"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, May 17, 2008

Teddy Kennedy Rushed to Hospital With Possible Stroke.
Posted by Anonymous | 12:26 PM

I hate the breaking news emails, the interruption of the current program for a special announcement, and just a little while ago I sat breathless watching MSNBC's breaking and ongoing story about Teddy Kennedy's hospitalization with stroke-like symptoms. The Cape Cod Times reported this morning that Teddy was at the Kennedy's Hyannis compound when he had symptoms and was taken to Cape Cod hospital (and excellent hospital in my experience,) and the transferred to Mass General (another excellent hospital.) There isn't much else yet except all of our hopes and prayers that whatever this is, its mild and something that he will pass right through. Teddy, at 76, is strong as a horse, and he is chomping at the bit for the upcoming Obama campaign.



Back to our regular programming, Russert's additional pre-taped show this weekend is about JFK and features his closest advisor's.

I will be following this story closely. Teddy Kennedy is not only someone who this country needs actively working in our government, but he has acted as the father and grandfather for 3 families, carrying quite a heavy load personally.

Do you want to see what this Kennedy is made of? Do you want to see who is speaking for you in our government? Watch him in action and then say a little prayer that we get to keep him for just a little while longer:



Update: HuffPo reports that according to Kennedy's doctors, the senator suffered what was apparently a seizure and was not life threatening. He is reportedly in good spirits and has some of his children, his wife, and his niece Carolyn with him. This thing was worrisome because of his recent surgery for a blockage in his carotid artery, but it is unclear what caused this seizure. seizures can be caused by many different things and can resemble strokes, but they aren't the same.
I'm relieved and looking forward to more good news on this story.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Pr0n for Smart Women
Posted by Jill | 10:55 AM
It just doesn't get any better than this: John Cusack on The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson:



Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, May 16, 2008

Let's hear what George W. Bush has to say about THIS appeaser of Hitler
Posted by Jill | 11:12 AM
His grandfather, Prescott Bush:

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The debate over Prescott Bush's behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.


Yes, folks, the Bush family money comes from the blood of the very annihilated Jews the memory of whom the state of Israel is supposed to honor. When George W. Bush goes to his "ranch", it's with Nazi money. When he holds a big wedding for his daughter, it's with Nazi money. When he vacations at the family compound in Kennebunkport, it's with Nazi money.

You want to talk about appeasing Hitler? Bring it on, motherfuckers.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

OMG!! BOOBZ!!
Posted by Jill | 7:58 AM
John Ashcroft, call your office:

A Christian group based in San Diego found grounds for outrage over the new retro-style logo for Starbucks Coffee.

The Resistance says the new image "has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute," Mark Dice, founder of the group, said in a news release. "Need I say more? It's extremely poor taste, and the company might as well call themselves Slutbucks."

The group, which claims more than 3,000 members nationwide and has found a place on the fringe advancing various conspiracy theories, is calling for a national boycott of the coffee-selling giant.




Wow! What an interesting look into the mind of the Jeebofascist! "...legs spread like a prostitute" -- unlike those good Christian women who keep their legs closed when they have sex only for procreative purposes. Maybe we should ask Michelle Duggar if she keeps her legs closed like a good Christian woman -- and if so, how the hell she conceived eighteen children.

Do you think we should tell Mark Dice that mermaids (which is what's depicted in the logo don't have legs?

(h/t Truthdig and Willie Geist on Morning Joe)

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Do they think no one will notice?
Posted by Jill | 7:00 AM
I'd like to believe that all those who have smugly been raking in the cash in their Wall Street jobs for the last decade and now find themselves either unemployed or in danger of being unemployed learn that they are just so much flotsam and jetsam to their employers:

Thousands are losing their jobs as hard-pressed banks cut deep. But while layoffs are nothing new in the financial industry (they come with almost every downturn), this round seems different: it is eerily quiet.

So quiet, in fact, that people refer to these cuts as stealth layoffs. Some bosses hardly say a word after people are fired. At Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, for example, the first clue that someone is gone can be e-mail messages that are returned to senders from a former colleague’s inactivated corporate address.

[snip]

The idea that banks will slowly wield the knife again and again unnerves many employees. People know the cuts are coming — they just don’t know when or where.

“Nobody knows who is coming in; nobody knows who is going out,” said JoAnne Kennedy, who was laid off by JPMorgan Chase this year. “They want to keep it all as quiet as possible.”

To some bank workers, one round of layoffs seems to blur into the next. At Goldman Sachs, low performers were dismissed from January through March. A few weeks later, the bank quietly began letting more people go. All told, Goldman is axing about 8 percent of its work force, although incoming employees this summer will make up for some of that loss.

At Merrill Lynch, 1,100 people were laid off early this year, mostly in mortgage-related businesses. But in April, the firm announced 2,900 more cuts.

JPMorgan Chase said last fall that it would lay off 100 people in its fixed-income division and then followed up with several smaller rounds of cuts in other parts of the bank. The casualties will keep mounting as JPMorgan melds with Bear Stearns, the troubled investment bank it is buying.

Starting at the top, JPMorgan executives are eliminating jobs at their own bank, redeploying some people to other divisions and replacing others with Bear Stearns workers. As many as 5,500 Bear Stearns employees and 4,000 JPMorgan workers could lose their jobs before it is over.

The steady drumbeat of bad news on Wall Street is sapping morale. Wendi S. Lazar, a partner at the employment law firm of Outten & Golden, said companies are usually better off being open about cutting jobs.

