"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Saturday, April 26, 2008

Know Where We're Going To
Posted by Tata | 12:55 PM
The juxtaposition of these two items on RawStory is alarming.


VA official denies cover-up of veteran suicides

A top-ranking official at the Department of Veterans Affairs defends the agency's treatment of disabled veterans and denies the agency has tried to cover up the number of veterans committing suicide.

Dr. Michael Kussman, a department undersecretary for health, testified during a trial in San Francisco federal court that will determine whether the VA is shirking its duty to provide adequate mental health care and other medical services to millions of veterans.

The two veterans groups suing the VA want U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Conti to order the agency to dramatically improve how fast it processes applications and how it delivers mental health care, especially when it comes to preventing suicides and treating post-traumatic stress disorder.

The groups contend that veteran suicides are rising at alarming rates in large part because of VA failures. In court, plaintiffs' lawyer Arturo Gonzalez clashed Thursday with Kussman over how to compile and report the suicide rates.

For instance, VA Secretary James Peake told Congress in a Feb. 5 letter that 144 combat veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed suicide between October 2001 and December 2005.

But Gonzalez produced internal VA e-mails that contended that 18 veterans a day were committing suicide. Kussman countered that the figure, provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, included all 26 million veterans in the country, including aging Vietnam veterans who are reporting an increased number of health problems.

And:

Joint Chiefs chair: US prepping military options against Iran
Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the Pentagon is planning "potential" military actions against Iran, reports The Washington Post.

Mullen criticized Iran's "'increasingly lethal and malign influence' in Iraq," writes Ann Scott Tyson for the Post.

Addressing concerns about the US military's capability of dealing with yet another conflict at a time when forces are purportedly stretched thin, Mullen said war with Iran "would be 'extremely stressing' but not impossible for U.S. forces, pointing specifically to reserve capabilities in the Navy and Air Force," Tyson notes.

"It would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," she quotes the U.S.'s top military leader at a Pentagon news conference.

If you follow veterans' affairs, you must be aware of how seriously this will fuck up the active military and wounded veterans in the future. We must prevent this madness born of hubris, thoughtless cruelty and greed. Please speak up and don't shut up.

Crossposted on Poor Impulse Control.
Bookmark and Share

Jon Stewart and John McCain: The Romance is Over
Posted by Jill | 12:11 PM
Jon Stewart used to get along just fine with John McCain, who never missed an opportunity to be on Stewart's show. But because Jon Stewart doesn't have to whore for guests, he gets to do stuff like this:





And now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to continue my archaeological dig through my house in search of things to get rid of at next Saturday's yard sale, where other people will buy them for peanuts and use them to clutter up their OWN homes.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Cornell West on Bill Maher: The "Elitism" Label
Posted by Anonymous | 11:39 AM


I'm cleaning out the drafts folder left over from a week of dismay and complication, so bear with me:
According to Cornell West on Bill Maher last week....

In order to call someone an elitist we have to define what we mean by "elitism." An Elitist is either someone who knows more than you in the face of relative ignorance, or it's someone who is "arrogant, condescending, or haughty towards everyday people..."


So, according to West, we are watching the spin on something that can be manipulated either way.

In my horrible paraphrasing and limited understanding, (in good company because Maher was pretty blown away too,) which is apparent from the clip below, and which I hope everyone will watch:
What standards have we got concerning the concept of truth?
If understanding truth is considered actually allowing suffering to speak,
then understanding justice is what love looks like in public.

And...Then,what suffering voices did we hear in this primary debate?
what questions and concerns about justice are manifest in the debate? Understanding this includes the questions askedand the answers given....
So according to West, and regarding Obama;
Is he smart enough?
Is he dumb enough?
When we accuse anyone of being too elite are we asking if maybe they don't know just a little too much? And if that's the case, then don't we want someone who knows a bit too much? Or is that an attitude problem?...and where do we hit the "uppity negro" concept?
Isn't this whole thing, tearing the party apart, some incarnation of a deep feeling of "how dare he aspire to the highest office in the country!"




Is there compassion informing our expertise? Because expertise without caring is empty. And at this point, I'm trying to figure if who the candidate is, isn't the very thing that might make it possible for America to get back on track.



c/p RIP Coco

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

We're Going to Need Bigger Buckets

When I first began blogging nearly three and a half years ago, I made the hardly original observation that no president running for office had ever been voted out while America was in a major military engagement. It’s only natural, patriotic, even, to want to support your commander in chief during a time of crisis. However, the intoxicating smell of blood about to be spilled happens to drown out what can yet prove to be very valid questions about a president’s motives for going to war against a country without just cause or even illegal reasons.

Bush cannot run for a third term yet we’ve seen time and again that he’s willing to commit more and more warm bodies into the meat grinder of Iraq (many of whom are being caught in the crossfire between Shi’ite militias and Iraqi government troops) and countless hundreds of billions, if not trillions, more in an ever desperate crap shoot to win back everything that PNAC and Dick Cheney ever promised him: Namely, a legacy worthy of a dead Democrat like Roosevelt or Kennedy.

If you’ll notice, the two highest points of Bush’s capable stewardship from an approval standpoint were when we either got attacked on 9/11 or when we irrationally invaded Iraq. This graph, courtesy Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post, shows this very disturbing trend, at how even an idiot’s approval ratings can go through the roof when violence on an epic scale is visited on us or on someone else by us.

Consider: In the Gallup poll ending September 10th, 2001, Bush’s approval rating was a humdrum 51%. Right after 9/11, his approval rating shot up to an irrational 90%, almost 40% within hours of the 9/7-10 poll. Just before the largely unquestioned invasion of Iraq, Bush’s approval rating had settled back down to 57% yet the next Gallup after the invasion shows his rating shooting back up to a very respectable 71%.

The interesting thing is that Bush’s rating actually went down from 37% to 34% in the Gallup polls taken just before and after the announcement of the surge. In the week the surge began (Feb. 2007), his popularity sank even lower to 32%.

It could be said that Bush is merely the victim of political fatigue, of a nation getting tired of a lame duck president and yearning for change. But that doesn’t always apply, especially regarding his fellow Republicans. If Eisenhower could run again in 1960, he and not Marilyn Monroe would’ve beaten the pants off Jack Kennedy and Kennedy was the first one to admit it. If Reagan hadn’t started falling asleep during Cabinet meetings and drooling on his PDB’s, he, too, would’ve been a shoein for a third term.

The fact is, since November 2-5, 2006, Bush’s approval rating has never been above 38%. As of the last Gallup poll, his actual approval rating is a mere 28%, with 69% disapproving.

Iraq is a dead horse that ain’t ever going to get livelier no matter how many additional troops flog it. Ergo, it looks like a good time to have contractor ships fire on the Iranians (providing OPEC with a wonderful reason to gouge us another three dollars for a barrel of oil) and to try to make them look bad by waggling our fingers and sabers at the Syrians and North Koreans.

After McCain’s drooling and doddering through a Beach Boys song last year about bombing Iran and for all his anti-Iranian rhetoric, an invasion of Iran based on even the most specious of claims and most circumstantial of evidence will automatically focus attention on McCain as Bush’s presumptive heir and less on Obama and even Hillary, who voted to allow Bush to call the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

The press, starting with Fox as the Pied Piper behind whom all the other outlets will march, will hail McCain as not only a maverick but a visionary, as well, the one man who saw the threat coming and thank God we're going to elect him as our next president (or else) since he used to be in the military and all.

