Amidst all my attempts to insist that there are no generational differences between me and my younger progressive sisters, I'm often made aware that there are. I don't refer to the time in college when I was held down on a bed in a guy's room and told that either I have sex with him or my clothes will be forcibly removed and tossed out the window as rape, largely because I don't think about it at all. I'm not convinced (though I don't judge anyone whose mileage differs) that calling it "my rape" would have been constructive to my mental health over the long term.

I've lived through enough retrogressive social history where women are concerned, and seen how enough of what's known as feminism has been about language rather than real change to have lost patience with it. My thought tends to be that we have more important things to worry about than whether we want to spell "woman" with a "y" so it doesn't have the word "man" in it or any of the other fodder for misogynistic standup comics that feminism has come up with over the years. My brand of feminism has been about things like creating a society in which a woman who chooses not to marry isn't a pariah, or a woman who is gay doesn't feel she has to hide herself behind marriage, or giving women access to the same jobs as men, or not tossing women out of the workplace at 40 because young men no longer want to fuck them.

I'm not judging younger feminists who think differently. As I said above, I was a child in an era when my mother was a neighborhood pariah for working outside the home and when the books they gave you that explained menstruation to you still warned of the dire consequences of sitting in cars and "petting" (which at age ten I didn't understand, because to me petting was what you did to the dog and I couldn't imagine what that had to do with boys), and using Tony Curtis and Janet Leigh as examples of love in the movies.

Sure, I was angered by the comedy stylings of Andrew Dice Clay, and while I may laugh uproariously at Family Guy, the way the character of Meg is treated sometimes makes me so angry I can hardly watch the show. And of course I'm the founder of Sweet Jesus I Hate Chris Matthews, because even I can recognize a pattern of misogyny when I see it.

I wasn't watching when David Schuster talked about Chelsea Clinton being "pimped out" into a more active role in the campaign. I agree that using the expression "pimped out", as if the Clintons had Chelsea out turning tricks for votes, was a pretty offensive choice of words. But I have to wonder, given the fact that a) Don Imus was playing a song called "Pimp-slap the Ho'" for years before his suspension for calling the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy headed ho's"; b) a song called "It's Hard out there for a Pimp" won a fucking OSCAR®, for God's sake; and c) MSNBC has been a frat boys' club for years before Tweety finally went over the edge and said that the only reason Hillary was a Senator was because her husband cheated on her; why the sudden hue and cry over this one remark?

I'm not defending what David Shuster said. Using the metaphors of prostitution to describe any woman who is not an actual prostitute ought to be verboten in polite company. And I would hope that this incident gets the suits at MSNBC, as well as the guys in front of the camera thinking about the way they talk about women. And no, Keith Olbermann isn't exempt either, because he too has gotten on the Bash Hillary bandwagon, not to mention the fact of his gleeful snark about troubled young women like Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, and the late Anna Nicole Smith. And yet, the "Keeping Tabs" segment has been running with nary a peep out of feminists for a long time. Do those women somehow "deserve it", because they put themselves in the limelight? Is that why there has been no protests about that? And if so, how does that differ from saying that a woman walking down a dark street in a miniskirt was "asking" to be raped?

I'm just askin', is all.

I wrote the other day about how ridiculous it sounded when a caller to Randi Rhodes indicated that sexism is more pervasive than racism. When you look at Media Matters' rundown of appallingly misogynistic remarks coming from the Boys of MSNBC over the last few years, the only thing that's surprising is that it hasn't come to a head until now. And yet given that Chris Matthews, a much higher-profile talking head than Shuster, was able to get away with a simple apology (and having both Joe Scarborough and Shuster stick up for him on Morning Joe the next day), I'm getting a sense that David Shuster is simply the "waferr-theen meent" that causes the male privilege Mr. Creosote that is MSNBC to explode.

I watched last night's Real Time With Bill Maher today, and with the Shuster episode still raw, P.J. O'Rourke's remark about Hillary Clinton's posterior seems similarly gratuitously cruel. Perhaps we've just become accustomed to men making appallingly nasty cracks about Hillary because they've been doing it virtually nonstop for the last sixteen years. Or perhaps it has more meaning when it comes from what's supposed to be news programming, for all that news has become more like Entertainment Tonight than the kind of programming Edward R. Murrow once delivered.

Keith Olbermann, for all that he faux-humbly denies that he's in Murrow's league, clearly sees the chain-smoking anchor of the 1950's as his role model. Somehow, despite the rampant sexism of the 1950's, I just can't see Murrow ever descending into the kind of locker room stuff coming from the mouths of the MSNBC boys.

The irony is that there IS a legitimate point to be made that it's disingenuous to have Chelsea Clinton be a public face of her mother's campaign and then say she's off-limits to the press. The problem is not with having candidates' adult children out on the campaign trail, it's about having them out there but somehow in need of protection. Chelsea had to endure being called the family dog by Rush Limbaugh when she was just thirteen years old, and this year's likely Republican nominee, John McCain, said in 1998 that the reason she's so ugly (which she isn't, and wasn't then either) is because Janet Reno is her father. So it's understandable that the Clintons want to protect her from the likes of Limbaugh and McCain and Matthews, and alas, now even David Shuster, whom we thought knew better. But when Cate Edwards and the Romney boys have been out there campaigning and WERE accessible to the press, the Clintons do seem to be operating with a double standard. And that's what should have been the story. But by using the language of whoredom to describe the situation, Shuster blew his chance to make a legitimate political point.

Perhaps the suits at MSNBC believe that now that they have a lesbian progressive appearing occasionally in the person of Rachel Maddow, they no longer have to worry about what their male anchors and correspondents say. However, I don't think that when Maddow signed on to be an analyst for MSNBC, being Keith's and Chris' and David's and Tucky's beard was exactly what she had in mind. If Rachel Maddow had something to do with the line now being drawn in the sand, that's all to the good. But suspending Shuster and having Keith Olbermann apologize for him does no good if the behavior continues -- as it seems to be continuing with Matthews.

It seems to me that perhaps all of the MSNBC anchors need to get some psychotherapy and find out just what it is about women that makes them so frightened, and particularly what it is about Hillary Clinton. God knows there's plenty of reasons not to vote for her, but her looks, her legs, her cleavage, and whether or not Matthews or Shuster or Scarborough want to fuck her daughter ought not to come into play.

And while we're doing some soul-searching on this, why don't we lay off the Britney suicide watch as well? In fact, let's keep Michael Musto and his snark about these troubled young woman away as well. Because if we're going to start treating women like human beings in the media, let's extend it even to those disturbed young women being devoured in the maw of show business fame as well. Because NO woman, ANYWHERE, is "asking for it."

UPDATE: Imagine my surprise when I found that Amanda, who God knows has first-hand knowledge of what sexism there is in presidential politics, kinda sorta is on the same wavelength as I am.

Labels: Chelsea Clinton, media, MSNBC

Are you having a hard time finding an Information Technology position in the United States? You know the jobs are out there, because you've seen rows and rows of H-1B and L-1 visa holders/IT professionals working diligently as you walk through major operational centers.

As part of my ongoing research I sometimes find some of those difficult-to-find career opportunities.

Ohio-based Comtech Global is currently:

"...under the process of H1B sponsorship for interested candidates and are currently looking for resources in multiple skills listed below. Location:

Experience -2 to 8 years

Required Skills: Java/J2EE, Dot Net, VB.Net, ASP.Net, C,C++, Hyperion Developer, SAN Admin, SAP All Modules , Oracle Apps, Oracle Apps DBA, Oracle DBA, SQL PL/SQL Developer, Oracle Developer, Peoplesoft, Mainframes, JDE , Siebel , Data warehousing , ETL / Informatica , Business Intelligence, Business Objects, Cognos , Teradata, AB Initio, Siebel with I- module, Project Manager, Program Manager, Business Analyst, Systems Engineer, Network Administrator."