“You’re seeing a very, very inconsistent message to employees,” Ms. Lazar said. “It’s, ‘I don’t know when it’s going to happen, it may be tomorrow, it may be next month; we may be able to keep you, we may not.’ ”

Layoffs are always difficult, but some of the recent cutbacks have been messier than usual. Some JPMorgan employees learned that people from Bear Stearns would get their jobs before the bosses said anything. JPMorgan clients told them first.

Some Lehman Brothers investment bankers found out their jobs were in peril when they saw cardboard boxes and dumpster bins in the hallways in March.

And when Bank of America dismissed some bankers recently, it told them that their annual bonuses had been almost wiped out and that their personal belongings would arrive in the mail. The bank announced many of the layoffs on Feb. 13, two days before many employees would be able to start cashing out stock options.

In January, when Ms. Kennedy was temporarily out of the office at JPMorgan because of surgery, her boss called to say her job had been eliminated. She did not return to her office and ended up asking the bank to send her the photos of her son that she kept on her desk.


I'd like to believe that our society won't be tempted again by the siren song of McMansions and luxury SUVs, but I remember the other times Wall Street headed down this road, and as soon as things get better, people go flocking.

Still, I don't think you can underestimate the damage that layoffs, even stealth layoffs like this, cause to employees. Corporate executives seem to think fear is a motivator, but there's only so long you can work with a sword over your head before you start wanting it to just drop already and put you out of your misery.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Israel is not the 51st state....why should Barack Obama be running for President of Israel?
Posted by Jill | 6:01 AM
Cernig makes an interesting point about Captain Codpiece's speech before the Knesset yesterday. The conventional wisdom, even offered by Keith Olbermann last night, is that it was Bush injecting himself into the presidential race while speaking in another country. But Cernig thinks it's about something else:

Most American pundits want to see Bush's remarks as an attack on Barrack Obama but folks - it's not always about your country and your political races. For one thing, as Brian Katulis adroitly notes, if negotiating is appeasement then the Bush administration has done an awful lot of appeasement itself over the last seven years. And Brian doesn't even mention working with Sunni Awakening members in Iraq who not too long ago were terrorists attacking US forces! For another, if Bush's remarks were really intended to help John McCain, the latter wouldn't go shooting himself in the foot like this:

“Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain,'’ Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign bus after a speech in Columbus, Ohio. “I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.'’

Need I say that "Iran-Contra" and "appeasement" really do belong in the same sentence together?



[snip]

Bush, in his speech to the Knesset, signalled clearly that his administration will quietly support Israel if it decided to take direct action against Iran - as it did recently against Syria. It's worth noting that any Israeli attack on Iran would almost certainly have to transit Iraqi airspace.


It's no wonder that there are people in this country still muttering about the Jewish Lobby and the 12 Jewish bankers and Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew, when it often seems as if Israel is, in terms of Washington policy, not an ally like any other ally, but some kind of 51st superstate whose interests and needs (and paranoia) must by definition override all other foreign policy considerations.

It may be amusing to watch Tweety (who I notice is back to being Tweety again after correcting his recent red dyejob; perhaps he read He Who Must Not Be Mentioned and decided that he'd rather be Tweety than Gossamer after all) eviscerate the histrionic Kevin James (the radio idiot, not the stand-up comic) on national television (h/t):





...but leaving aside the fact that James seems to actually HAVE spent the last six years hiding under the bed with a roll of duct tape in one hand and a package of plastic sheeting in the other (and you'd also figure a pipeful of crack in his mouth, based on his demeanor), the level of hysteria on the right over poor, pitiful Israel -- the Hillary Clinton of nations in its ability to kick just about anyone's ass from here to Sunday when crossed, but which more useful to some people as a damsel in distress -- is profoundly disturbing.

Barack Obama's loyalty to this country is constantly questioned. I have even been asked by a friend whether I truly believe he's loyal to our country -- and the fact that she no longer wants to discuss the election with me means her wingnut friends sending her e-mails about how he's a secret Muslim terrorist have won that particular battle of the mind. His loyalty is questioned because of his funny name, the color of his skin, his African father and his hippie mother, and his ability to hold two thoughts in his head in the same time and see colors other than -- no pun intended -- black and white.

But lately it seems his loyalty to Israel is also constantly being questioned, because he doesn't follow the Official U.S. Line of Everything Israel Does Is By Definition Virtuous and Right -- a line that has done nothing to resolve the conflict in the area and which is an assumption that we grant to no other ally in the world. But more disturbingly, it seems as if pledging unquestioning loyalty oaths to Israel is a prerequisite for the presidency, in the eyes of the Republican Party.

It isn't about appealing to Jewish voters, either, though I'm sure that's part of it. But in a recent poll, only 23% of Jewish voters in the U.S. cited Israel as a top issue and fully 40% of Jewish voters regarded Israel as "extreme" -- a smaller percentage than regarded Iran, Hamas, or Hezbollah as extreme, but given the assumption that Israel trumps all in the minds of Jewish voters, it would seem that this No Questioning Israel litmus test is perhaps just a bit unreasonable.

Of course even as I write, Pat Buchanan is on Morning Joe insisting that Israel IS the most important thing on the minds of Jewish voters, so once again, it seems there is a disconnect between what's actually happening and what pundits say are happening.