Another war against another Muslim nation could still prove to be the political stimulus package and popularity surge that the Republican party will need this November to pull them out of their own public relations recession. And, in times of war, as always, truth will be the first casualty, with children a close second.
Bookmark and Share
Friday, April 25, 2008

Where the IOKIYAR Rule must end
Posted by Jill | 10:05 AM
It's kind of hard to justify incitement to riot, even by the IOKIYAR rule:

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.

He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.

"Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don't elect Democrats," Limbaugh said during Wednesday's radio broadcast. He then went on to say that's the best thing that could happen to the country.

Limbaugh cited Al Sharpton, saying the Barack Obama supporter threatened to superdelegates that "there's going to be trouble" if the presidency is taken from Obama.

Several callers called in to the radio show to denounce Limbaugh's comments, when he later stated, "I am not inspiring or inciting riots, I am dreaming of riots in Denver."

Limbaugh said with massive riots in Denver, which he called "Operation Chaos," the people on the far left would look bad.

"There won't be riots at our convention," Limbaugh said of the Republican National Convention. "We don't riot. We don't burn our cars. We don't burn down our houses. We don't kill our children. We don't do half the things the American left does."

He believes electing Democrats will hurt America's security and economy and appeared to call on his listeners to make sure that doesn't happen.

"We do, hopefully, the right thing for the sake of this country. We're the only one in charge of our affairs. We don't farm out our defense if we elect Democrats ... and riots in Denver, at the Democratic Convention will see to it we don't elect Democrats. And that's the best damn thing that can happen to this country, as far as I can think," Limbaugh said.

Later, Limbaugh downplayed his "dreaming of riots in Denver" statement, and said that he wasn't calling for riots and was referring to warnings of trouble if superdelegates decide the nomination at the Democratic National Convention.

Limbaugh's comments prompted Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper to say: "Anyone who would call for riots in an American city has clearly lost their bearings."


Bullshit he wasn't calling for riots. What he's calling for is for his listeners to pretend to be Democrats, just as they've done during the primaries while crossing over to vote for Hillary Clinton, and start riots while posing as liberals.

Whether Limbaugh's idiotic, slobbering, mindless, chickenshit listeners are willing to risk getting arrested, even for show, to fulfill his dream remains to be seen. But as Richard Blair at All Spin Zone says:

Someone needs to tell me the difference between Rush Limbaugh and Moqtada al-Sadr (above and beyond the fact that al-Sadr is an ordained cleric, and Limbaugh is just an ordained asswipe). And I want to know how Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, etc. etc. can continue getting away with inspiring their listeners to violence, yet are never called on it by either the Republican Party leadership or law enforcement authorities.

If you feel so moved, you can contact the Colorado Attorney General's office and express your concerns. At a minimum, inciting to riot is a serious offense. When the call goes out from someone like Limbaugh who has legions of loyal dittoheads hanging on his every word, it's very, very likely that his "call to arms" could motivate some right wing crackpots to action.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Why Barack Obama Matters
Posted by Jill | 9:47 AM
3 NYPD detectives acquitted in 50-shot killing

Three detectives were acquitted of all charges Friday in the 50-shot killing of an unarmed groom-to-be on his wedding day, a case that put the NYPD at the center of another dispute involving allegations of excessive firepower.

Justice Arthur Cooperman delivered the verdict in a Queens courtroom packed with spectators, including victim Sean Bell's fiancee and parents, as at least 200 people gathered outside the building.

As word of the verdict spread, many outside the courthouse began crying and yelled "No!" Some briefly jostled with police officers.

Bell, a 23-year-old black man, was killed in a hail of gunfire outside a seedy strip club in Queens on Nov. 25, 2006 — his wedding day — as he was leaving his bachelor party with two friends.

The officers, complaining that pretrial publicity had unfairly painted them as cold-blooded killers, opted to have the judge decide the case rather than a jury.

Officers Michael Oliver, 36, and Gescard Isnora, 29, stood trial for manslaughter while Officer Marc Cooper, 40, was charged only with reckless endangerment. Two other shooters weren't charged. Oliver squeezed off 31 shots; Isnora fired 11 rounds; and Cooper shot four times.


If not now, when?

This, folks, is why as bad as sexism is, racism is worse. Yes, there was a case here in NJ a few years ago of a bride murdered on her way to her own wedding by a violent ex-boyfriend. That was a tragic and horrific example of the toxicity of sexism and how men try to control women. But as heinous as it was, and as heinous as similar cases like it are, and even as pervasive as such cases, as well as the many incidences of rape, job discrimination, and other toxic examples of sexism in our society, they are not cases of state-sanctioned murder. The fact of the matter is that for the most part, Living While Female won't get you killed by the state. Living While Black still does.

Meanwhile....

Meanwhile....

The third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives and one of the country’s most influential African-American leaders sharply criticized former President Bill Clinton this afternoon for what he called Mr. Clinton’s “bizarre” conduct during the Democratic primary campaign.

Representative James E. Clyburn, an undeclared superdelegate from South Carolina who is the Democratic whip in the House, said that “black people are incensed over all of this,” referring to statements that Mr. Clinton had made in the course of the heated race between his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Senator Barack Obama.

Mr. Clinton was widely criticized by black leaders after he equated the eventual victory of Mr. Obama in South Carolina in January to that of the Rev. Jesse Jackson in 1988 – a parallel that many took as an attempt to diminish Mr. Obama’s success in the campaign. In a radio interview in Philadelphia on Monday, Mr. Clinton defended his remarks and said the Obama campaign had “played the race card on me” by making an issue of those comments.

In an interview with The New York Times late Thursday, Mr. Clyburn said Mr. Clinton’s conduct in this campaign had caused what might be an irreparable breach between Mr. Clinton and an African-American constituency that once revered him. “When he was going through his impeachment problems, it was the black community that bellied up to the bar,” Mr. Clyburn said. “I think black folks feel strongly that that this is a strange way for President Clinton to show his appreciation.”

Mr. Clyburn added that there appeared to be an almost “unanimous” view among African-Americans that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were “committed to doing everything they possibly can to damage Obama to a point that he could never win.”

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

What I will defend Hillary Clinton for doing...and what I won't
Posted by Jill | 6:59 AM
As someone who really didn't get the chance to vote for my choice in New Jersey's primary, I'm hardly in a position to tell the denizens of North Carolina, Indiana, and the other states and possessions yet to have their presidential primaries, that they should have to take a pig in a poke. And for all that it would certainly be easier to have this primary race over with and a presumptive nominee chosen now, the fact of the matter is that we don't. So while I wish with every fiber of my being that Hillary Clinton would take one for the team, there's only so much griping I'm going to do. And I'll defend her right to take her campaign right up to the convention -- with the following rules:

1) No do-overs. You agreed to the party rules in Florida and Michigan and you didn't complain then. So you have to live with them now.

2) No more moving the goal posts. Every state matters. Primaries and caucuses both count. No more of this talk of how the only processes that are important are the ones you win.

3) No more doing the Republicans' dirty work for them. If you have substantive policy differences with Barack Obama, then air them. Insist on a REAL debate with real policy questions -- about health care mandates, about Middle East policy, about global warming, about the housing debacle, about job outsourcing, and about the current food and energy crises. Let the remaining voters decide based on the differences in the way you would address these problems. No more negative ads, no more Obama/Osama bullshit.

4) Explain why you think you're the better choice, but stop this crap about how the world will come to an end if Barack Obama gets the nomination.