See the Indian-based Naukri.com website for more details.

I'm sure it's just an oversight that they forgot to post any openings on U.S. job boards.

Somehow, the locations are listed as being Ahmedabad, Chennai, and Delhi, but companies don't normally look to sponsor H-1B candidates unless they intend to send them to the United States.

If you have any questions, you can call 011-91-9818735043 in India, or (614) 796-1148 in Ohio. I'm sure you will be heartily congratulated for being pro-active in your career search.

In all truthfulness, U.S. companies are not required to look for Americans first before bringing in candidates from overseas, as explained in this still-relevant 2003 fact sheet written by Kim Berry that I just found.

(Cross-posted at Carrie's Nation.)

Labels: employment, H-1Bs, Information technology

Because of a rather nasty "food fight" going on in one of my posts, I have for the time being turned comment moderation on. As soon as things calm down, I'll open things back up again. For now, please bear with me as I'll be moderating all comments. Thanks for your patience.

Holy shit:

Today, more than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does—and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials. In return, they provide information to the government, which alarms the ACLU. But there may be more to it than that. One business executive, who showed me his InfraGard card, told me they have permission to “shoot to kill” in the event of martial law.
InfraGard is “a child of the FBI,” says Michael Hershman, the chairman of the advisory board of the InfraGard National Members Alliance and CEO of the Fairfax Group, an international consulting firm.

FBI Director Robert Mueller addressed an InfraGard convention on August 9, 2005. At that time, the group had less than half as many members as it does today. “To date, there are more than 11,000 members of InfraGard,” he said. “From our perspective that amounts to 11,000 contacts . . . and 11,000 partners in our mission to protect America.” He added a little later, “Those of you in the private sector are the first line of defense.”

He urged InfraGard members to contact the FBI if they “note suspicious activity or an unusual event.” And he said they could sic the FBI on “disgruntled employees who will use knowledge gained on the job against their employers.”

In an interview with InfraGard after the conference, which is featured prominently on the InfraGard members’ website, Mueller says: “It’s a great program.”

The ACLU is not so sanguine.

“There is evidence that InfraGard may be closer to a corporate TIPS program, turning private-sector corporations—some of which may be in a position to observe the activities of millions of individual customers—into surrogate eyes and ears for the FBI,” the ACLU warned in its August 2004 report The Surveillance-Industrial Complex: How the American Government Is Conscripting Businesses and Individuals in the Construction of a Surveillance Society.

InfraGard is not readily accessible to the general public. Its communications with the FBI and Homeland Security are beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act under the “trade secrets” exemption, its website says. And any conversation with the public or the media is supposed to be carefully rehearsed.

“The interests of InfraGard must be protected whenever presented to non-InfraGard members,” the website states. “During interviews with members of the press, controlling the image of InfraGard being presented can be difficult. Proper preparation for the interview will minimize the risk of embarrassment. . . . The InfraGard leadership and the local FBI representative should review the submitted questions, agree on the predilection of the answers, and identify the appropriate interviewee. . . . Tailor answers to the expected audience. . . . Questions concerning sensitive information should be avoided.”

One of the advantages of InfraGard, according to its leading members, is that the FBI gives them a heads-up on a secure portal about any threatening information related to infrastructure disruption or terrorism.

The InfraGard website advertises this. In its list of benefits of joining InfraGard, it states: “Gain access to an FBI secure communication network complete with VPN encrypted website, webmail, listservs, message boards, and much more.”

InfraGard members receive “almost daily updates” on threats “emanating from both domestic sources and overseas,” Hershman says.

“We get very easy access to secure information that only goes to InfraGard members,” Schneck says. “People are happy to be in the know.”

[snip]

On May 9, 2007, George Bush issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 entitled “National Continuity Policy.” In it, he instructed the Secretary of Homeland Security to coordinate with “private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.”

Asked if the InfraGard National Members Alliance was involved with these plans, Schneck said it was “not directly participating at this point.” Hershman, chairman of the group’s advisory board, however, said that it was.

InfraGard members, sometimes hundreds at a time, have been used in “national emergency preparation drills,” Schneck acknowledges.

“In case something happens, everybody is ready,” says Norm Arendt, the head of the Madison, Wisconsin, chapter of InfraGard, and the safety director for the consulting firm Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. “There’s been lots of discussions about what happens under an emergency.”

One business owner in the United States tells me that InfraGard members are being advised on how to prepare for a martial law situation—and what their role might be. He showed me his InfraGard card, with his name and e-mail address on the front, along with the InfraGard logo and its slogan, “Partnership for Protection.” On the back of the card were the emergency numbers that Schneck mentioned.

I think we ought to ask Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton what they think of this.

(h/t)

Labels: corporatism, fascism, police state, WTF

Yesterday Randi Rhodes had a caller that made me want to stick an icepick in my forehead. Given that Randi has been known to descent into screaming at far lesser offenders, her patience with this woman was inexplicable.

The woman's premise was that because black people got the vote before women did, that a woman should be elected president before a black man.

When I was in high school in Westfield, New Jersey in the early 1970's, there was a certain breed of white, middle to upper-middle class woman that either ran or went to "consciousness raising" groups. Most of these women either had husbands with good jobs, or ex-husbands with good jobs along with generous support payments. These were not the waitresses at the Lido Diner out on Route 22; these were women in big early 20th century center-hall colonials who never once worried how to pay the bills. And these were the women who gave the National Organization for Women a bad name.

Between the New York State chapter of NOW issuing a statement that Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama was "the greatest betrayal" and Gloria Steinem's preposterous claim in a recent New York Times op-ed piece that "Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life", it is evident, over thirty years after the women's movement started, that the movement is still about the concerns of white middle class women.

That we have two "firsts" running on the Democratic side made all this "Who suffered more" nonsense inevitable. But just as we saw with the schism between black Americans and Jewish Americans in the aftermath of the Crown Heights riots of 1991, we're now seeing identity politics deteriorate once again into a question of relative degrees of group suffering.

I don't know what this thing is that we have in America about ranking everything by degree. Perhaps it's our obsession with team sports and standings. But one of the reasons we are unable to even mention possible differences between men and women and between races, is because we have this need to rank everything. And since white guys decide the relative merits of assets and liabilities, the things that white guys do well will always rank higher than the things at which other groups might excel.

But when this unfortunate tendency of ours makes an affluent white woman like Gloria Steinem, or like Randi Rhodes' caller, claim that white women like her are more beleaguered than people whose sons are pulled over by police more often than white men, who are steered towards specific neighborhoods when they buy a house, and who are overrepresented in America's prisons, the notion that women somehow have a patent on suffering becomes ridiculous.

After the Crown Hights riots, I found myself thinking of Michael Schwerner, James Chaney, and Andrew Goodman -- two Jewish guys and a black guy -- civil rights workers who had worked together in common cause until they were murdered by bigots in Mississippi in 1964. And I wondered what on earth had brought us to this point, where we had this argument about which was worse: slavery or the Holocaust -- as if bragging rights to suffering was at stake, instead of slavery and the Holocaust being more alike than different. And so today, as we have the first viable black candidate and the first viable woman candidate running for president, we have callers like Randi Rhodes' caller yesterday trying to find some way to justify voting for their candidate by trying to create exclusive rights to suffering.

Many young progressive women are finding themselves in a conundrum about whom to support. To vote for Hillary Clinton may seem somehow inconsistent with progressivism, while voting for Barack Obama may seem inconsistent with feminism.

I have a suggestion: Why not take a look at their policy differences, however small they may be. Then decide which of those differences are most important -- yes, rank them if you must -- and make your decision that way? After all, isn't what we want a society free of gender and racial bias? Then why not start here?