Every four years we go through this assiduous courting of "The Jewish Vote", as if a group of the kind of polyglot, squabbling people that American Jews are, can ever be lumped together into one group. This year it seems to be even more ferocious, here at the intersection of Bonb Iran Lane Avenue and He's Really a Musliim Terrorist Lane.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, May 15, 2008

I might even support a humanitarian military mission for this
Posted by Jill | 6:18 AM
Of course we all know that the invasion of Iraq was NOT to "liberate the Iraqi people from a tyrant", but let's just go with that for a minute. If it's a "noble cause" to liberate people of an oil-rich nation to "spread freedom", why isn't it OK to liberate people in a country devastated by the Pacific equivalent of a Katrina-level hurricane and flood from a tyrannical regime that won't even let aid get to its people?

Myanmar's junta announced Thursday that a pro-military constitution has won overwhelming support in a referendum, which was held despite widespread criticism and in the midst of a national tragedy — a devastating cyclone that the Red Cross says may have killed more than 125,000 people.

Myanmar's government issued a revised casualty toll Wednesday night, saying 38,491 were known dead and 27,838 were missing.

But the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies said its estimate put the number of dead between 68,833 and 127,990.

Even though the figures seemed precise, spokesman Matthew Cochrane said they were not based on body counts, but were only estimate designed to provide Red Cross donors and partner organizations with an idea of the numbers being discussed within the aid community.

U.N. officials have said there could be more than 100,000 dead in the May 2-3 cyclone.

With up to 2.5 million people in urgent need of food, water and shelter, aid agencies were preparing or moving in a wide-range of relief supplies including material for temporary shelters, rice, drinking water, kitchen utensils and medicines, including 2,000 anti-snake bite kits.

The World Health Organization said an increase in snake bites was feared in coming days. U.N. agencies and other voluntary groups have been able to reach only 270,000 of the affected people.

But instead of accepting foreign help freely, the government continued to issue only a few visas to foreign aid experts, and all but shut them out of the hardest-hit areas.

The regime insists it can handle the disaster on its own — a stance that appears to stem not from its abilities but its deep suspicion of most foreigners, who have frequently criticized its human rights abuses and crackdown on democracy activists.


If George W. Bush really cared about spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world, he would send troops in a noncombat role to get this aid through. But then, Myanmar/Burma doesn't have oil.

Except that it does.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Golf: The Supreme Sacrifice of the Frat Boy
Posted by Jill | 6:04 AM
Keith:





There's something so Gilded Age about a child of Connecticut and Kennebunkport actually thinking that the sacrifice of a sport played in clubs that don't allow black people or women, clubs frequented by guys named Skip and Chip wearing plaid pants; on land that could be used to farm vegetables to feed poor people or shelter them; land that's artificially kept green as a carpet through pesticides that then get into the water supply and cause cancer, constitutes a way to express "solidarity" with the family of a kid from Flint, Michigan who died while serving in the Army because there was nothing else for him to do.

I think George Carlin had the right idea:




I wonder what all the people who voted for George W. Bush because he was "a guy you'd want to have a beer with"; the people who think Barack Obama is "arrogant" because he's a black guy in a pinstripe suit who dares to think, who's "arrogant" enough to think, who's "uppity" enough to think that he could EVER be President of the United States.

You want to talk about elitist? A guy who thinks giving up golf to express condolence for the kids HE sent to die is elitist. And so is the guy who wants to continue his policies so he too can resolve his issues with his father.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share

And here I thought Zacarias Moussaoui was the 20th hijacker
Posted by Jill | 5:48 AM
How many 20th hijackers have there been now?

And the Bush record of bringing those responsible for 9/11 continues apace. Charges against another suspect have been dropped because of the Bush torture policy:

U.S. authorities have long considered Mohammed al-Qahtani one of the most dangerous alleged terrorists in U.S. custody, a man who could have been the 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11, 2001, plot if he had not been denied entry into the country.

But yesterday, amid concerns about using information obtained during abusive military interrogations, a top Pentagon official removed Qahtani from the military commission case meant to bring justice to those behind the vast Sept. 11 conspiracy.

Susan J. Crawford, the appointed official who decides which cases will be heard in the largely untested commission process, dismissed the charges against Qahtani while affirming those against five other alleged terrorists to stand trial at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Prosecutors reserve the right to charge Qahtani again, and the military says it can hold him without trial for the duration of the counterterrorism wars. But his defense lawyers and officials familiar with the case say it is unlikely that Qahtani will face new charges because he was subjected to aggressive Defense Department interrogation techniques -- such as intimidation by dogs, hooding, nudity, long-term isolation and stress positions.

Those techniques were later rescinded because of concerns about their legality. In 2005, an official military investigation concluded that Qahtani's interrogation regimen amounted to abuse.

Officials close to the case said Crawford's office was reluctant to sanction the charges against Qahtani because prosecutors had little evidence against him outside of his own coerced confessions, a point that most certainly would have become a central issue at trial.

"Their case was only based on evidence derived from torture," said Army Lt. Col. Bryan Broyles, who represents Qahtani. "In six-plus years, the evidence comes down to what they beat out of him. The prosecution evidence was entirely unreliable and inadmissible."

Crawford has not commented publicly since taking over as the top official for military commissions, and a Pentagon spokesman said yesterday she has not explained her decision. Officials close to the case said the office's top legal adviser, Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann, concluded in an analysis that Qahtani's case was too weak to prosecute.