5) If by the beginning of June, there's no way you can obtain this nomination without strongarming and bullying delegates, threatening them with the Wrath of Clinton if they don't fall in line, then for God's sake do the right thing, drop out, and throw your support behind Obama. He's going to need it. The future of this country is more important than you, your ego, your idea that what you thought was a shoo-in for you wasn't, your competition with the Bush family for who can do a better job with a restoration.

Barack Obama still might lose in November, but if he does, that doesn't mean you would have won. Today's Republicans are the dirtiest, foulest people in the history of American politics. They know how to appeal to Americans' worst instincts and impulses, and history shows that their tactics work -- but only when Republicans use them because we EXPECT it of them.

And if you do this, I might even consider supporting you in 2012 -- assuming we all live that long and assuming you cut the crap about nuking Iran. Because if John McCain is president, we're going to need you to take a leadership role in putting the brakes on him, because he is completely batshit crazy. Lately you've been talking as if you are too, but I'm willing to chalk that up to having to be tougher than the boys are -- unless you continue what looks to be a campaign tactic of trying to ensure an Obama defeat in the fall to hold the Democratic nomination open for you in 2012.

If you do that, then both this fall and in 2012, you can go Cheney yourself.

It's up to you.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Whither the progressive infrastructure?
Posted by Jill | 6:04 AM
For all the talk on the right of the invisible hand of George Soros running everything on the left, there's been precious little built by way of an infrastructure by which progressive policies and values can be developed and promoted.

Aside from corporate media, the right has think tanks galore, from the American Enterprise Institute to, yes, the Project for the New American Century. Every election cycle, there's a new right-wing group forming to advance Republican candidatres. This year it isn't even May yet and already Floyd Brown, who every four years seems to be able to amass an independent political committee to smear Democratic candidates to the advantage of Republicans, is at his old tricks. Where is the Floyd Brown of the left?

After the Randi Rhodes debacle at Air America, Mike Malloy went on a tear on his NovaM show about the history of the network, specifically a party he attended that was designed to woo rich liberals into investing in the network. When the time came to put their money where their mouths were, the wealthy liberals kept their wallets closed, leaving the project open to Evan Cohen and his Gang of Thieves, and later on to the Stephen Green, who bought the network so his bratty brother Mark, the George W. Bush of the left, would have a nice new toy to play with. And the network has never recovered. Now, Sheldon and Anita Drobny, who were forced out by the Republican moles who ended up running the thing, have NovaM, but growth is slow at best and the ability to bring in new talent is virtually nil for the moment after blowing the budget on Randi -- a move that was probably as necessary as the Mets trading the future for Johan Santana, but that in the same way puts the kibosh on other short-term growth.

When we're up against corporate-owned media, including the giant maw of News Corp., which is now getting ready to buy up yet another newspaper in New York (prompting the Senate Commerce Committee yesterday to overturn a Bush Administration regulatory decision that loosened media ownership restrictions in the 20 largest media markets), which makes damn sure that their talking heads toe the party line (see also: Stephanopoulos, George), for which no smear against a Democrat is too bogus to present as "alternative facts", and no truth about a Republican is too iron-clad to ignore, this kind of infrastructure becomes more important.

But it just doesn't seem to happen. Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest wrote this week about the closing of the Rockridge Institute:

This is how the conservatives have been so successful. They work year-round to convince people to identify as conservatives. (You've probably complained or heard people complain that that have managed to turn "liberal" into a bad word in people's minds.) When election time comes around it's as though all that their candidates have to do is point at the opponent and shout "liberal" to win. They ride a wave of nationally-advanced propaganda convincing people to support "tort reform" or "tax relief." This has been going on for years, so at election time everything is laid out for them on a silver platter, with the public prepared and primed.

Progressive candidates, on the other hand, are generally on their own, starting from scratch for each election. Their general campaign begins in the late summer or fall, they have to decide what "issues" to run on, they have to develop a message from scratch, by themselves, and then they have to reach their voters from scratch. And they have to do all of this on their own in just a few months. No wonder conservatives, even with their awful "you're on your own" philosophy, have managed to do so well and gain so much traction.

This is why building up a national progressive advocacy infrastructure would leverage all of those campaign donations and help us build a sustainable progressive majority. A few dollars to progressive advocacy organizations on any given TODAY builds long-term support for every progressive candidate on any given TOMORROW. It provides leverage -- lowering the need for massive election-cycle funding.

The demise of Rockridge Institute demonstrates that the Democratic Party donor base hasn't yet gotten that message. Instead, masses of money have to be raised for candidates at the very last minute -- for example a million dollars in one minute, the day before the big Pennsylvania primary. And almost all of that money will just literally go up in the air to pay for TV ads that leave nothing behind to show for the money. They don't build the brand, they don't tell people about the benefits of progressive ideas, they don't help other candidates... But almost nothing for the Rockridges and Speak Out California's and Commonweal Institutes.


When you think about the money that, say, Hillary Clinton has shoveled into the pockets of Mark Penn and the rest of her consultants, and when you look at Bob Shrum still being trotted out to opine after eight presidential losses and his pockets bulging with the booty of campaigns past, it's unfathomable that the Democratic Party still doesn't get the importance of this kind of infrastructure. And when you see the same old "Big State Only" tactics still infecting the party's strategy, you have to wonder why they even insult our intelligence by putting on this show that we actually have a choice.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, April 24, 2008

What More Is There To Say?
Posted by Tata | 4:34 PM
Bookmark and Share

Another growing industry being outsourced to India
Posted by Jill | 6:26 AM
While most industries are going to take a bath this year, there's one industry that's likely to enjoy explosive growth:

Debt collection.

The potential profits to be made from debt collection are huge. But is that enough for the companies in this business? No, they're outsourcing the function to India:

In a glass tower on the outskirts of New Delhi, dozens of young Indians are on the telephone, calling America’s out of work, forgetful and debt-stricken and asking for cash.

“Are you sure that’s all you can afford?” one operator in a row of cubicles asks politely. “Well, how do you take care of your everyday expenses?” presses another.

Americans are used to receiving calls from India for insurance claims and credit card sales. But debt collection represents a growing business for outsourcing companies, especially as the American economy slows and its consumers struggle to pay for their purchases.

Armed with a sophisticated automated system that dials tens of thousands of Americans every hour, and puts confidential information like Social Security numbers, addresses and credit history at operators’ fingertips, this new breed of collectors is chasing down late car payments, overdue credit card debt and lapsed installment loans. Debt collectors in India often cost about one-quarter the price of their American counterparts, and are often better at the job, debt collection company executives say.

“India will be the only place we grow this year,” said J. Brandon Black, the chief executive of the Encore Capital Group, a debt collection company based in San Diego. India is the company’s largest operating area, with about half the company’s collection force of more than 300.

Although the stereotype of a collector may be “some guy with chains and a cut-off shirt,” Mr. Black said, collectors in India are “very polite, very respectful, and they don’t raise their voice.” He added, “People respond to that.”

Companies like Encore buy bad loans from banks and credit card issuers for pennies on the dollar and pocket the cash they collect. The delinquent borrowers often owe at least a thousand dollars.

So far just a tiny fraction, maybe 5 percent, of American debt collection is done outside the country, industry executives estimate. But new business is in the pipeline.

Financial services clients are saying, “We want you to collect my debt, to analyze it and change the way that we sell” the loans, said Tiger Tyagarajan, executive vice president at Genpact, the business processing company spun off from General Electric that has roots in India. Genpact, which works with lenders to get customers to pay, rather than buying loans directly like Encore, employs thousands of debt collectors in India, Romania, Mexico and the Philippines, and is hiring in all those locations.