He doesn't write about politics much (perhaps that's why he's more cheerful than I am), but when he does, he nails it:

Over at Modern Fabulousity Unlimited, I linked to an article today quoting the White House press office, where they are now arguing the unthinkable -- that waterboarding, an extreme, inhuman and brutal act of torture, is perfectly legal and just fine to perpetrate. And with that, Bush finishes the transformation of the United States from the land where freedom and liberty were intrinsic, into a craven nation willing to abuse people, deny humanity, and torture. We have, at last, become the monster we used to combat. We are the tormentors. We are the enemy of civilization. We are the ones using terror for our own political ends...and that, my friends, makes us terrorists, in the clearest definition of the word.

I am tearing up as I write this. It hurts me deeply to say these words and recognize their truth. I am soulfully sad at our nation's sorry, desperate state; we have, in the last eight years, lost our integrity and our goodness. Or rather, our leaders have, but the American people are complicit, because we are not demanding those leaders adhere to our values. We are abdicating our responsibility as citizens of the world, and we will pay a heavy price for that.

THIS is why I am voting for Barack Obama. Not for any other reason. Because I need America to change direction in a fundamental, serious, and substantial way. America is broken, and it will take someone very, very different to fix it. If even he can.

But hey, Sen. Obama, no pressure.

Sometimes I think the biggest mistake that the Democratic Party has made over the last seven years (and it's hard to come up with many things the party has done right) is to allow Republicans to redefine patriotism as blind obeisance to authority, unquestioning support of a president's actions, advocacy of unchecked bellicosity in the name of national security, and support for endless war without care of the effects of that war on the men and women who fight it.

After seven years of a president who regards the Constitution as "just a goddamn piece of paper", it would be nice if we had one who recognizes that this country didn't used to be about fear and loathing and could somehow manage to undo the mess that this president has created.

Labels: bloggers

In 1968, we had a Democratic presidential candidate, the sitting vice-president to the president that had escalated the Vietnam war, running against two antiwar candidates. After Lyndon Johnson was defeated by Eugene McCarthy in New Hampshire and withdrew from re-election consideration, Vice President Hubert Humphrey declared his candidacy, running against McCarthy and Robert Kennedy. Kennedy was assassinated after the California primary, while Humphrey disdained the primaries altogether, choosing instead to focus on winning delegates in states that did not have primaries. In those states, party bosses chose the delegates.

For forty years, there's been much speculation as to whether Bobby Kennedy would have been able to wrest the nomination away from Humphrey, as a kind of insider/outsider. But in 1968, the antiwar movement still hadn't progressed much beyond the young, and with the power of the nomination still largely in the hands of the party bosses, an insurgent candidacy had little chance. So Hubert Humphrey became the nominee, with the albatross of Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam record hanging around his neck, and lost to Richard Nixon in a close election by only about a half-million votes.

Of course on the way to becoming the nominee, we had the 1968 Democratic Convention as we remember it, with kids protesting outside and Chicago cops busting their heads, while inside party bosses chose the Democratic nominee.

At this convention, George McGovern, who would become the 1972 nominee, headed a commission to change the way delegates were chosen, creating today's primary system in which delegates were to be chosen by the people, minimizing the impact of party bosses and Washington insiders. After the 1980 election, however, the superdelegate structure that's causing us trouble today was implemented to counter some of these reforms. The reason was to avoid the nomination of another George McGovern -- a "fringe" candidate popular among the party base but too far to the left (or in the case of the Republicans, who adopted similar rules, the right) to win a general election.

According to WaPo's Paul Kane, there is now no way that either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton can win the Democratic nomination without winning a majority of the superdelegates:

Here's the math. There are 3,253 pledged delegates, those doled out based on actual voting in primaries and caucuses. And you need 2,025 to win the nomination.

To date, about 55% of those 3,253 delegates have been pledged in the voting process -- with Clinton and Obamb roughly splitting them at about 900 delegates a piece.

That means there are now only about 1,400 delegates left up for grabs in the remaining states and territories voting.

So, do the math. If they both have about 900 pledged delegates so far, they need to win more than 1,100 of the remaining 1,400 delegates to win the nomination through actual voting.

Ain't gonna happen, barring a stunning scandal or some new crazy revelation. So, they'll keep fighting this thing out, each accumulating their chunk of delegates, one of them holding a slight edge and bothing finishing the voting process with 1,600 or so delegates.

And then the super delegates decide this thing.

That's the math.

And guess who has more pledged superdelegates. Guess who's more entrenched with the party bosses, governors, Congresscritters, and state legislators who compose the superdelegates?

(Hint: It isn't Barack Obama.)

It's a fool's game to believe that Republicans, despite the current hue and cry by right-wing talk show hosts and Regnery press authors, they absolutely, positively will not support John McCain for the presidency. It's foolish to assume that the Democrats have this thing locked up. It is in the nature of Republicans to obey authority, and if the standard bearer of their party is John McCain, they'll show up. They'll show up for the very reason Mitt Romney used as his excuse for withdrawing yesterday -- because they believe down to their very toenails that to allow a Democrat to be elected president is to "surrender to terrorists."

These days, polls show Barack Obama to be a more formidable opponent against John McCain than Hillary Clinton. And yet, if we look at the cold, hard math, it is Hillary Clinton, by virtue of her experience in the White House and relative seniority in the Senate, who is going to lead in the superdelegate count.

So here we are once again, in which a candidate whose appeal comes from the party base and young people, is up against an entrenched Washington insider (for all that said insider was regarded by people like Sally Quinn as an arriviste just a decade and a half ago.)

Young Obama supporters who bemoan the fact that the protesters of 1968 were unable to effect lasting change are going to get one serious wakeup call this summer. When they (and the rest of us) watch people like NJ Senator Bob Menendez, who stated quite openly to Chris Matthews on Tuesday, that no matter who voters in his state selected, he was pledged to Hillary Clinton lo unto eternity, give Hillary Clinton the nomination even though she is more likely to lose to John McCain, they will get their first taste of just how mind-boggingly difficult is to not just crash the gates, but also to hide all the tools, nails, and lumber so that the hacks can't come up behind us and rebuild the gates as fast as we can crash them.

Obama's campaign is quite aware of the uphill battle the candidate faces:

Barack Obama's advisers are anticipating the possibility of a Democratic presidential race deadlocked past the last primary, and the outcome may hinge on a fight over whether delegations from Florida and Michigan get seats at the party's national convention in Denver.

One scenario prepared for the Illinois senator's campaign and released inadvertently yesterday with another document projects Obama will end up in June with 1,806 of the delegates who select the party's nominee to 1,789 for New York Senator Hillary Clinton. That is short of the number needed to win the nomination.

Obama, speaking with reporters traveling to Omaha on his campaign plane, said he hadn't seen the document. ``I think it's going to be close,'' he said of the nomination battle. ``Down to the wire.''

A candidate needs half of the total delegates plus one. Right now, that figure is 2,025. Any additional convention delegates would raise the amount needed to win nomination.

The Obama forecast doesn't include Florida and Michigan, which were stripped of delegates by the Democratic National Committee for holding early primaries. Clinton won both uncontested and is vowing to fight for those delegates -- which were slated to be a total of 366 -- to be seated when the nominating convention opens on Aug. 25.

``This is only one of an infinite number of scenarios,'' Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said. He added that the information was released unintentionally.

Moreover, any scenario could be altered with changing circumstances or conditions.

Another issue is the so-called super delegates, 796 Democratic officials and officeholders who aren't bound by the results of primaries and caucuses. Obama's campaign forecast projects less than half will be pledged to either Obama or Clinton. The rest could swing the nomination.