"Decisions relating to joining several accused are based upon such factors as the nature of the offenses, the evidence and applicable rules of procedure," said Navy Cmdr. J.D. Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman.

"My guess is that they will never charge him at all," said Charles D. "Cully" Stimson, a lawyer with the Heritage Foundation and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs. "It may be next to impossible to prove a case against him without what came out of his mouth."


And this is why torture makes a mockery of the legal system. But then, we have a president and an Administration who have made a mockery of the legal system, the offices they hold, the Constitution, and the nation. This is just one of their many travesties.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, May 14, 2008

This falls under the "It's OK to knock your own team" rule
Posted by Jill | 6:46 AM
If some guy named Sean O'Malley or Worthington J. Graham were to ask this, it would be tantamount to muttering conspiracies about Jewish bankers and the Rothschilds. But since it's Glenn Greenwald, a Member of the Tribe, it's worth reading his inquiry about why it is that American politicians are expected to swear an oath of loyalty to Israel in a way they aren't required to for any other American ally.

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg conducted what he's calling an "interview" with Barack Obama regarding Israel, but it sounded much more like an inquisition. Goldberg repeatedly demanded that Obama swear his devotion to Israel and affirm prevailing orthodoxies ("I'm curious to hear you talk about the Zionist idea. Do you believe that it has justice on its side?"; "Go to the kishke question, the gut question: the idea that if Jews know that you love them, then you can say whatever you want about Israel, but if we don't know you –- Jim Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski –- then everything is suspect. There seems to be in some quarters, in Florida and other places, a sense that you don’t feel Jewish worry the way a senator from New York would feel it"; "Do you think that Israel is a drag on America's reputation overseas?"; "If you become President, will you denounce settlements publicly?"). Afterwards, Goldberg pronounced himself satisfied: "Obama expressed -- in twelve different ways -- his support for Israel to me."



Marty Peretz, after a telephone conversation with Obama devoted primarily to Israel, similarly clears Obama of any suspicions of disloyalty, approvingly noting that Obama "recognizes" that Israeli settlements of the West Bank are not "the core problem" for the conflict with the Palestinians (to Peretz, such settlements "are very much a side-issue"). Peretz further decrees that Obama's "exhilarating experience with American Jews and with their bonds to the dream and realities of Israel" was evident in both Goldberg's interview and in Obama's call with Peretz.




Isn't it bad enough that Obama's loyalty to THIS country has been questioned because he doesn't like to equate the wearing of a fifty-cent flag pin made in China to love of country? Do we have to make him swear fealty to Israel too? Especially when Obama has a commanding lead over McCain among Jewish voters anyway? Who set up the Zionist punditocracy as the Arbiter of Jewish Acceptability?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Senator McDreamy
Posted by Jill | 6:10 AM
Now here's a guy who ought to make that thrill go up Chris Matthews' leg. Meet Scott Kleeb, who decisively won his primary race against a Republican-turned-Democrat in Nebraska yesterday with 69 (now, STOP it!) percent of the vote. Kleeb is running for the seat of the retiring Chuck Hagel against former U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns.

The good news? Well, LOOK at him, fer cryin' out loud. The other good news? His big push is about R&D into alternative energy, he's an environmentalist, and favors diplomacy over shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later. He's a bit more hawkish than I'd like, his talk of "simplifying the tax code" sounds kind of right-wing dog-whistle-ish, and he falls into the trap of assuming that retraining is some kind of panacea for job outsourcing. But he's about as progressive as you're going to get out of Nebraska, he's an ranch hand-turned-college professor with a Ph.D. in history, and well, uh, LOOK at him.

This would be a very nice Democratic pickup. It would mean that the Democrats would have picked up seats that used to belong to some of the most high-profile Republicans in the Senate and House.

With West Virginia proving yesterday that there are still far too many people who simply Will Not vote for a black man for president, getting to that 60-seat threshhold in Congress is going to be very important as a precaution against a McCain presidency run amok. Kleeb is running against an extremely well-financed opponent, so if you want to target a Senate race for donations, you could do worse than this one.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, May 13, 2008

"If I Play Golf, the Terrorists Will Have Won."

Now if we can just get him to give up eating cake and attending Republican fundraisers during hurricanes…

In an interview with Politico and Yahoo News, George W. Bush showed us what a sacrificial kinda guy he is. He admitted, after blaming our intelligence community yet again for the intel that got us into Iraq (and what faulty intel, one might ask, is keeping us in there since it's admittedly turned into a Swedish clusterfuck?), that he gave up playing golf in honor of the troops that he’d doomed to death.

It only took him until August 2003, when the UN HQ in Baghdad got bombed, killing Sergio Vieira de Mello, a high-ranking UN official. He couldn’t even lie and say that he gave up golf for the 270 or so troops who‘d been killed by the time of the August 19, 2003 bombing. It was over de Mello’s assassination.

Here’s Bush’s answer to a question spoondfed to him by Mike Allen, who asked him if his not playing golf since 2003 had anything to do with Iraq.:
I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal… I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life. I was playing golf -- I think I was in central Texas -- and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, 'It's just not worth it anymore to do.'

Gee, what a fortuitous guess on Allen’s part, getting right to the heart of the matter with his intuition. And, gee, what a guy, caring about how he looks while driving the ship of state over the cliff.