In the past, the prevailing wisdom about wringing money from late payers has been “if you’re calling the Midwest, you want someone from the Midwest to twist their arm,” said Mark Hughes, an analyst with Sun Trust Robinson Humphrey who covers the industry. That theory is changing as the pool of trained phone professionals in India and other locations deepens, and companies look outside the United States for lower costs.

Telephone debt collection represents new, more aggressive territory for India. “This is really a sales job,” Mr. Hughes said. “It is commission-intensive, and you’re paid on your ability to collect.”

Like many sales teams, Encore’s collectors in India gather for a daily pep talk before their shift. In one recent session, they were schooled on the intricacies of American tax policy.

“One hundred thirty million U.S. families will get a tax rebate this season” as part of the new economic stimulus package, Manu Sharma, the team leader, explained to a roomful of top-earning collection agents, most in their 20s. Those who qualify for the rebates will get as much $600 a person or $1,200 a household, he said, and “the I.R.S. is going to start paying this money in May.”

Start bringing up the rebate during calls, he told them. “This gives you an advantage so you can increase your wallet share,” he went on. “Get them set up on minimum balance arrangements” based around their tax rebates.


Aside from the fact of someone across the sea having access to the kind of personal information that makes identity theft easy, there's something about this notion of polite, soft-spoken people from India shaking people down for their tax rebates that completely encapsulates the American Condition in this last year of the Bush Administration, wrapping corporate greed, American consumerism, outsourcing of the American job base, the soullessness that is the call center environment and the false promise of the tax rebate into one horrific package.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

While we're on the subject of "I wonder...." and John McCain
Posted by Jill | 6:19 AM
Do YOU believe that John McCain is shocked...SHOCKED...and appalled -- at the new Leap of Horseshit ad being run in North Carolina by the guy who created the Willie Horton ad in 1988?

Doesn't this good cop/bad cop thing seem just a bit too contrived, given how much McCain stands to benefit by having Barack Obama painted as simultaneously this year's Willie Horton and this year's Michael Dukakis?

I'm surprised by the fact that even Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow seem to have been bamboozled by this attempt to spin Floyd Brown, the creator of the ad, as some kind of renegade doing this without Sen. Straight Talk's permission. It's just a bit too comvenient. I think McCain knows damn well what Brown is doing, he approved it, and this whole ballet is contrived to let surrogates do the attacking for him.

And when Olbermann and Maddow fall for this crap, what hope do we have?

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

How bloggers are more on the ball than print and media journalists
Posted by Jill | 6:06 AM
I'm not counting myself in that group these days, struggling as I am with my annual case of spring fever, combined this year with the kind of hotflashes about which most women my age complain but which I've largely escaped up until now. Plus this morning I'm groggy from a too-abrupt transition to wakefulness from a dream in which I was at a birthday party for someone I haven't seen in about fifteen years and listening to John Cusack holding forth on war-for-profit.

But Blue Girl has none of these problems, and she's noticed something very interesting.

Last week bloggers were all over John McCain saying that he would let Gen. David Petraeus decide whether to move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, even though at his Senate Armed Services Committee appearance, Petraeus essentially said that wasn't his job. This was regarded as another McCain gaffe, but as Blue Girl now points out, perhaps it wasn't.

Yesterday, Petraeus was promoted to head of CENTCOM, with Gen. Raymond Odierno now heading up the Iraq effort. So now Afghanistan IS his job... which has made Blue Girl wonder:

While everyone was absorbing the news that Baghdad's favorite couple would be separating, and a Petraeus-Crocker divorce was in the offing, I went a different direction immediately. I thought "Hmmmm...Did McCain really misspeak last week? Or did he have an advance heads up on this?"

I realize he is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, but this is an executive decision. Was he briefed during the decision making process? If so, were other members of SASC? (Hillary Clinton sits on that committee, too.)


Or is McCain just a doddering old man with cognitive problems after all?

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Best. Web. Job. Ever.*
Posted by Jill | 10:00 PM
I Can Has Cheezburger is hiring.

*Either it's the best web job ever, or by the end of the week you'll be as revolted by LOL kittehs as a Baskin-Robbins employee is at the thought of ice cream by the end of Fourth of July weekend.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

I can't believe we're going to lose to THIS guy
Posted by Jill | 12:19 PM
Thanks for nothing, Pennsylvania:

Standing before a nearly shuttered factory pocked with broken windows in a city devastated by the erosion of its industrial base, John McCain on Tuesday urged Americans to reject the "siren song of protectionism" and embrace free trade.

He used his own recent political fortunes — a dramatic fade followed by an unexpected comeback to secure the Republican presidential nomination — to illustrate that depressed Rust Belt cities such as Youngstown can rebound.

"A person learns along the way that if you hold on — if you don't quit no matter what the odds — sometimes life will surprise you," McCain said in a speech at Youngstown State University after meeting the five remaining workers at Fabart, a steel-fabricating factory that had more than 100 employees a few years ago.


Somehow I think persevering against the likes of Rudy "9/11 9/11 9/11" Giuliani and Mitt the Helmet-Head Romney is a bit different from having your job go overseas and you have no way anymore to keep a roof over your head.

But I'll bet these guys are still going to vote Republican.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Uh, Kids? You have to actually SHOW THE FUCK UP at the polls!
Posted by Jill | 9:40 AM
All through this primary season, we've heard a lot of holier-than-thou crap from young voters about how it's THEIR time, and WE fucked everything up and now THEY will take the reins and create a new day say hallelujah amen.

Sometimes it's been almost enough to drive one into the Hillary camp where people like me are SUPPOSED to be, were it not for the endless Clinton family drama and the sucking up to the very people we defended them against in the 1990's and the fact that Hillary is now saying that Israel is worth global thermonuclear war and proving she can be just as crazy as McCain is.

But what the kids don't seem to realize is that it's not enough to talk and blog and stuff envelopes and cold-call and knock on doors. THEY THEMSELVES HAVE TO SHOW THE FUCK UP AT THE POLLS.

And in Pennsylvania yesterday, they didn't:

It's pretty easy, based on the exit polls, to see where we went wrong. We had the black vote at 18% when it turned out to be 14-15%, and we had the under 45 vote at 41% when it turned out to be 31%.


58% of registered Democrats in Pennsylvania are over 45, which means that 42% are 45 or younger.And if only 31% showed up, well, that's a sizable part of the Obama loss margin right there.

Your guy doesn't win if you don't show up to vote, folks.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Meet the Republicans' new Willie Horton
Posted by Jill | 8:17 AM
His name is Barack Obama:





Same shit, different year.

(h/t)

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share

"Closing the Deal"
Posted by Jill | 6:00 AM
I think that "close the deal" may very well have eclipsed "maverick" as the most tired expression of the 2008 campaign.

The conventional wisdom (which means that of MSNBC and CNN these days) is that Hillary Clinton's 10-point win in Pennsylvania means that Barack Obama "can't close the deal." This notion is based on two assumptions, both of which are wrong:

a) that any state which didn't go for Obama in the primary won't go for him in the general election; and

b) that any state which DID go for him in the primary won't go for him in the general election.

That kind of reasoning would certainly favor Hillary Clinton, wouldn't it?

It's a preposterous leap to assume that states like Massachusetts and New York and New Jersey are not going to vote for Barack Obama in November, unless you want to figure that they aren't going to vote for a black man -- and I think that's the subtext to the notion that because Democratic voters in a particular state voted for candidate A in the primary means they won't vote for candidate B in the general. Whether it's preposterous to think that states like South Carolina and Mississippi WON'T vote for Obama in November remains to be seen, and it's the fundamental difference in terms of campaign policy between the DLC wing of the party, which focuses on "sure-win" states, and the Howard Dean 50-state strategy. The wild card here is the African-American vote, and whether this voting bloc a) shows up at the polls in huge numbers, and b) runs into the same kind of vote suppression tactics it did in Florida in 2000 and in both Florida and Ohio in 2004.