After a year of campaigning and 26 contested primaries and caucuses since January, Obama and Clinton have essentially battled to a draw. The Feb. 5 Super Tuesday voting in 22 states across the country left the two candidates separated by less than 30 delegates.

Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer didn't respond to an e-mail requesting comment.

Barack Obama, like Howard Dean in 2004, has brought people into the process who don't usually participate. Young voters and African-Americans could very well provide the winning margin this fall. But what do you think happens when these voters -- African-Americans once again and young voters for perhaps the first time -- are told that what they think doesn't matter; what they want doesn't matter? Will there be marches and protests such as we had in 1968? Will these people be able to effect change that the protesters of 1968 could not? Or will the idealism, like it was with so many people 40 years ago, be tamped down into nothingness in the face of a system of entrenched interests that no longer believes it's accountable to the people?

The hideous irony of all this, of course, is that the two faces of this repeat of history are candidates that could never have been considered as viable presidential candidates in 1968. Some might say that's progress. But what progress is there when the party seems to deliberately set out to lose?

Labels: 2008 election, Democrats

(Tip o' the tinfoil hat to Bob Jellison and his Direct Newsletter. Otherwise I would’ve missed this.)

What would you call an Indian-owned government contractor that just got awarded a contract that could swell to up to $74 million plus a 5% incentive program for being owned by Native Americans?

In a word, “disadvantaged.”

Now, what would you call it when that same company, twelve days later, got slapped on the wrist by the DOJ to the tune of two million dollars for cheating the troops on Kevlar for their helmets?

In a word, “Fraud.”

Now, what would you call it when the manufacturer, Sioux Manufacturing (SMC, whose company logo resembles a jackass who just pissed off Zeus) fires the two whistleblowers for secretly recording conversations that prove their case?

In a word, “Coverup.”

In light of the Justice Department extracting two million dollars that will just go back into the national treasury to be put back into the pockets of assholes like Sioux and David "Fitty Cent" Brooks (who, you may recall, was recently arrested and charged with conspiracy, securities fraud, insider trading, tax evasion, and obstruction of justice, although not for making shitty armor that the DoD forced the troops to wear instead of the superior Dragonskin armor on pain of losing their death benefits), the DOJ that had been investigating Sioux since last August basically guaranteed that the helmet reinforcement manufacturer still made a $72 million profit on their shoddy product.

To add insult to quite possibly fatal injury, US Attorney Drew Wrigley, who covers North Dakota, called this an “appropriate settlement.”

Well, isn’t that nice? As long as Uncle Sam gets a kickback on an already bloated contract, then who cares if troops get killed? Besides, the Pentagon pointedly makes a point of not compiling such statistics just as our government refuses to compile stats on journalists and other civilians killed in war zones such as Iraq. And, with this Republican government, lack of evidence plus an unverified, undocumented sampling of 200 helmets at random passing muster equates with innocence.

All the same, the government announced that it’s just now begun inspections of said shoddy product. Gee, not a moment too soon. So, how is this contractor guilty of fraud? Well, companies like Sioux add Kevlar armor reinforcement to helmets or pasgts (Pronounced pass-get, for Personal Armor System for Ground Troops). To ensure that it meets DoD safety standards, the weave must meet a 35 by 35 strand standard. The whistleblowers, Jeff Kenner and Tamra Elshaug, said they’d gathered evidence that the weave was as low as 32 and that the weave count was massaged and rounded off so it would look as if the count averaged out to 35 strands. But what about the lighter cumulative weight? You can't massage that without outright putting your thumb on the scale.

Well, Sioux has a solution for that, too. In order to compensate for the lower weight of the reduced thread count (they had an unexpected surplus of 30,000 pounds of Kevlar), they made up the missing weight by using more resin, which is used to glue the armor in and isn’t, to mine or anyone else’s knowledge, bulletproof (the company has an equally unexplained shortage of resin).

So what about the two million dollar judgment? Well, that also is not indicative of guilt, says the company’s president, Carl R. McKay (Didn’t Michael Jackson make a similar statement when he’d awarded a multi-million dollar judgment to a "disgruntled" family?). McKay had also blown off the two terminated whistleblowers by poo-poohing “any and all of the allegations originally brought to the attention of the Department of Justice by disgruntled ex-employees.” (Of course, what McKay neglects to remind the press is that they’re “disgruntled ex-employees” because he fired them for telling the truth about his cheapness and treachery.)

In other words, we’re supposed to believe that companies that get $74 million contracts routinely hand out two million dollar judgments to “disgruntled ex-employees” who make irresponsible allegations of fraud because it’s “a prudent business decision.”

So does that mean I can sue Blackwater USA for dozens of wrongful deaths or Halliburton for bilking the taxpayer for fuel distribution costs and get millions so Eric Prince and Dick Cheney can save money on a lawsuit?

I’ll bottom-line it for you: A defense department contractor that’d been investigated by the Justice Department since August ’06 got a $74 million contract less than two weeks before getting a two million dollar “tut tut”. The same DoD carried out an unverified field test testifying to the high quality of the product even though they deliberately do not keep records of casualties involving penetrated helmets. The manufacturer in question is cheating the troops of armor and is picking up the slack by sticking more glue in their helmets. The only people in the company who care about this get fired for telling the truth despite getting excellent performance reviews.

We the taxpayer pay the price to investigate this fraudster that obviously doesn’t give a shit about the troops and the Republican US Attorney who’d “prosecuted” the case is “satisfied” that justice was served.

Now, remind me again why not a single person has bothered asking any of the presidential candidates what they’re going to do regarding crooked defense contractors who pull shit like this at the expense of the safety of our troops?

This morning I was going to write about this article in the New York Times, complete with appalling photo, about how the new ideal for male models is, sort of the way it's been for females for the last two decades, the body of a 12-year-old boy -- only without the huge pneumatic fake tits that female models seem to have to have to go with their emaciated bodies. But I overslept (till =tokke= 5:50 AM!) and wanted to make sure to repost Monkeyfister's release about where to donate to help those affected by Tuesday night's storms and still have time for yoga before heading off to work (because unlike He Who Must Not Be Named, I work a job where I have to be someplace that is not home between 9 and 5).

But there's no point, because Kate has already said everything that needs to be said about it.

Labels: bloggers, weight

On a day in which most bloggers are asking our readers to donate to help those who lost everything in Tuesday night's storms, He Who Must Not Be Named is asking you to giv HIM some turkee:

Blogging Is Hard Work

Sort of anyway. It does take a lot of time. One time consuming part of the "job" which I left off the original fundraising post is dealing with the community. While the comments section has largely become a world in and of itself, it still takes up quite a bit of my time. People regularly question whether I read the comments, and the answer is that I do read most of them. I don't get up in the morning and see what I missed overnight, but generally throughout the day I keep track of what's being said.

While I don't do active moderation, I do try to gently nudge things one way or another at times and of course there are posts which need to be zapped fairly frequently, which I do if I see them. And when the kids squabble people sometimes email Dad to step in to stop the fighting.

But, admittedly, mostly I read the comments because they're fun, informative, and entertaining. Commenters provide a check on me when I write something stupid, and of course provide me with lots of material which I liberally borrow and steal. While it's an incredibly time consuming part of what I do, it's also the most rewarding. If not for comments I would've gotten bored with this blogging stuff a long time ago. Not really sure why bloggers without comments bother.

Thanks to all who have contributed to FEBRUARY FUNTASTIC FUNDRAISING so far. People have been very generous. The soft push will continue until my birthday, when there will be cake, and then the begging bowl will go back into hibernation for a long time. Haven't yet taken in as much as Obama has, but it's not over yet!

As for OUR readers HERE?

You know what to do.