Such as this tender moment while Hurricane Katrina was busy ripping up the Gulf Coast:

Luckily, Dear Leader ain’t obsessed with appearances, such as when he drove past grieving mother Cindy Sheehan, throwing up dust in her face as she stood in a drainage ditch, on the way to yet another GOP fundraiser. You know, keeping up appearances for grieving war mothers like that.

The story of Bush playing golf while Katrina was destroying lives by the thousands and property by the billions of dollars is apocryphal at best. No pictures exist of Bush playing golf either that day in San Diego or any of him since 2003.

But banning photographers while you’re playing golf in order to look more reverent than you are isn’t quitting. It’s just being sneaky and dishonest, which are two words that perfectly, if euphemistically, describe this administration from start to bloody finish.

So, the next time we see Bush playing golf, that’ll mean the war’s over. Right?
Bookmark and Share

Do you trust people to keep you safe who admit they benefit from terrorism?
Posted by Jill | 10:11 PM
Don Rumsfeld may be gone, but his cronies are still in power. This ought to make your hair stand on end:

An ongoing exploration of the documents related to the Pentagon's "message force multipliers" program has unearthed a clip of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggesting that America, having voted the Democrats back into Congressional power, could benefit from suffering another terrorist attack, and doing so in the presence of the very same military analysts who went on to provide commentary and analysis of the Iraq War.

[snip]

But by far the most extraordinary part of this luncheon is the antipathy the gathered members exhibit toward the American people for having the temerity to vote the Democrats back into power. When Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong bemoans the lack of "sympathetic ears" on Capitol Hill, Rumsfeld offers that the American people lack "the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the threats." What's to be done? According to Rumsfeld, "The correction for that, I suppose, is [another] attack."

DELONG: Politically, what are the challenges because you're not going to have a lot of sympathetic ears up there.

RUMSFELD: That's what I was just going to say. This President's pretty much a victim of success. We haven't had an attack in five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it's not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing's in Europe, there's a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack. And when that happens, then everyone gets energized for another [inaudible] and it's a shame we don't have the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the threats...the lethality, the carnage, that can be imposed on our society is so real and so present and so serious that you'd think we'd be able to understand it, but as a society, the longer you get away from 9/11, the less...the less...


So....why should anyone think THIS bunch is going to "keep you safe"? We have an election coming up in November, and voters may very well decide to elect a Democrat.

So do you feel lucky? Well, do you?

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

I swear, you couldn't Photoshop this
Posted by Jill | 9:16 PM
Hoff mentioned what a joke the GOP site is, so I went and took a look for myself. And hoo-boy, is he ever right:



Now, I could swear that one of these rotating banners said "9,400 members and counting!", but I sat for as many minutes as I could stand and it never came back. But what's here is priceless enough.

First of all, if you didn't know better, you'd think this was an Obama campaign site, because Barack Obama is mentioned more than the party's own presumptive nominee. Look at the headlines -- every last one about Barack Obama, and nothing about John McCain.

Now the funny stuff:

Note how the first headline is "05-12-08 - Obama's inability to hire good help rears its head -- again." Now notice the four rotating images under the picture of Obama. Look at the one to the far left: "The Republican Party is Hiring!!" Looks like their inability to hire good help rears its own head -- again. Now look at the image next to it: "Political Education": Learn some new political skills." Like what -- gay bashing, opposing a G.I. Bill because it might give people who enlist hope for a different future than just being cannon fodder?" And speaking of opposing the G.I. Bill, look at how Republicans support the troops -- why, they create a petition! Because nothing says "Thank you for your service" quite like signing a petition expressing your support for leaving the troops over in Iraq until they are "victorious" -- whatever the fuck that means. Does anyone even know? Helping them get medical care, housing, and education when they get home -- that's for sissies. Real men, real patriots, sign a petition. Oh yeah, and they donate to McCain while they're at it.

You don't even want to KNOW about the "Faces of the GOP". But if you look at this and think "Faces of Death", you're not alone.

Ah....OK, I reloaded the page and here it is -- a screencap crowing about how the GOP's Facebook group is "9,400 members strong and growing!!" (Pssst....Barack Obama's has 831,532 strong...and growing.)



And of course, this one has the ever-popular "Vote Fraud Updates" -- designed to make sure that the nonexistent problem of illegal immigrants deciding to expose themselves to government officials so they can vote is Taken! Care! Of! Let's click on that one, shall we?

It's a compendium of "vote fraud" cases. Let's see what we have....more than 500 absentee ballot applications rejected in Howard County, Indiana. They claim it's because parts of the applications were filled out by United Auto Worker officials. Now remember, these are not the ballots themselves, they are requests for absentee ballots. The beef here is that the UAW officials pre-filled some of the information, including checking off "Democratic" for the party affiliation. Now the UAW ought to know better, but the fact that they were all Democratic Party requests doesn't necessarily mean that there were any Republican UAW members who were "forced" to request Democratic Party ballots. And really, what's the big deal? It's not as if the Republican primary in Indiana was contested, and Rush Limbaugh was telling Republicans to cross over anyway.