Back when former Virginia governor Mark Warner was being painted as the Great White Southern Hope of the Democratic Party, the assumption was that he would put southern states in play that traditionally would go Republican. To say that Barack Obama can't do the same thing is to admit that black voters either won't show up or won't be allowed to vote.

This year seems to confound all conventional wisdom, no matter how hard Tim Russert and Chris Matthews and Brian Williams want to fit it into a box. Right now I'd be inclined to say let's just crown John McCain the King of America and get it done with and not put us all through this crap for another seven months. But then, I'm the kind of person who wants bad things that are inevitable to happen sooner rather than later so that we can deal with the adversity and get past it sooner. This thinking, of course, has its own problems, such as a tendency to think every time my boss is in a bad mood, "Go ahead and fire me already, nothing I do is ever good enough for you anyway so let's just get it over with!" (I actually did this to his face once, but that was three years ago and I'm still there,). So this thinking has its own set of problems and I don't recommend it in that circumstance. And if the Mayans are correct, the idea of "Go ahead and let's blow the whole thing up NOW and get it over with!" -- instead of this collapse taking until December 2012 when the Mayan calendar ends [Insert your own Hillary Clinton/end of the world bad joke here] -- means I'll never finish my novel or get the work on the house finished.

But I'm not sure that conventional wisdom holds here. I went to school in the Lehigh Valley area of Pennsylvania in the 1970's, and it was the most provincial, ignorant, bigoted, narrow-minded place I'd ever been. This was the place where a classmate asked me why, if I was Jewish, I drove such an old car. And this is barely an hour out of Philadelphia. I don't know how much it's changed since then, but given that Pennsylvania hasn't exactly become a hotbed of the information age, and the rusting hulks of the old steel mills are monuments to jobs that will never return, and they're still voting for conservatives out there, I doubt it's changed much. It's ironic, then, that the candidate whose husband signed NAFTA into law, which accelerated the closing of the same mills where Pennsylvanians used to work, was the victor yesterday.

Last night Pat Buchanan played the Adlai Stevenson card, drawing parallels between the thoughtful, erudite Obama and the equally thoughtful, erudite "egghead" who lost to Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956. And once again, the idea of presidential elections being about the First Beer Buddy came into the fore. But what do you expect from a country that's raising kids that don't know who the U.S. fought in World War II, that think either Dwight Eisenhower or Harry Truman was the president who resigned in the wake of the Watergate scandal, that can't identify Adolf Hitler, don't know that the Bill of Rights codified freedom of speech and religion, and don't know that the Civil War took place between 1850 and 1900.

Here we have a country that's embroiled in a war we can't continue and can't leave, oil is going to hit $120/barrel today, the global economy is on the verge of collapse, there are worldwide food shortages, and Americans are still looking for a daddy figure with whom they can have a beer.

Barack Obama didn't flip Hillary the bird, he scratched his face, something he does quite often. He's not a Muslim. He's not a Black Panther. He's not the Manchurian Candidate. What he is, is a leap of faith. A leap that says we can do something other than saber rattle at the world and ship all of this country's jobs overseas. A leap that says corporations shouldn't run the country. A leap that says that intelligence is at the very least as valuable an asset as the ability to run fast or slam-dunk or hit the curveball or throw an accurate pass. If we elect Barack Obama, the earth will not split open at the equator. The Scary Negroes™ won't rise up and enslave the white man. The world will not come to an end. Hillary Clinton doesn't believe that these things will happen either, but for whatever reason, she's decided that either she will have this nomination, or else she'll cede this year and hope to run in 2012 as the Great White Hope.

It's arguable, however, if we're even going to still be around then.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Many DRE voting problems in Pennsylvania
Posted by Jill | 9:50 PM
Nobody's accusing anyone of stealing the Pennsylvania primary, but Brad Friedman is monitoring reports of voting machine malfunctions and related problems. Even Faux Noise is reporting on it:



Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Pennsylvania Primary Online Support Group
Posted by Jill | 7:28 PM
The intrepid Hoffmania is running what he calls an all-night chat tonight. I have no idea what "all night" means, but since he's on Pacific time, and he's more intrepid than I am, it's likely to run quite late.

So if you can't face it all alone, hop on over to Hoff's place.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

And what happens when Rupert Murdoch owns every newspaper in the country?
Posted by Jill | 7:14 AM
Rupe is getting ready to buy another New York paper:

Tribune Co has reached agreement in principle to sell Newsday to News Corp (NYSE:NWS) for about $580 million in what would be a joint venture, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Under the terms of a deal, Newsday would be part of a joint venture with News Corp's New York Post and other News Corp assets, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. News Corp would own most of the company and Tribune would keep a stake of less than 5 percent.

Selling the paper would be key to Tribune Chief Executive and Chicago real estate magnate Sam Zell's plans to help slash debt at the company, which he took private in an $8.2 billion buyout last year.

The Newsday deal is expected to wipe out as much as $50 million in annual losses that News Corp now incurs on the Post, with the combined Newsday-Post operation earning roughly $50 million, one person familiar with the situation said, according to the Journal.

Regulatory issues could slow the sale, particularly media ownership issues that could restrict the number of properties that News Corp and Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch could own in the New York Area.


In the current no-regulatory environment, it's hard to believe that any Bush federal agency stocked with Christofascist Zombies from Bible colleges is going to stop this. And with the huge losses at the New York Times, I'm sure the Grey Lady is in Murdoch's sights as well.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Buh...buh...but doesn't the IOKIYAR rule apply?
Posted by Jill | 6:04 AM
Today's New York Times has an article that pauses, at least for one day, the embargo on negative information about John McCain on the part of the press.

Apparently Sen. Clean is not above using his influences to do favors for well-connected "friends":

Donald R. Diamond, a wealthy Arizona real estate developer, was racing to snap up a stretch of virgin California coast freed by the closing of an Army base a decade ago when he turned to an old friend, Senator John McCain.

When Mr. Diamond wanted to buy land at the base, Fort Ord, Mr. McCain assigned an aide who set up a meeting at the Pentagon and later stepped in again to help speed up the sale, according to people involved and a deposition Mr. Diamond gave for a related lawsuit. When he appealed to a nearby city for the right to develop other property at the former base, Mr. Diamond submitted Mr. McCain’s endorsement as “a close personal friend.”

Writing to officials in the city, Seaside, Calif., the senator said, “You will find him as honorable and committed as I have.”

Courting local officials and potential partners, Mr. Diamond’s team promised that he could “help get through some of the red tape in dealing with the Department of the Army” because Mr. Diamond “has been very active with Senator McCain,” a partner said in a deposition.

For Mr. McCain, the Arizona Republican who has staked two presidential campaigns on pledges to avoid even the appearance of dispensing an official favor for a donor, Mr. Diamond is the kind of friend who can pose a test.

A longtime political patron, Mr. Diamond is one of the elite fund-raisers Mr. McCain’s current presidential campaign calls Innovators, having raised more than $250,000 so far. At home, Mr. Diamond is sometimes referred to as “The Donald,” Arizona’s answer to Donald Trump — an outsized personality who invites public officials aboard his flotilla of yachts (the Ace, King, Jack and Queen of Diamonds), specializes in deals with the government, and unabashedly solicits support for his business interests from the recipients of his campaign contributions.