Labels: bloggers, Midwest storms

On Tuesday night, I was over at Hoffmania's Super Tuesday chat, where Monkeyfister was popping in from Memphis every now and then -- as electrical power permitted -- just to let everyone know he was all right, living as he does in the heart of the area hit by Tuesday's ferocious and unseasonal tornadoes. It was a rare first-hand glimpse for those of us living in states not ordinarily affected by tornadoes of the terror these storms cause in those who live in the Midwest.

While the so-called president is offering prayers instead of real, concrete help (because God forbid Blackwater should sacrifice a few dollars to Americans whose homes have been destroyed, it's up to the rest of us to prove that what Barack Obama said in 2004 was right -- that we are not red states and blue states, that we are all Americans, and while we may at times be a dysfunctional family, we are part of the American family. And just as we reached out to the people of New Orleans, it's time to reach out to the people of Tennessee and environs who lost their homes and loved ones.

I'll let MF tell you how you can help:

Whilst we're waiting for George's Promised Prayers to roll in, down here in the Tornado-Stricken Mid-South, I might recommend some DIRECT HUMAN INTERACTION.

This Is My Best First Start To Help My Region.

As Scout Prime is to NOLA, I am, suddenly, to the Mid-South area (I LIVE here, and was Live-Blogging these horrible storms all night), and have started to get the help-ball rolling down here. Some of you know where I work. I started a Food Drive there today for the Mid-South United Way Food Bank.

As the area affected is so broad and detached, and everyone in the Country was distracted by politics last night, as yet, there is no central assistance hub set-up. So, at the link, above, you'll find the two agencies with the broadest radius to help the area right now. Both take DIRECT donations.

A small-blog swarm on that post (or this comment) would be greatly appreciated by more people than just me. I can't describe how wide-spread the damage is down here. It's enormous. The Media, per usual, is only just now waking up to the situation, after their Super-Duper-Let's-All-Wet-Our-Pants-Together- Tuesday Political Hangover. Like NOLA, these are REALLY poor folks down here, and have nothing, and nowhere to go.

A short post about this at YOUR Blog, linking either to my post, above, or directly to the two Orgs mentioned in the post above, would sure be a big help, and would be greatly appreciated by many people who are relying on help. They are all that we have right now.

I just donated a deer's worth of ground venison, along with the 100 pounds of rice and quart-sized ziplock bags that they said that they needed at the United Way Mid-South Food Bank, when I phoned them this morning. Their pantry is BARE, and I'll be loading them up with all the potatoes, rice, veggies, bags, and other staples that I can fit in my truck tomorrow.

This is serious Red State country, and a flood of help from the DFH Left would REALLY make a big difference in a number of good ways.

I thank you all in advance.

Click Here for more about what's going on down here. It's all that I am writing about right now. Help is needed.

Your humble peer,

Monkeyfister

So please....kick in what you can, and if you have a blog, please join the blogswarm and show your fellow Americans, some of whom may only hear about us when talk radio talks about those mean and irresponsible bloggers, what we can do as a group.

MF will be providing regular updates, so for the straight story about what's going on in the aftermath of these terrible storms, this is where to go. and if you'd like to see what this storm looked like first hand, go here.

Labels: bloggers, Midwest storms

Because every moment counts....



RIPCoco

Labels: Iraq War

With all the excitement about Super Tuesday, it's easy to forget the kind of havoc George W. Bush is still wreaking, and it's important to keep on the case, especially since John McCain is clearly planning to serve Bush's third term.

Welcome to the sixteenth century: Cernig reminds us how George W. Bush has effectively stripped Congress of its fiduciary responsibility and powers.

Hubris Sonic reminds us that George W. Bush personally signed off on the waterboarding of three al-Qaeda detainees. But of course we do not torture. It's too late to impeach, but can we at least get a cataloguing of the pathological lies of this lying liar before he leaves the White House?

Larisa Alexandrovna notes that the White House is putting the squeeze on CBS to shitcan its exposé on how Don Siegelman was railroaded by the U.S. Justice Department as political revenge.

William K. Wolfrum on just one of the lovely legacies George W. Bush will leave the next president.

And on an unrelated note, Pierre Tristam not only does a great analysis of why liberalism is no longer a dirty word, but includes John Edwards in the troika of candidates who have made it so.

Labels: bloggers

Timmeh, Joe, and Pat are tubthumping big-time for McCain this morning. Expect more of this theme, ever-escalating, until November. It's as if Barack Obama no longer exists.

The cocktail weenie-eaters of the Beltway want the Clinton/McCain matchup, and they're bound and determined to get it. The question is whether Americans will do their bidding or think for themselves.

Labels: hack journalism

It says something very good about this country that Barack Obama had such a strong showing in states where the black vote wasn't a huge factor. Idaho (75%), Kansas (73%), North Dakota (65%), and Utah (57%) all went for Obama by significant margins. Imagine that -- Idaho: the land of the black helicopter/milita/tax protestors went 75% for Obama. Of course, these are the guys who were active during the first Clinton administration and then disappeared the minute a REAL threat to the Constitution took office, so some of this may be attributable to Clinton hatred. But whatever the reason, Barack Obama showed so strongly in those states that the "screw the south, win the west" strategy that many Democrats advocate would be far more likely to come to fruition with Obama as the nominee.

The problem is that the Democratic hackocracy may very well prevent that from happening by the difference in the number of superdelegates. Last night, NJ Sen. Bob Menendez, in true My Party Comes First fashion, tried to avoid the question, but ultimately made clear that his commitment to Hillary Clinton took priority over anything the voters might want.

The media have a vested interest in a Hillary Clinton nomination, for prurient, "great copy" reasons, because she's the more corporate-friendly of the two, and because she's virtually guaranteed to lose to a Republican, especially if that Republican is John McCain. So there was this narrative last night about Hillary Clinton's "upsets" in Massachusetts and California, when Massachusetts had been solidly in Hillary Clinton's camp since the beginning, and pre-Super Tuesday polls for California had been all over the lot. No doubt the simpletons in the media, accustomed as they are to the sheeplike tendencies of Republicans to play Follow the Leader, thought that the Kennedy endorsements would tip Massachusetts over to the Obama camp. But if Republicans are like herding sheep, Democrats are like herding cats, and the Kennedy endorsements added at most a few percentage points to Obama's total.

Joe Sudbay weighs in on what this means for Hillary Clinton:

Obama won 13 states to Clinton's 8 victories (New Mexico is still to be decided). Obama will probably end up winning a few more delegates tonight than Hillary. NBC's Chuck Todd predicted Obama will secure 841 delegates to Clinton's 837 delegates. Almost a split decision, but he's still ahead.

Worse for Hillary, Obama has the momentum, and has for some time. Stretching out the calendar only helps Obama. He has been steadily catching up to Hillary in state after state, poll after poll -- that's why so many of today's states were actually in play tonight, when most weren't just a couple weeks ago. He has more money than Hillary. And after tonight, even more money will pour into the Obama campaign. Obama outraised Clinton by almost 3 to 1 in January. And the upcoming election calendar favors Obama. There are several caucuses this weekend, including Washington and Maine. Next week is the so-called Chesapeake primary (DC, MD and VA). Obama is expected to do well in all of them. Hillary Clinton had some big wins tonight to be sure -- but they were in states she was always expected to win. As Markos noted tonight: "She didn't exceed expectations anywhere. She lost states she led big in just a few weeks ago." (Hillary was recently ahead in Connecticut, Missouri, Georgia, Alabama and Minnesota, and then lost them all today. And she won California and Massachusetts, but she was always ahead in those states (see CA and MA).) And in any case, she failed to deal Obama a knock-out blow. Even worse, she lost to him in terms of the number of states won, and it looks like she may lose to him in terms of total delegates won.

