul by the insurgents in 2004; the failure to train an effective Iraqi army and the theft of the entire Iraqi arms procurement budget in 2004-05.

Putting aside Patrick Cockburn's view that Petraeus' defense of Administration policy in Iraq was "able" and the article's relatively pro-Petraeus slant (especially surprising since in 2005 he called the Iraq situation "unwinnable", this "stellar" record, which includes responsibility for not securing weapons in Iraq after the fall of Saddam, would make Petraeus the perfect Republican heir to the Heckuva Job Legacy of George W. Bush.

Labels: General Petraeus, Iraq

Driftglass translates Frances Townsend:

Having your woman call out another man as impotent is double-dog-daring him to take a swing at you.

It’s using the international stage to go right after his recently retouched manhood.

It is a video dickslap at bin Laden, calling his mama ugly and trying very deliberately to goad him into take another shot at us.

It isn’t what any reasonably bright human above the age of 12 would mistake for statecraft.

It isn’t even just Dubya's regular pissy frat-rat “Bring ‘em on” faux machismo.

(And hey, remember how fucking brilliantly that little tantrum of peevish dick wagging worked last time when President Thinks-With-His-Nads dared Iraq’s nascent insurgency to kill more US soldiers?

As reminder, over four years ago -- in July of 2003 -- when the Commodore Codpiece just had to show the world what an ego-drunk badass looks like as long as he’s got 200,000 troops and 30,000 nuclear weapons to hide behind, 23 American soldiers had been killed in George W. Bush’s Iraq War.

As of this writing, 3,739 more have perished.

Ritual sacrifices made to one man’s malignant narcissism, and to his malevolent enablers.)

No this is stacking “Bringing it on” on top of “You little fag”…

…and then using the global throw-weight of Mouse Circus message delivery system to have your subordinate skirt rub his hair in it...

...in front of several million viewers.

So instead taking the actions a Real Man would take -- capturing or killing bin Laden when he had the chance, or going after him and the central nexus of al-Qaida terrorism in the Afghanistan/Pakistan frontier -- the whole of The Bush Plan has now devolved into nothing more than putting the perky Ms. Townsend in front of a camera on the Lord’s Day, six years after the murder of 3,000 Americans, and calling their murder a pussy.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

Go read the whole thing, because Drifty also talks about the world that would have been had five Supreme Court Justices not decided that a drunken wastrel would make a better president than a guy who could actually think and put two sentences together.

Labels: George W. Bush, insanity, narcissism, Osama bin Laden

This is so tragic I just don't even know what to say:

Two of the seven soldiers who wrote the New York Times op-ed piece criticizing U.S. counterinsurgency strategy 3 ½ weeks ago have been killed in Iraq. Yance T. Gray and Omar Mora died Monday in a vehicle accident in Baghdad. The AP has reported on Yance Gray here, and KHOU, a Houston-area TV station has reported on Omar Mora here. Their families have been notified.

I have confirmed through a source in Iraq that these are indeed the same soldiers who penned the op-ed piece.

(via AJ at Americablog)

Enough. Just enough. Bring them all home. Now.

Labels: insanity, Iraq casualties

If social networking sites for boomers and seniors are the Next Big Thing on the Web, are they still refusing to hire anyone over 40 to build them?

Older people are sticky.

That is the latest view from Silicon Valley. Technology investors and entrepreneurs, long obsessed with connecting to teenagers and 20-somethings, are starting a host of new social networking sites aimed at baby boomers and graying computer users.

The sites have names like Eons, Rezoom, Multiply, Maya’s Mom, Boomj, and Boomertown. They look like Facebook — with wrinkles.

And they are seeking to capitalize on what investors say may be a profitable characteristic of older Internet users: they are less likely than youngsters to flit from one trendy site to the next.

“Teens are tire kickers — they hang around, cost you money and then leave,” said Paul Kedrosky, a venture capitalist and author of the blog “Infectious Greed.” Where Friendster was once the hot spot, Facebook and MySpace now draw the crowds of young people online.

“The older demographic has a bunch of interesting characteristics,” Mr. Kedrosky added, “not the least of which is that they hang around.”

This prospective and relative stickiness is helping drive a wave of new investment into boomer and older-oriented social networking sites that offer like-minded (and like-aged) individuals discussion and dating forums, photo-sharing, news and commentary, and chatter about diet, fitness and health care.

Last week, VantagePoint Ventures, an early investor in MySpace, announced that it had led a $16.5 million round of financing for Multiply, a social networking site aimed at people who are settled.

In August, Shasta Ventures led a $4.8 million financing round for TeeBeeDee, a site coming out of its test stage this month. The name is short for “To Be Determined” (as in: just because you’re not trolling for a mate on MySpace doesn’t mean your life is over.)

Also in August, Johnson & Johnson spent $10 million to $20 million to acquire Maya’s Mom, a social networking site for parents, according to a person briefed on the deal. The site has been in existence about a year.

Maya's Granny, call your lawyer.

Let's take a spin around who runs these sites.