So what else....OK, we have a blurb about the Supreme Court's upholding of Indiana's Voter ID law and we have ONE WOMAN who was allowed to keep her right to vote after being indicted for trying to vote twice in a local election last August. We have news of 14 indictments in elections dating back to 2003. That's nationwide. That sure doesn't sound like a serious and endemic "vote fraud" problem to me. I'm frankly a lot more concerned about 93,000 innocent Floridians who were disenfranchised by Karl Rove in 2000, or about the tens of thousands of largely minority Ohioans who were turned away at the polls in 2004 after standing in the rain for ten hours. If all you can do is come up with fourteen people -- even 100 people -- constituting "vote fraud" OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS, that hardly seems like justification to implement laws designed to keep everyone lower on the socioeconomic scale than middle-class away from the polls.

But this is your 2008 GOP, folks -- a party that's ashamed to put its own nominee on its web site in anything other than a cursory manner, a party looking for onesies and twosies of "vote fraud" but cares not about mass disenfranchisement or voting machines that don't work and change votes when they do; a party selling a 5=inch pink elephant named Maxine -- yours for the modest sum of $35. Maxine is, of course, pink, which I guess is supposed to mean she's a girl, but since she is a pink elephant, feel free to insert your own Vito Fossella joke here.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

"Arrogant" -- just another word for "uppity"
Posted by Jill | 8:05 AM
We haven't come that far after all:

At a Clinton campaign rally Sunday night in Eleanor, only 30 miles down the road from Charleston (motto posted on the main drag: "The Cleanest Town in West Virginia"), the Secret Service held on to pocketknives for voters so they could give them back once the candidate left -- not exactly the norm at Obama's rallies anywhere. Even for Clinton fans this late in the game, the crowd was fairly hostile to Obama. R.K. and Peggy Horton, both 71, said they'd never voted for a Republican for president in their lives. But if Obama wins, they will, and they think a lot of their neighbors will, too.

Obama rubs the Hortons the wrong way because they think he's arrogant. It's the same thing you hear from voters in a lot of the parts of the country where Obama's infamous remarks about bitterness would probably also apply. But that's not his only problem in rural West Virginia. "They won't go for a black man, that's just it," R.K. Horton, a retired heating and air conditioning business owner, said of his neighbors. "I don't think it's being racist necessarily, they just don't like black people that well." For that matter, it's not just his neighbors. "The arrogance and all that bothers me more than black, but black is a close second," he said. "Our generation was back when blacks were the back of the bus, and it's hard to change that outlook. I just feel like I couldn't vote for him."


Has your head exploded yet?

What the fuck is wrong with these people? First of all, if you say you just don't like black people all that well, you are a racist. If you don't like ONE black person, that's dislike of an individual. Not liking "black people" means you are a racist. So admit it and then we can deal with it accordingly.

R.K. Horton is smart enough, and able enough to detach from his gut response to recognize that his "not liking black people" may stem from growing up when black people were the back of the bus -- but he's not able to transcend that and recognize that just because something comes from your gut or your upbringing doesn't make it accurate.

This is the minefield that John Edwards faced with the gay community when he acknowledged his "discomfort" -- a discomfort stemming from his background. The difference is that John Edwards recognized that "discomfort" need not result in "dislike", acknowledged that he was struggling with it, and admitted it wasn't something of which he was proud -- unlike R.K. Horton, who just shrugs his shoulders and figures he's entitled to be a racist because he grew up that way.

Meanwhile, the "uppity Negro" (sic) -- oh, excuse me -- the ARROGANT black guy -- had the temerity to recognize the dynamic of a bunch of people voting against their own interest because they can't seem to get past their own prejudices. He had the audacity to pull the cover off of this cancer with which the American white poor live all the time and try to transcend it. He recognized it for what it is -- bitterness -- and is chastised to this day for it.

Well, you know what, Mr. Horton? You go right on listening to the Republican dog whistles. You go right on voting for people who send your job overseas and who want to throw your Social Security into the giant sucking maw of the stock market and want to eliminate the Medicare you're going to rely on when you're old. You go on voting for these people because you grew up with blacks at the back of the bus.

But when you find yourself without so much as a pot to piss in, don't come crying to me. And don't you DARE blame those black people you still think belong at the back of the bus.

UPDATE: So much for race doesn't matter anymore. Ugly Americans indeed.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Liberals are more creative than conservatives
Posted by Jill | 8:02 AM
Check out the creative minds of progressives at Obama in 30 Seconds.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

If Republicans can't win fair and square, they'll win by only allowing people likely to vote for THEM to vote
Posted by Jill | 7:42 AM
Editorial, New York Times today:

Missouri and at least 19 other states are considering passing laws that would force people to prove their citizenship before they can vote. These bills are not a sincere effort to prevent noncitizens from voting; that is a made-up problem. The real aim is to reduce turnout by eligible voters. Republicans seem to think that laws of this kind will help them win elections, but burdensome rules like these — and others cropping up around the country — pose a serious threat to democracy and should be stopped.

The Missouri legislature is, as Ian Urbina reported in The Times on Monday, on the verge of passing an amendment to the State Constitution that would require proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote. In addition to the Missouri amendment, which would require voter approval, Florida, Kansas, South Carolina and other states are considering similar rules.

There is no evidence that voting by noncitizens is a significant problem. Illegal immigrants do their best to remain in the shadows, to avoid attracting government attention and risking deportation. It is hard to imagine that many would walk into a polling place, in the presence of challengers and police, and try to cast a ballot.

There is, however, ample evidence that a requirement of proof of citizenship will keep many eligible voters from voting. Many people do not have birth certificates or other acceptable proof of citizenship, and for some people, that proof is not available. One Missouri voter, Lillie Lewis, said at a news conference last week that officials in Mississippi, where she was born, told her they had no record of her birth.