As with every campaign, we have to deal with the reality of where things stand today. But, sometimes it does help to take a step back. Obama was practically unknown as a serious contender a year ago. He was running against the vaunted, inevitable Clinton machine. Last year, it was the conventional wisdom, we all agreed, that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee and the race would be wrapped up on Super Tuesday. That didn't happen. Her aura of invincibility is gone. Her inevitability is gone. She's now having to accept debates on Fox News (something she swore off of last year) in the hopes of generating momentum and getting some free air time (because she can't afford much more paid media). That says she's worried. As did her claim of victory in Florida last week, a non-primary where no one campaigned (well, almost no one) and where there were no delegates at stake.

A situation is evolving in which these two candidates could be neck-and-neck going into the convention -- and a bunch of politicians could tip the balance towards Hillary Clinton. I don't know about your state, but here in New Jersey, home of the hackiest of party hacks, the 12 of 18 superdelegates pledged to Hillary Clinton are apparatchiks like Gov. Jon Corzine, Sen. Robert Menendez, Rep. Robert Andrews, Rep. Frank Pallone, Rep. Bill Pascrell, and DNC state chair Joe Cryan. Only Rep. Steve Rothman is pledged to Barack Obama. So unless something unusual happens before the convention, we may very well have a situation in which party hacks decide the nominee even more than usual.

If the voters choose Hillary Clinton, that's one thing. But given the transformational nature of this year's Democratic campaign, to have the Old White Men of the party decide the nominee would leave a bad taste in the mouths of many Democratic voters. Let's just hope it doesn't come to that. Meanwhile, it will be interesting to monitor whether the media coverage of these candidates changes over the next few weeks before the next primaries.

Overall, though, this was a huge night for Barack Obama. That he won so many states not usually associated with black voters should dispel the "Can he get white voters?" concerns. That his victories took place all over the country indicate that he's a true national candidate.

(Note: The New York Times has a great results map here.)

Labels: Barack Obama, Super Tuesday

Obama takes Georgia with 63% of the vote to Clinton’s 34%. Huckabee edged out McCain 35-32%, with Romney third at 29%. Both Democratic and Republican results are based on exit polling after roughly 80% of the precincts have reported.

In Oklahoma with 90% of the precincts reporting, Clinton won with 55% of the vote compared to Obama’s 30%. On the GOP side, McCain won with 38% of the vote, with Huckabee trailing at 33%, with Romney, once again, finishing a distant third with 24%.

In 76% of the results in in Tennessee, Clinton once again won big with 59% of the vote, with Obama finishing a bad second with 35%. Huckabee is edging out Sen. McCain 34-32%, with Romney once again bringing up the rear of the Big Three with 23%.

In my home state of Massachusetts, Hillary won with 56% of the vote with Obama finishing a respectable second with 41% with 71% of precincts reporting. Former Governor Romney, as expected, won the Republican vote with a 51%-41% margin over McCain mainly on the strength of his saddling us with a hostile and useless health care plan and owning a mansion in Belmont.

With 76% of precincts reporting, Obama is in a dogfight in Connecticut with Hillary Clinton 50% to 47%. Buoyed with Lieberman’s support, McCain is beating Romney big time with 52% compared to Romney’s 33%.

Alabama has gone for Obama with the support of 56% of Democratic voters while Hillary trails with 41%. Mike Huckabee also has 41% but still leads McCain, who has 38%, with Romney showing with a dismal 17%.

Perhaps riding on the tristate coattails, Hillary Clinton is winning in New Jersey by an estimated 10% differential, leading Obama 54-44%. McCain has doubled his lead over Romney, winning 56% to 28%, with Huckabee third with just over half the polls reporting.

As expected, even though neither Democrat had campaigned there, Barack Obama came up big, beating Hillary Clinton on her own home turf of Illinois 65-33% with 64% of polls responding. Obviously, Senator Obama is relying largely but not exclusively on the African American vote, with 98% of black voters 45-59 and 93% of black voters aged 30-44 going for Obama. However, what’s interesting is that Obama also enjoys overwhelming support among white voters of all ages as well as Hispanic voters (59%), showing that he can generate mass appeal across racial and age demographics. Obama also got 70% of the exit polled female vote. McCain is handily defeating Mitt Romney 48-28% with 65% of the polls reporting.

In Missouri, Clinton hangs on to a 53-44% margin over Obama while Huckabee is edging out McCain 35-32%, with Romney, as usual, bringing up the rear at 27%. 65% of the polls have reported.

Little Delaware with its three electoral votes is also going for Obama, who leads Clinton 53-43%, while McCain leads Romney 45-33%.

“Oh, Hillary used to live here for a few years and sat on Wal-Mart’s board at Bentonville for six years helping to bust our unions. I suppose we ought to vote for her.” Arkansas Democratic voters gave Hillary a whopping 72% of the vote, her biggest win, while Obama got a miserable quarter of the vote. Hardly more surprisingly, former governor Huckabee grabbed 61% of the vote while McCain could only eke out 20% with Romney (you guessed it), bringing up the rear yet again with 13%.

As you can expect, John McCain fared much better in his home state of Arizona, getting 49% of the Republican vote with Romney getting 13%. Huckabee is getting no western hospitality with a mere 9%. Clinton is projected to win 51% to Obama’s 39% but only a third of the polls have closed.

65-34% is Obama’s margin of victory over Hillary Clinton in Colorado but only 21% of the polls have reported. With only 5% in, Mitt Romney’s beating McCain 46-27%, so that could change as the night wears on.

What is up with Kansas? Well, its Democratic caucus is showing a lot of love for Obama, giving him 73% of the Democratic vote while giving Hillary only 27%. The Republican caucus won’t be until February 9th.

Sucking up to the memory of Paul Wellstone last year to Minnesota dairy farmers didn’t help Hillary because she trails Obama big time 34-65%, with 47% of the polls reporting in. On the Republican side, Romney’s winning with 40%, while McCain and Huckabee are tied in a dead heat for second with about 22% each. Ron Paul made a surprisingly strong showing with 16% of the vote.

None of New Mexico’s polls have closed. The GOP primary is June 3rd.

The surprise isn’t that NY Senator Hillary Clinton is winning in her latest home state of New York: It’s that she’s only beating Obama 57-40%. McCain creamed Romney 51-28% with almost all precincts reporting.

With almost half of Idaho’s polls reporting, Barack Obama won big over Clinton 72-24% in their caucus. The Idaho GOP primary will be on May 27th.

Likewise, Obama’s winning big in another Big White North state, leading Clinton in North Dakota’s caucus by a 61-37% difference. Romney is projected to win on the Republican side with 36%, with McCain a distant second at 23%, with Ron Paul, as in Minnesota, also running a strong third at 21% and Huckabee bringing up the rear at 20%. All polls have closed.

In Utah, Clinton’s in a dogfight with Obama, leading 46%-40% with only 6% reporting. And, surprise, surprise, look who’s leading on the Republican side with 86% of the vote. Never would’ve guessed it.

California’s polls have just closed less than a half hour ago but so far Hillary Clinton’s pulled out to an early 57-33% lead over Obama but with 99% of the polls not reporting that could change in a big hurry, especially with heavily black urban areas not weighing in. McCain’s so far has a 48-23% lead over Romney with Huckabee trailing with 11%.

Alaska’s polls have yet to close for their caucus.

Bottom line: McCain is kicking Romney’s ass around and it could be said that Huckabee’s having an even better night than the vinyl game show host.

It’s a nationwide dogfight between Hillary and Obama with the edge going to Hillary. But, while McCain’s looking more like the Republican anointed one, things are far from being settled with the Democratic side. In a way, Hillary is doing exactly as Democratic strategists feared: Splitting the party, which ain’t exactly a bad thing. Yet I see Hillary bringing out the Democratic Obama vote moreso than the Republican vote.