Jeff Taylor, founder and CEO of Eons, says "If you’re under 50, join me in being an evangelist for Eons and challenge yourself to see how many friends and family you can inspire to live the biggest life possible. Be loud and be proud about your age." The video linked here shows that while the senior staff appears to be well-represented by those in the target demographic, the staff is disproportionately under 40. The company gives lip service to encouraging "Eons members (age 50+)" to apply, but with a technical staff that isn't representative of this ethos, Taylor might want to think about providing training in the skills the company uses so as to more actively recruit the site's target demographic.

This is Peter Pezaris, the founder of Multiply.com. Doesn't look like a boomer, does he? Bet he doesn't hire them to work on his site, either.

Jerry Cover of ReZoom looks like he might be approaching the target demographic for his site. But before you rush to sign up, you should probably know that he's a founder of Lighthouse Family Ministries -- something his bio at ReZoom doesn't mention. This is all well and good, but since "sharing the love of Christ" is part of what Lighthouse does, and the "About Us" page at ReZoom refers to "inspirational stories about ReZoomers just like you", expect a Christian focus.

TeeBeeDee's founder, Robin Wolaner, is 50 and the other founders are all 50-plus. TeeBeeDee's job page has the boilerplate nondiscrimination blurb, but says nothing about welcoming "experienced" applicants.

I know that Gen-X likes to put the responsibility for everything that's wrong with the world in the laps of baby boomers, but it's surprising that it's taken this long for social networking to hit the boomer community. With many of the bloggers that I met at Yearly Kos and with whom I've become acquainted since being around my age, and with the keep-up-with-the-youngsters boomer mentality, it's overdue that entrepreneurs realize that web sites targeted at this elephant going through a snake could be a good idea. It would be nice, however, if these sites made an effort to hire engineers, programmers, and writers in the age group of their target demographic. There are a lot of them out there, trying to cobble together an income doing what they can because corporate America just doesn't want them anymore.

Labels: baby boomers, Information technology

Bob Ryan:

Winning a PGA Tour event is an enormous accomplishment. With the purses at their current level, the incentive for many isn't even all that strong. A man can make a very handsome living simply making most cuts and bagging an occasional top 10. Did you hear Boo Weekley the other day? The affable rube from the Florida panhandle says he wants nothing more from his career than to make enough money during a 10- or 12-year period to be able to go back home and go after those big-mouth bass. Period.

We can only imagine what Tiger Woods thought when he heard or read that. Not playing to win? This is a completely unimaginable concept for Tiger. In fact, he addressed the idea in depth before the PGA Championship when he smirked that he was present for one reason, and it wasn't to "work on my farmer tan." The only reason to compete, he said, is to win. Otherwise, what's the point?

If you want to be a Legend, mediocrity is not an option. That's what I like about sports.

Fame in the 21st century is a gaudy tinfoil medal awarded to frauds gifted with marginal talent. Audiences who can’t tell the difference anymore between what’s real and what’s not will compulsively fill stadiums to hear a noisy, lip-syncing band who can’t sing, dance, or play their instruments very well. And then will sadly wonder why their headaches are going to last longer than the memories.

It's worse with politicians. "It takes two people to tell the truth, " the old truism goes. "One to say it, and the other one to listen to it." In politics, however, men and women running for office pretend to tell the truth and voters pretend to believe them. (People who know what's really going on usually stay home during elections and get drunk) Once these liars are in power, they never follow through on their promises (except, of course, to their lobbyists) and make our lives lousy. We reward them for being rotten at their jobs. Only in an era of monstrously lowered expectations can a lazy, nasty, inarticulate, alcoholic, ex-cokehead like George Bush (who was lucky enough to be born with a silver spoon up his ass) will be perceived as a "great" President. Say otherwise and you're helping the terrorists win.

If you're Paul Bremer, for example, his failure in Iraq made him rich and got him a lucrative book contract. But if you're an over-hyped bust like Brian Bosworth, you get kicked out of the NFL. As Bill Parcells said, "You are what your record says you are."

And athletes prove how good they are in front of us. When The Great One skated on the ice, you knew that wasn’t Wayne Gretsky’s stuntman. Hank Aaron’s 755 home runs wasn’t a trick conjured up by those mischievous rascals at Industrial Light and Magic. Michael Jordan wasn’t a mythical character in a James Frey screenplay. I’m no brainiac when it comes to jockstrap history but off the top of my head I can name Lance Armstrong, Billie Jean King, Reggie Bush, Althea Gibson, Alex Rodriguez, and Venus Williams. I’m sure you can add more. The list goes on and on. Their talent is an exhilarating affirmation of how good human beings can be and it never fails to make us feel better about ourselves.

You are what your record says you are. Simple. It sure makes it easy for sportscasters. They just report on what's happening right in front of them. If they don't, they won't be there long. When Rush Limbaugh tried to sell his racist propaganda about how awful Donovan McNabb was on "Monday Night Football", he was immediately and deservedly ridiculed for his idiocy before losing his job. But when Rush hallucinates on his radio show about how well "the Surge" is working in Iraq, his herd of loyal dittoheads will nod stupidly in agreement. Losing Is Winning. C'mon, didn't you read the New York Post this morning? And War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength. Jesus.

So, thank you, Tiger, and all the rest of you. Thank you for keeping it real.

Labels: Athletes, Tiger Woods