Mr. McCain has occasionally rebuffed Mr. Diamond’s entreaties as inappropriate, but he has also taken steps that benefited his friend’s real estate empire. Their 26-year relationship illuminates how Mr. McCain weighs requests from a benefactor against his vows, adopted after a brush with scandal two decades ago, not to intercede with government authorities on behalf of a donor or take other official action that serves no clear public interest.

In California, the McCain aide’s assistance with the Army helped Mr. Diamond complete a purchase in 1999 that he soon turned over for a $20 million profit. And Mr. McCain’s letter of recommendation reinforced Mr. Diamond’s selling point about his McCain connections as he pursued — and won in 2005 — a potentially much more lucrative deal to develop a resort hotel and luxury housing.


And apparently there's a nice long history of McCain doing favors for this guy. Of course he says that he'd do the same for any other citizen, but I can't imagine that the ability to raise six-figure sums of campaign money hurts any.

In the larger picture, none of this matters, other than being yet another example of the hypocrisy of Senator Straight Talk. I'm far more concerned about his anger management problem, his preposterous economic "plan" that shovels even MORE cash into the pockets of the wealthy, his following Bush's path of resolving issues from his youth via perpetual war in the Middle East. Add to that questions about his health and his reluctance to release his health records, his "If you can't afford insurance, then go off and die" health care "plan", his contention that our economic problems are all in our heads, his sucking up to the Christofascist Zombie Brigade (which interestingly, allows him to distance himself from Hagee's more inflammatory remarks while still accepting his endorsement, while he decries another candidate for doing the same), and the general sense I get that his faculties are no longer all there.

His attempt on Suckupagus on Sunday to wipe this particular slate clean are especially hilarious: "I condemn remarks that are, in any way, viewed as anti-anything."

Which means he's really Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff:



Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, April 21, 2008

Rebirth of the SKIL Bill
I thought it was a mistake when I found a post last week stating that the SKIL Bill was coming back, but today I received confirmation. The SKIL Bill (Securing Knowledge, Innovation and Leadership Act of 2007) is back after a 10-month gestation period. H.R. 1930, (first introduced on April 18, 2007, but pushed back into subcommittee on June 4, 2007) has been brought back into the news courtesy of the 20-member House Republican Study Committee, which sent a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Letter Steny Hoyer requesting that the legislation be brought to the House floor. (If the link to the letter isn't working, you can access it by clicking on the "Scribd" icon at Michael Arrington's blog post.)

The second paragraph of the letter alludes to the fact that increases in the H-1B cap for 2007 were voted down since they were clumsily included in last year's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act that, as you may remember, dealt primarily with illegal immigration. The letter goes on to state that:
Every year, American businesses tell us how they are unable to retain the qualified people that they want to retain because of the artificially low H-1B visa caps and related regulations that do not reflect market realities. This situation is ironic, since most of the unemployable people were educated in the United States. [Note from Carrie - Hmmh, are they talking about Americans or foreign students?] As a country, we are effectively handling these highly-educated, extremely desirable individuals a diploma and a plane ticket. The message we are sending is "You can learn here, but you have to work in another country."
Key provisions of the bill

Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to exempt from the annual H-1B(specialty occupation) visa cap an alien who has: (1) earned a master's or higher degree from an accredited U.S. university; or (2) been awarded a medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience in the United States.

Increases the annual H-1B cap, with a 20% increase for the following year if the previous year's quota is reached.

Exempts from worldwide immigration caps an alien who: (1) has earned a master's or higher degree from an accredited U.S. university; (2) has been awarded medical specialty certification based on postdoctoral training and experience in the United States; (3) will work in shortage occupations; (4) has earned a master's degree or higher in science, technology, engineering, or math and has been working in a related field in the United States during the three-year period preceding his or her immigrant visa application; (5) has extraordinary ability or received a national interest waiver; or (6) is the spouse or minor child of an employment-based immigrant.

I see an awful lot of exemptions from different caps. You can read other provisions by clicking on the above-referenced links. The entire Bill is located here.

I couldn't decipher the names of a lot of the signatories, but I was disappointed to see Michigan Representative Pete Hoekstra's name included. Have fun seeing if your state representative's name appears.

I guess I can now understand a little bit more about why a lot of foreign workers are so desperate to come into the U.S. Check out Androcass' blog post "I Know How We Can Help."

(Cross-posted at Carrie's Nation.)

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

C&L reaches new heights of Blog Coolness
Posted by Jill | 10:18 PM
Bookmark and Share

The ultimate shandeh far di goyim
Posted by Jill | 9:20 PM
Hillary Clinton is starting to sound as batshit crazy as McCain:





"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."


The interview runs on Good Morning America Tuesday morning.

Come on, Pennsylvania...don't screw this up. Some of us don't relish the thought of global thermonuclear war perpetrated by either a guy with anger management issues or a woman who has to prove she can be just as warlike as the craziest guys are. And some of us who are Jews really don't want to take the blame for $500/barrel oil, either.

UPDATE: One of our commenters has chastised me for not mentioning that Clinton's remarks were in response to a question about what she would do if Iran nuked Israel. Aside from the fact that the question was clearly designed to put into the heads of viewers that Iran does, in fact, have nuclear weapons at the present time, I stand my view that even speculating about this in an interview, especially as a bid for Jewish votes, is batshit crazy.

Clinton "clarified" her remarks on Countdown last night:





OLBERMANN: You mentioned the oil suppliers and that obviously leads us into something else that really flew by during the debate that seemed awfully important. In that debate you were asked about a hypothetical Iranian attack on Israel and your hypothetical response as commander in chief and you said, let me read the quote exactly, “I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would include massive retaliation from the United States but I would do the same with other countries in the region.”

Can you clarify since there was no follow-up to that which hypothetical Middle East conflicts would incur massive retaliation by this country and what constitutes massive retaliation?

CLINTON: Well, what we were talking about was the potential for a nuclear attack by Iran. If Iran does achieve what appears to be its continuing goal of obtaining nuclear weapons — and I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times. We used it very well during the Cold War when we had a bipolar world — and what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

In addition, if Iran were to become a nuclear power it could set off an arms race that would be incredibly dangerous and destabilizing because the countries in the region are not going to want Iran to be the only nuclear power so I could imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons themselves.

In order to forestall that, creating some kind of a security agreement where we said, no, you do not need to acquire nuclear weapons if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran, the United States and hopefully our NATO allies would respond to that as well.

It is a theory that some people have been looking at because there is a fear that if Iran, which I hope we can prevent, becoming a nuclear power, but if they were to become one some people worry that they are not deterrable, that they somehow have a different mindset and a worldview that might very well lead the leadership to be willing to become martyrs.

I don’t buy that but I think we have to test it and one of the ways of testing it is to make it very clear that we are not going to permit them, if we can prevent them, from becoming a nuclear power. But were they to become one, their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States, which personally I believe would prevent it from happening and that we would try to help the other countries that might be intimidated and bulled into submission by Iran because they were a nuclear power, avoid that state by creating this new security umbrella.


Ben Smith at Politico reports that Harold Wolfson had said earlier that she wasn't referring to nuclear weapons when she referred to "massive retaliation", but she made damn clear last night that she was.

This puts her firmly into the neocon camp, where the interests, or the perceived interests of Israel trump everything. Given that Russia would be likely to side with Iran in such a conflict, it's a setup for the return of Mutually Assured Destruction, a Dr. Strangelove scenario of horrific proportions. And I still don't think the American people are going to be willing to risk this for Israel.