The refrain that I keep seeing is that Obama, as per expectations, has extremely strong support among the youngest voters but has the least among older white voters, especially in the south. Hillary and McCain, as one can also expect, is getting the Geritol vote and it may very come out to who gets the most Independent voters.

Massachusetts for instance, which enjoys the reputation of being the bluest of the blue states, has only 37% registered Democrats, 13% Republicans but 50% Independents among our nearly 4,000,000 voters.

Already the people are proving that the pundits don't know jack. Remember all that talk about Obama not being able to attract white voters? Remember all that crap about baby boomers voting for Hillary Clinton because she's "one of their own"? Horsepuckey.

Obama doubled his white support in Georgia at 43%, and of that 43%, a higher percentage were aged 40-59 (49%) than those under 40 (43%).

Oh, this is going to be interesting...

Labels: Super Tuesday

Those of you looking for SupercalifragilisticexpialiTuesday chat can find one over at Hoff's place.

There was less turnout at my polling place this morning for this primary than there usually is for even school elections. Of course, my town is so Republican that the Republicans in charge never even have any opposition, so it's indicative of nothing.

What's happening in your neck of the woods?

Labels: 2008 election, Super Tuesday

(h/t)

Labels: hack journalism, media whores

Fasten your seat belts, folks, it's SupercalifragilisticexpialiTuesday, that bloated day of primaries at the end of which an old man with anger management problems will finally get the all-but-confirmed Republican nomination he's coveted for nearly eight years. It's a nomination he's wanted so badly that he stood by and allowed the campaign of a man who did get it in 2000 to trash his wife and child -- and then stood by that very man as the latter proceeded to destroy everything he touched.

On the Democratic side, the picture is far less clear. Barack Obama has been closing on Hillary Clinton in late polls, and if he has a strong showing today, watch the Democratic race get even nastier than it's been thus far. For me, sitting here in New Jersey, the fact that for the first time in my lifetime, the New Jersey presidential primary actually matters is a mixed blessing at best. John Edwards is still on the ballot, as are Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, but without Edwards having a reasonable shot at reaching the 15% threshold for delegates, to vote for my first choice seems wasted.

The choice between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is not one I anticipate making joyfully. Clinton's campaign seems longer on specifics, even when they're specifics that I don't like and that are politically suicidal, like garnishing the pay of low-wage workers to pay for health insurance. Obama is inspiring, but his insistence on "a new kind of politics" doesn't take into account the way Republicans operate when their power is on the line. Is he really that naïve, or is he just carrying concealed until he can see the whites of their eyes? Barack Obama's is a candidacy of confidence and faith, and my faith these days is somewhat lacking. That's not to say I won't make that leap, because the thought of having to live the Clinton Dramas all over again makes me want to take to my bed, but I wish I could hit that button more joyfully today than I will.

Before the State of the Union address, the inimitable Tweety started rhapsodizing about Condoleeza Rice being mentioned as a potential vice presidential candidate on the Republican side:

OLBERMANN: Let's pick up on the point that I interrupted you at at the start of the hour; the idea that we may have just seen a vice presidential candidate walk in.

MATTHEWS: Condoleeza Rice, despite the difficulties of this foreign policy, including the war which is immensely unpopular -- a very small number of Americans like the war in Iraq or the decision to go to war in Iraq -- Condoleeza Rice has escaped largely unscathed by that. People really like her, she's likeable, and impressive. And I have to think given the ethnic, you know, excitement - let’s call it American excitement about Barack Obama. If he doesn’t make it to the nomination a lot of people on the Republican side might say, well why don’t we try do something to offset that and take advantage of the hope of having an African American at a high level of government.

It's as if presidential politics were a poker game: "I'll take your black guy, and raise you a black WOMAN!"

But I wonder who these people are who "really like her." I'm sure she's charming on the Washington cocktail party circuit, which is no doubt who the "people" are to whom Matthews is referring. I would hope that those Americans who don't nibble cocktail weenies with members of the Bush Administration remember things like this:



Of course the fact that Philip Zelikow was the Administration's mole on the 9/11 commission, charged with making sure the Administration bore no blame in the final report, shouldn't have been news to anyone, despite the news coverage this week of Philip Shenon's new book about the Commission. It also shouldn't shock anyone that, as Shenon describes in the book, "Whatever her job title, Rice seemed uninterested in actually advising the president. Instead, she wanted to be his closest confidante — specifically on foreign policy — and to simply translate his words into action." National Security Advisor as groupie -- yup, that's what we want in a dangerous world -- a vice presidential nominee whose entire record in the previous administration comes from her crush on her boss.

If Condoleeza Rice has emerged unscathed from her record of horrific incompetence, it's because of the media's reluctance to criticize her. But there is no amount of gilt-edging that you can put on this woman that's going to make her pass muster as anything other than a harbinger of the Bush family tentacles extending beyond George W's disastrous presidency and into the next one. I have no doubt that Rice is an intellegent woman. Whether her inexplicable love for the dubious charms of George W. Bush have made her do stupid things, or if it's just misplaced ideology is anyone's guess. But to set her up as some kind of one-upmanship device in the event of a black Democratic nominee is not only the same kind of affirmative action against which Republicans have been ranting for decades, but the worst kind -- the kind that would put a Washington talking head's idea of "ethnic excitement" above the appalling ineptitude of her track record.

Labels: 2008 election, Condoleeza Rice, Republicans

This post today by He Who Must Not Be Named Other Than Calling Him Big Blue is so hysterically funny it stands on its own merit, requiring no snark by me:

I'm not poor. I'm not asking for charity. But this blogging thing takes an immense amount of time, and will take even more as the election season progresses. It's the first thing I do when I wake up in the morning and the last thing I do before I go to bed. Much of the time "blogging" isn't actually writing posts, it's reading the immense amount of email, reading an immense amount of news/other blogs/etc..., corresponding with various people, and various other activities which have become a necessary part of the "job." I wake up to 80 new emails, and if I leave the house for a couple of hours during the day (lunch, an errand or two) I'll come home to 200 more. It's become rather impossible to take a break because a break is simply deferring work.

Keeping this thing running, combined with other related obligations and activities, really is a 14 hour/day 7 day/week thing, and it makes it difficult to do anything else.

I prefer the advertising supported model to the extent that it works, but ad revenues, while not horrible, haven't been stupendous over the last few months either. Doing this blog is fun and rewarding in plenty of ways, but it isn't compatible with doing much else and I do have to keep my financial future in mind.

Anyway, if you're feeling generous consider hitting the paypal button below. If your personal finances are less than stellar, please don't and don't feel guilty about that. If you think this blog is a sucky one, consider throwing some change to a superior blogger instead.

I say we take him at his word Why not take a stroll through our blogroll, pick one of the many superior bloggers therein, and strike a blow against hubris (not to be confused with Hubris Sonic, who is one of those superior bloggers) by donating to one of them instead?

And now I have to get back to my full-time, 9-5 job. Some of us don't have the luxury of spending our entire days reading e-mail.

Labels: bloggers

Gee, has it been a year already since He Who Must Not Be Named Other Than Calling Him Big Blue decided, George W. Bush-like, that he gets a free pass for purging his blogroll of all the unwashed rabble? Well, any excuse for a party, especially in the dead of winter. Call it Blogger Superbowl Weekend, if you like. (Those of you who don't know what all this is about, Skippy explained last year here, and Jon Swift here.)

When this appalling act of self-congratulatory elitism occurred last year, it caused quite an uproar among those of us who toil away day after day without amassing advertising revenue, appearances on CNN or C-SPAN, book contracts, or anything other than the satisfaction of writing and the occasional gratification of e-mail from readers indicating that what we write resonates with them.