Proof of citizenship is just one of an array of new barriers to voting that have been springing up across the country. Indiana adopted a tough new photo ID voting requirement, over objections from Democrats that it would prevent eligible voters from casting a ballot. The critics were right. In last week’s Indiana primary, a group of about 12 nuns in their 80s and 90s were prevented from voting because they lacked acceptable ID.

As with Missouri’s proposed amendment, the driving force behind strict voter ID requirements in general is not a genuine effort to prevent fraud, since there is virtually no evidence that in-person voter fraud is occurring. It is, rather, the Republican Party’s electoral calculations. Barriers at the polls drive down voter turnout, especially among the poor, racial minorities and students — groups that are less likely than average to have driver’s licenses, and that are more likely than average to vote Democratic.


Voter ID requirements sound good in theory. After all, one of the perqs of citizenship is the right to vote. But when we live in a country where in most elections, barely half of those elegible even bother to show up at the polls, is this really a problem? Does anyone actually believe that illegal immigrants, for whom the LAST thing they want is to be discovered, are going to show up at the polls and expose themselves to authorities?

The husband of a friend of mine was born in Jersey City, in Hudson County, NJ. It seems that for a number of years, workers at the Hudson County Office of Vital Statistics were entering phony birth records, and the state's response was to declare the birth certificates of anyone born before 1965 to be invald. Now you can go to the state's Bureau, but the onus is now on YOU, if you were born in Hudson County during that time, to prove who you are. It's guilt until proven innocent. And if you are in that limbo, you cannot renew your driver's license, you cannot obtain a passport, and if we had this kind of voter ID requirement here in NJ, you would not be able to register to vote.

Obtaining the kind of identification required to pass muster under this sort of voter ID is a pain in the ass for those of us who have cars and who can take time off from work. What of those who are infirm, or don't have access to transportation, or who will be fired if they need to take time off work, because after all, workers at these state agencies don't work evenings and weekends? According to Republicans, having those disadvantages (which largely means you are poor or elderly) is grounds for disenfranchisement.

You'd think that since Republicans are so certain of the correctness of their ideology, they wouldn't be so afraid of what happens if all American citizens exercise their right to vote.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Barack Obama on how you do not support the troops by denying them opportunities at home
Posted by Jill | 6:08 AM
Speech on veterans' affairs in West Virginia yesterday:





"The young men and women who choose to serve are defending the very rights and freedoms that allow Americans to speak out against government actions we oppose. They deserve our admiration, respect and enduring gratitude.

"At the same time, we must never forget that honoring this service and upholding these ideals requires more than saluting our veterans as they march by on Veterans Day or Memorial Day. It requires marching with them for the care and benefits they have earned It requires standing shoulder-to-shoulder with our veterans and their families after the guns fall silent and the cameras are turned off. At a time when we’re facing the largest homecoming since the Second World War, the true test of our patriotism is whether we will serve our returning heroes as well as they’ve served us.

"We know that over the last eight years, we’ve already fallen short of meeting this test. We all learned about the deplorable conditions that were discovered at places like Fort Bragg and Walter Reed. We’ve all walked by a veteran whose home is now a cardboard box on a street corner in the richest nation on Earth. We’ve all heard about what it’s like to navigate the broken bureaucracy of the VA – the impossibly long lines, or the repeated calls for help that get you nothing more than an answering machine. Just a few weeks ago, an 89-year-old World War II veteran from South Carolina told his family, “No matter what I apply for at the VA, they turn me down.” The next day, he walked outside of an Outpatient Clinic in Greenville and took his own life.

"How can we let this happen? How is that acceptable in the United States of America? The answer is, it’s not. It’s an outrage. And it’s a betrayal – a betrayal – of the ideals that we ask our troops to risk their lives for.

[snip]

"There is no reason we shouldn’t pass the 21st Century GI Bill that is being debated in Congress right now. It was introduced by my friend Senator Jim Webb, a Marine who served as Navy Secretary under President Ronald Reagan.. His plan has widespread support from Republicans and Democrats. It would provide every returning veteran with a real chance to afford a college education, and it would not harm retention.

"I have great respect for John McCain’s service to this country and I know he loves it dearly and honors those who serve. But he is one of the few Senators of either party who oppose this bill because he thinks it’s too generous. I couldn’t disagree more. At a time when the skyrocketing cost of tuition is pricing thousands of Americans out of a college education, we should be doing everything we can to give the men and women who have risked their lives for this country the chance to pursue the American Dream.

"The brave Americans who fight today believe deeply in this country. And no matter how many you meet, or how many stories of heroism you hear, every encounter reminds that they are truly special. That through their service, they are living out the ideals that stir so many of us as Americas – pride, duty, and sacrifice."


My father was able to go to graduate school because of the G.I. Bill. My late father-in-law, who fought in the Battle of the Bulge, was able to buy a house because of the G.I. Bill. My generation grew up in a land of prosperity because people like my father, who grew up poor in the Bronx, or my father-in-law, who grew up poor in Jersey City, were thanked by their country for their service. The very politicians who are still trying to punish people who advocate for peace, or when peace isn't possible, war as a last resort instead of a first, oppose a new G.I. Bill because it's "too generous." John McCain, that most cynical of cynical politicians, thinks if you offer too many ways to say "Thank you for your service", the military will have retention issues instead of a bunch of kids who keep re-upping because they have nowhere else to go and nothing else to do. To John McCain, a military stocked with young men and women whose future in parts of America where the job base has long since been sent overseas so that corporate executives can get ever-bigger compensation packages looks bleak is a docile military full of kids that won't complain when asked to be deployed three, four, five, six, even seven times -- or until they're killed, whichever comes first.