And I don't want to see any comments calling me an anti-Semite, either. The soil of Poland is littered with the gassed and incinerated ashes of my relatives.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

When the media becomes an arm of the government, can we believe anything they say?
Posted by Jill | 6:21 AM
This morning I turned on the TV to Morning Joe and was immediately struck by how the show has turned from relentless Clinton-bashing to hammering what they call Barack Obama's 10-point drop in a national poll since last Wednesday's debate.

It's no secret that the media do what they can to manipulate political thought in this country. Whether it's talking heads referring to "The Democrat Party" or newsreaders on WINS referring to "The Democrat primary tomorrow in Pennsylvania", or Tim Russert perpetuating the "Barack Obama didn't put his hand over his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance" meme when the event portrayed in That Infamous Photograph was the playing of the National Anthem, at which such a gesture is not required; or the unabashedly positive coverage given to John McCain, it's not voters who decide our elections, it's the media.

Television in particular has been living off the legacy of Edward R. Murrow for the last fifty years, even though that legacy has now been tarnished beyond redemption by talking heads who are an integral part of Beltway society and care more about access and schmoozing than actually providing information to the American people. But newspapers have hardly been immune.

The reason it's been so infuriating to watch Hillary Clinton suck up to Richard Mellon Scaife for an endorsement and throw an organization that was founded to defend her husband from impeachment under the bus to curry favor with people who wouldn't vote for her in the fall anyway is because she is giving legitimacy to the very tactics that nearly destroyed Bill Clinton's presidency, and in doing so, giving legitimacy to the sorry state of the press during the Bush years. This one-two punch indicates a capitulation to the wreckage that is news coverage in this country that is unacceptable, especially after we find out the extent to which the Pentagon, through its deployment of retired military officers to the media to spread the Administration's line about the war in Iraq, has manipulated public opinion.

As devastating as this blockbuster story in the New York Times yesterday is, there's a certain "closing the barn door after the horse leaves" quality to it. Back when it counted, the Times allowed Judith Miller and others to parrot the Administration's line, giving the lies about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction a credibility they might otherwise have lacked.

Greg Mitchell reports on E&P's efforts to expose how the Times participated in the very propaganda campaign yesterday's article now decries.

Perhaps the gamble that the paper took in mortgaging its credibility to curry favor with a lying sack of dung of a president in the aftermath of a national trauma, and its continuing mortgaging of its credibility by paying William Kristol to write swill for its op-ed page, are two reasons why the paper posted a $335,000 loss in the first quarter of this year.

Was it worth it?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, April 20, 2008

It's about damn time the MSM addressed this
Posted by Jill | 10:40 PM
Do we really want a psycho time bomb like John McCain to have the decision-making power to drop a bomb on ANYONE?

John McCain cupped a fist and began pumping it, up and down, along the side of his body. It was a gesture familiar to a participant in the closed-door meeting of the Senate committee who hoped that it merely signaled, as it sometimes had in the past, McCain's mounting frustration with one of his colleagues.

But when McCain leaned toward Charles E. Grassley and slowly said, "My friend . . ." it seemed clear that ugliness was looming: While the plural "my friends" was usually a warm salutation from McCain, "my friend" was often a prelude to his most caustic attacks. Grassley, an Iowa Republican with a reputation as an unwavering legislator, calmly held his ground. McCain became angrier, his fist pumping even faster.

It was early 1992, and the occasion was an informal gathering of a select committee investigating lingering issues about Vietnam War prisoners and those missing in action, most notably whether any American servicemen were still being held by the Vietnamese. It is unclear precisely what issue set off McCain that day. But at some point, he mocked Grassley to his face and used a profanity to describe him. Grassley stood and, according to two participants at the meeting, told McCain, "I don't have to take this. I think you should apologize."

McCain refused and stood to face Grassley. "There was some shouting and shoving between them, but no punches," recalls a spectator, who said that Nebraska Democrat Bob Kerrey helped break up the altercation.


No punches? Well, that makes it OK, then, right? Sort of the way the one guy in this scene from I, Claudius who says that he'd only done it with Augustus' daughter once, or the other guy who seems to think that because he hadn't "slept" with her, it made the fact that he'd done everything else with her perfectly OK:




But there's more:

Former senator Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican, expresses worries about McCain: "His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him."

A spokesman for McCain's campaign said he would be unavailable for an interview on the subject of his temper. But over the years, no one has written more intimately about McCain's outbursts than McCain himself. "My temper has often been both a matter of public speculation and personal concern," he wrote in a 2002 memoir. "I have a temper, to state the obvious, which I have tried to control with varying degrees of success because it does not always serve my interest or the public's."

That temper has followed him throughout his life, McCain acknowledges. He recalls in his writings how, as a toddler, he sometimes held his breath and fainted during moments of fury. As the son of a naval officer who was on his way to becoming a four-star admiral, McCain found himself frequently uprooted and enrolled in new schools, where, as an underappreciated outsider, he developed "a little bit of a chip on my shoulder," as he recalled this month.

During a campaign stop at Episcopal High School in Alexandria, the most famous graduate of the Class of 1954 opened a window on what swirled inside him during his school years. "I was always the new kid and was accustomed to proving myself quickly at each new school as someone not to be challenged lightly," he told students.

"As a young man, I would respond aggressively and sometimes irresponsibly to anyone who I perceived to have questioned my sense of honor and self-respect. Those responses often got me in a fair amount of trouble earlier in life."

[snip]

Reports recently surfaced of Rep. Rick Renzi, an Arizona Republican, taking offense when McCain called him "boy" once too often during a 2006 meeting, a story that McCain aides confirm while playing down its importance. "Renzi flared and he was prickly," McCain strategist Mark Salter said. "But there were no punches thrown or anything."


And that guy didn't actually "sleep" with Augustus' daughter, either.

I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "temper" is.

"I heard about his temper more from others," said Grant Woods, McCain's first congressional chief of staff, who is generally regarded as McCain's closest confidant in his early political years. "According to them, he really unleashed on some of them, and they couldn't figure out why. . . . It happened enough that it was affecting his credibility with some people. If you wanted a programmed, subdued, always-on-message politician, he wasn't and will never be your guy."

Woods helped orchestrate McCain's first House campaign in 1982 and worked to get him elected to the Senate in 1986. That year the Arizona Republican Party held its Election Night celebration for all its candidates at a Phoenix hotel, where the triumphant basked in the cheers of their supporters and delivered victory statements on television.

After McCain finished his speech, he returned to a suite in the hotel, sat down in front of a TV and viewed a replay of his remarks, angry to discover that the speaking platform had not been erected high enough for television cameras to capture all of his face -- he seemed to have been cut off somewhere between his nose and mouth.

A platform that had been adequate for taller candidates had not taken into account the needs of the 5-foot-9 McCain, who left the suite and went looking for a man in his early 20s named Robert Wexler, the head of Arizona's Young Republicans, which had helped make arrangements for the evening's celebration. Confronting Wexler in a hotel ballroom, McCain exploded, according to witnesses who included Jon Hinz, then executive director of the Arizona Republican Party. McCain jabbed an index finger in Wexler's chest.

"I told you we needed a stage," he screamed, according to Hinz. "You incompetent little [expletive]. When I tell you to do something, you do it."

Hinz recalls intervening, placing his 6-foot-6 frame between the senator-elect and the young volunteer. "John, this is not the time or place for this," Hinz remembers saying to McCain, who fumed that he hadn't been seen clearly by television viewers. Hinz recollects finally telling McCain: "John, look, I'll follow you out on stage myself next time. I'll make sure everywhere you go there is a milk crate for you to stand on. But this is enough."