It's not that there isn't a place for the big blogs, though I have to admit that I read FDL less than I used to because of their dizzyingly busy redesign that requires too many clicks for too little reward and mindless comments like "Zed!" from people who just want to be part of the Kool Kidz Klub. I read Hullabaloo, Americablog, and Group News Blog daily, and I even check in on Le Grand Orange because occasionally there's a posting there linking to an article I haven't yet found -- amidst all the sniping between advocates of each of the presidential candidates.

But with the Unitary Executive Declaration of Blogroll Amnesty Day last year, the battle lines were clearly drawn -- and not by us. So in the spirit of revolution that the Big Boiz have so clearly lost, those of us on the low end of the pecking order need to help each other. For those of you planning to attend Netroots Nation this summer, there is a possibility that there will be a session for smaller bloggers -- if Melina and I can get the Powers That Be of that august organization to recognize the need for such a thing. And if not, we'll probably thumbtack something to the bulletin board to have an informal one.

But meanwhile, let's have a look at what just a very few the blogs, not all of them political, that are worthy of more attention have to say these days.

Distributorcapny puts Exxon/Mobil's obscene profits into appalling context.

Tata is worth reading every day for her fabulous and fascinating life, adventures in the culinary arts, and the most awesome cats on earth. Lately she's been meditating on Zen and the Art of lasagna rolls -- something to which I can relate as I prepare to make vegetable lasagna for tomorrow's Testosterone Bowl.

Bob Rixon is, like me, disappointed at John Edwards' departure from the presidential race.

I can't believe I just this week discovered Scholars and Rogues. Mike Sheehan discusses how the nomination of Hillary Clinton, win or lose, is a win for the mouthbreathers on the right.

Maya's Granny blogs about everything -- politics, feminism, cultural touchstones, and life in Alaska. Start with her Lessons in Hindsight and click around from there.

If Tata, Tami, DBK have the central New Jersey beat, here in northern New Jersey, local gadflies like Radio Hogan, and the Ridgewood Blog are on the case, while Matt Fretz tries to keep Scott Garrett, the lunatic wingnut representing New Jersey's Fifth District, honest.

No linkasaurus of mine would be complete without a link to my dear blogbrother ModFab, who writes about politics, music, theatre, and everything else that's fabulous.

Metsgrrl is thrilled about the Mets' acquisition of Johan Santana. Being a patient, delayed-gratification sorta gal myself, I'm always leery of trading young pitching for big money guys, so I hope she's right.

No one else spews bile as entertainingly as Jurassicpork, who graces us with his writings occasionally, and of course the Great and Powerful Driftglass (who we can only wish would). JP writes about the "Who hates more, liberals or conservatives" intellectual wars. And Drifty asks Mitt Romney, "Who the hell did you THINK you were dealing with?"

Speaking of ranters, this isn't exactly linking down, but TRex is, in my opinion, far better off on his own. Since I'm feeling cynical and disgusted by the whole political process these days, I want to link to his thoughts on how so-called netroots candidates are very happy to bite the hand that feeds them. Does anyone actually still believe we can change anything?

Those of you who are sick of Christian this and Christian that might find Minstrel Boy's account of asking for vision as interesting as I did.

Nathaniel has some thoughts about the perversity of seemingly everyone in Hollywood glomming publicly onto the corpse of Heath Ledger as if he were their lifelong best bud.

Pierre Tristam has some thoughts on how even the Democrats have forgotten those who need an economic stimulus most (and it isn't those of us who are getting it).

That should keep you out of trouble for a while. If you have a blog, please feel free (unless you are a spammer, in which case your comment will be deleted as soon as I see it) to link in the comments to a post of yours that you particularly want people to read.

Happy Blogroll Amnesty Day, everyone.

And oh yeah -- eff the effing Patriots.

UPDATE: And MORE bloggy goodness:

Losties (the ranks of which I have to admit I am one, having failed utterly in my one-woman crusade to bring ABC to its knees by boycotting last season in protest against The Path to 9/11) will want to read Drifty's piece on how Mitt Romney and John McCain are like Jack and Locke.

Bill in San Diego wants a piece of the action, so check out his take on the Clinton/Obama lovefest the other night.

Found over at Welcome to Pottersville: The most awesomely-titled blog ever: PoliTits. She's upset at John Edwards bowing out too. Good thing she didn't pick this video instead of the Sheryl Crow video she did choose or you'd have to mop me up like a puddle from the floor.

And on the same subject, Leah at CorrenteWire wrote the take on it that I wish I'd written.

I saw this article yesterday and was so appalled I was rendered speechless, which as anyone who knows me knows, is no small feat. So I'm glad Meowser picked it up. So the next time you hear Barack Obama, a guy who never had to count a calorie in his life, talk about the government's role in fighting the so-called obesity epidemic, make sure he's talking about doctors treating overweight people like human beings and better access to fresh foods and fitness facilities that are fat-friendly, and not bullshit like restaurant weigh-ins.

(Bumped to the top until Sunday night)

Labels: bloggers

Labels: football

And drinking too much beer, but that's beside the point:



Laugh now, boys. And then go pray that this isn't ths second coming of Bret Saberhagen.

(h/t: Metsgrrl)

This is really, really good. And I know that the people most energized by Barack Obama's candidacy are the young. But historically, young voters, largely because they're more mobile and sometimes less likely to register, don't always show up at the polls at crunch time. Hopefully this year will be different, assuming Barack Obama can pull this out and become the Democratic nominee.

But it isn't just young people who feel a responsibility to the future. I realize that everyone under 35 wishes that all the baby boomers would just put guns to our heads and die already -- preferably all at once because it would make great television. But you know what, guys? You need us to do this. And this isn't about baby-boomer self-centeredness, you even need our parents to help you do this. You need older Americans because there are still people out there who may not identify themselves as racist but won't vote for a black man because they're afraid of "what the blacks might do if one of theirs gains power." You need us because 51% or 52% or even 55% of the vote isn't going to be enough to stop them from shorting the number of voting machines sent to minority districts. You need us because the media are going to start up the Bash the Democratic Candidate chorus that's going to start up again as soon as we have a nominee running against Saint John McCain, the philanderer, Keating Five veteran, and kisser-up to a man who won by smearing his adopted child. It isn't going to stop an already right-wing Supreme Court from handing another close election to a Republican. It isn't going to stop Republican Secretaries of State from making bogus claims of terrorist threats to shut down transparency in the handling of the votes.

We've been down this road many, many times. And while a lot of us have become cynical about the process, we know that we have no choice but to continue to play the game. Jack Shepherd on Lost is often a sanctimonious pain in the ass, but he's right -- we live together or die alone.

In this video, I see Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Herbie Hancock -- and that's about the extent of representation from older Americans that I see. And as I said, this isn't about baby boomers. How cool would a video like this be if it included people like Studs Terkel and Howard Zinn? I know you want to think that the WWII generation has all died off, that those born between 1955 and 1964 (of which Obama is one, by the way) all monolithic, that we all sold out and became conservative Republicans and voted for George W. Bush. Or you think that the Triangulation of Hillary is representative of an entire generation in our lust for power, forgetting that Hillary was a conservative Young Republican long before she married Bill.

When I worked on Howard Dean's campaign in 2004, and I went to Meetup meetings to hand-write personal letters to Iowa voters, the average of people who were there was probably around 50 -- and about half were older than I was. We're out here. You need us to do this. And if you shut us out, even symbolically, such as in videos like this one, you're not going to have the kind of decisive numbers to keep the Republicans from stealing another one -- and going to find yourself with President John McCain in November.

Let us help do this. Together we can stop the madness.

Yes. We. Can.

Labels: Barack Obama, generational conflict