McCain spun around on his heels and left. He did not talk to Hinz again for several years. In 2000, as Hinz recalls, he appeared briefly on the Christian Broadcasting Network to voice his worries about McCain's temperament on televangelist Pat Robertson's show, "The 700 Club." Hinz's concerns have since grown with reports of incidents in and out of Arizona.

In 1994, McCain tried to stop a primary challenge to the state's Republican governor, J. Fife Symington III, by telephoning his opponent, Barbara Barrett, the well-heeled spouse of a telecommunications executive, and warning of unspecified "consequences" should she reject his advice to drop out of the race. Barrett stayed in. At that year's state Republican convention, McCain confronted Sandra Dowling, the Maricopa County school superintendent and, according to witnesses, angrily accused her of helping to persuade Barrett to enter the race.

"You better get [Barrett] out or I'll destroy you," a witness claims that McCain shouted at her. Dowling responded that if McCain couldn't respect her right to support whomever she chose, that he "should get the hell out of the Senate." McCain shouted an obscenity at her, and Dowling howled one back.


Doesn't it seem troubling that one man would carry this much anger, and wouldn't you think it'd be worrisome to more people that this kind of hothead may very well end up in the White House? I mean, it's one thing to fall into the myth of the "tough guy." It's another thing to shoot first and ask questions later. Haven't we had enough of that?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Sunday Big Blue Smurf Blogging: What They Said
Posted by Jill | 7:03 PM
Today's honoree: Lance Mannion, for Suffering fools less than gladly:

The Insiders think that McCain and Clinton and Obama are running for the job of National Best Drinking Buddy and they've already decided McCain's the right man for that job, emphasis on man because who wants to drink with a woman you can't go to bed with or tell your troubles to? Oh sure, Hillary will listen to you tell her your troubles, but then she'll have suggestions about what to do about those troubles. When the Insiders complain that Hillary reminds them of their first wives or of a schoolteacher or of whatever other gynophobic stereotype bubbles up out of the parts of their distressed psyches where their castration complexes lurk, they are putting their finger right on her problem as they see it. She doesn't want to hear how misunderstood you think you are, she wants you to take out the trash right now, thanks, she wants you to buckle down and do your homework.

This is the source of their contempt for all Democrats and it will be there in their trashing of Obama all through the campaign and throughout his Presidency if he wins.


And the only ones who can change this are the American people. And they can do it by turning off these shows, notifying their sponsors that these shows are trying to manipulate the electoral process, and saying that we will not purchase their products as long as these "news" shows continue in this manner.

(h/t)

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Around the Blogroll and Elsewhere...Special Sunday De-Cluttering Avoidance Edition
Posted by Jill | 11:38 AM
Well, we aren't going to have Niecy and Mark and Trish and Matt here to help, or to match up to $1000 of proceeds, or to gift us furniture or new flooring, or to draw in people with TV cameras, but our yard sale is just about two weeks away, and we are deciding what we can bear to part with.

Mr. Brilliant has decided that the bigass Proscan TV in the basement famiily room should go while it still works and we don't have to worry about how to get it out of there and dispose of it. We have a smaller TV that we can put down there for my yoga and workout video use until such time as we find a good deal on a smallish, non-HD flatscreen. He's also willing to part with the Warner Bros. cartoon exhibit poster that we got from said exhibit years and years ago that doesn't really belong anywhere in the house because it really needs like a frathouse or a college dorm room. We went through a bunch of CDs and found some we can part with, and of course I have stacks and stacks of clothes, much of it never worn, some nice costume jewelry, and other goodies. I'm not quite ready to part with my ice skates yet, because the boots alone were almost $300 new, even though they need new blades and it's doubtful whether I'll ever put them on again. Rather than sell them for five bucks I'd prefer to donate them to some kid who could use an extra pair of practice boots. We got rid of so much stuff during last spring's flood that we don't have anywhere near the amount of stuff you'd see on Clean House.

But since I'm in declutter mode again today, and the Mets are in a position to sweep the hated Philadelphia Phillies, let's find some good stuff for you to read.

Cernig has an update and analysis of Muqtada al-Sadr's threat to end the Mahdi Army's ceasefire (you know, the one that's allowed the Administration to say that the surge is working).

Ornery Bastard could use a visit from Miss Niecy too.

Jane Hamsher does not take kindly to being thrown under the bus, while Jeff Fecke is still tryin' to find a reason to believe.

MyDD may be the Hillary counterpoint to the Daily Kosbama, but Jonathan Singer determines definitively that no, Obama did not flip Hillary the bird.

Russ Wellen on how Americans' persistence in believing that they will someday be invited into the Rich Guys' Club means that we'll probably be seeing President John McCain.


Archcrone calls the Pentagon's use of so-called "analysts" on the networks to generate favorable news coverage of the Administration's military policy what it is: PsyOps while Tim at Balloon Juice calls it "payola". Either way, the result is the same: We wuz had.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

I can't wait. So sue me
Posted by Jill | 7:09 AM




Yes, it's going to be full of penis jokes, appalling sexist humor, and equally appalling, adolescent-style homophobia. That's what it takes to get some of the people who most need to know about what the paranoia of the post-9/11 world actually means into the theatre. But if it's as smart as Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle in its treatment of racism, it'll be worth it:

“Our top priority was to make people laugh,” Mr. Schlossberg said in a recent telephone interview. “But the secondary priority is that there’s something a little smarter below the surface. I guess in a certain way it’s our reaction to post-9/11 paranoia.”

The new film, which opens Friday, picks up where the first left off, with the two pot-loving roommates — a Korean-American corporate desk jockey Harold Lee (John Cho) and an Indian-American ex-pre-med slacker Kumar Patel (Kal Penn) — en route to Amsterdam having satisfied a killer case of the munchies. Kumar, despite being harassed by airport security, manages to smuggle a stash of weed onto the plane. A bungled attempt to light up in the lavatory — not helped by the fact that “bong” sounds like “bomb” — lands the guys in Gitmo on terrorism charges. The homeland security official overseeing the case, a paragon of belligerent idiocy played by Rob Corddry, takes one look at our heroes and concludes that Al Qaeda and North Korea are in cahoots.

In devising the plot the filmmakers borrowed from Mr. Penn’s own travel experiences since the Sept. 11 attacks. “That’s probably one of the only parallels between Kumar and me,” Mr. Penn said. “We both get pulled out of line at airports.”

This became a routine occurrence when he and Mr. Cho were flying around the country to promote the first film. “Once we were with a friend of mine — he’s the same age, same height as me, except he’s white,” Mr. Penn recalled. “I was stopped at security, but he went through even though he had a hunting knife that he forgot to take out of his backpack. They were so focused on pulling out the brown guy, they didn’t even notice.”


[snip]

The signal achievement of both Harold and Kumar films is that they make race incidental without taking racism lightly; they presuppose an enlightened audience. “When we start to write, we’re under the assumption that everyone knows racism is bad,” Mr. Schlossberg said. “If you don’t know that, you’re a moron. Harold and Kumar’s attitude toward racism is more frustration at having to deal with idiocy than moral outrage. We try to create a world where racism is stupid.”


I'm also waiting for Part III: Harold and Kumar Run for President. Coming to a television set near you this fall.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

The McCain/Stephanopoulos interview you WON'T see
Posted by Jill | 7:00 AM
Brought to you by the good people at Brave New Films/The Real McCain:



Labels:

Bookmark and Share