John McCain can't have it both ways. He can't pose as the Ultimate Supporter of the Troops (when in reality he seems to believe it's All About Him and HIS experience as a POW, rather than the reality today's troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are enduring) and want to cut them off at the knees when they return home. John McCain seems to believe that the presidency is his Just Reward for having endured five years in a Hanoi prison. Only this kind of narcissism, a narcissism on a par with that of George W. Bush, would make a veteran, someone who KNOWS how difficult active combat duty is, decide that a comprehensive package of veterans' benefits is "too generous."

UPDATE: Paul Reickhoff has more.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, May 12, 2008

About that "judgment" thing....
Posted by Jill | 6:23 AM
At least for the moment, Rev. Jeremiah Wright has disappeared from the front pages as Barack Obama grows closer to wrapping up the Democratic nomination. But Obama's association with Wright bound to come up again, and the word we're going to hear most often in its context is the question of "judgment" in one's associations.

So let's talk about judgment and associations, shall we? Melina posted last week about McCain's embrace of "Pastor" Rod Parsley as a "moral compass", and we all know about McCain's association with the equally lunatic John Hagee:





Then last week I wrote about McCain's role in allowing a campaign contributor to swap his own acres of scrub for more valuable federal land.

But it doesn't stop there. On Saturday, the man McCain picked to run the Republican National Convention, Doug Goodyear, resigned after it came to light that his firm had lobbied on behalf of the military junta in Burma that is now refusing to allow aid to get to the people of that devastated nation.

And he continues to use his wife's corporate jet, paying below-market rates for flying around the country in his presidential bid.

The Official Party Line about McCain is that he is a man who was chastened by his involvement in the Charles Keating S&L scandal, and his "straight-talking maverick" persona is a result of his efforts to rebrand himself. But when you take a closer look at McCain, you see a man who's still seduced by contributor cash, who's still willing to at the very least dance around the edge of campaign finance rules, and who is willing to whore for votes by embracing some of the most extreme, most intolerant, most inflammatory religious figures in the country.

Barack Obama ought to welcome a debate about judgment and associations -- provided he's willing to turn over the rock of the mythical war hero and expose the maggots that lie beneath.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, May 11, 2008

Dream Team or Nightmare?
Posted by Jill | 2:25 PM
I vote for nightmare. After trying mightily to do what she can to make Barack Obama unelectable, from sending black surrogates out to brand him as an ex-drug dealer to telling newspapers that the IMPORTANT people, the WHITE people, will ONLY support HER, Hillary Clinton has not been running the kind of campaign that should be rewarded by giving her the VP nod. And frankly, the so-called "feminists" who are supporting her and threatening to vote for McCain if she isn't nominated ought to be ashamed of themselves, particularly if a President McCain gets to nominate a few more Sammy the Stem Cell Alitos to the Supreme Court and they or their daughters end up back in the coathanger-and-drinking-lye days of reproductive self-determination.

Now it seems she's going to strongarm her way into the #2 spot:

Clinton "is trying to figure out how to land the plane without looking like surrender," a prominent figure in the Obama camp said Friday. This means, in all likelihood, bringing her campaign to a close in the next few weeks and trying to leverage her way onto an Obama ticket from a position of maximum strength, said several knowledgeable sources.

A person close to her, with whom her campaign staff has counseled at various points, said this week, "I think the following will happen: Obama will be in a position where the party declares him the nominee by the first week in June. She'll still be fighting with everybody -- the Rules Committee, the party leaders -- and arguing, 'I'm winning these key states; I've got almost half the delegates. I have a whole constituency he hasn't reached. I've got real differences on approach to how we win this election, and I'm going to press the hell out of this guy. ... Relief for the middle class, universal health care, etc.; I'm Ms. Blue Collar, and I'm going to press my fight, because he can't win without my being on the ticket.' "

Another major Democratic Party figure, who supports her for president, agreed: "It's not going to be a quiet exit. ... Obama has got a terrible situation. He marches to a different drummer. He won't want to take her on the ticket. But he might have to, even though the idea of Vice President Hillary with Bill in the background at the White House is not something -- especially after what [the Clintons] have thrown at him that he relishes. I believe she'll go for it."

However, several important Democrats aligned with Obama predicted that he -- and Michelle Obama -- will vigorously resist any Clinton effort to get on the ticket. Rather, Obama is more likely to try to convince Clinton to either stay in the Senate or accept another position in an Obama administration, should he win the presidency.

Several Clinton associates say there is still a ray of hope among some in her campaign: that a "catastrophic" revelation about Obama might make it possible for her to win the presidential nomination. But barring that, Hillary and Bill Clinton recognize that her candidacy is being abandoned and rejected by superdelegates whom she once expected to win over and that, even if she were to win the popular vote in combined primary states, she will almost certainly be denied the nomination


So the Clintonistas are going to try to dig up dirt on Obama in a final bid to knock him out of the race so they can claim what they think is rightfully theirs, but if they fail, they want to be rewarded with the VP nod?

These people are absolutely despicable. Historically opponents have managed to put aside their differences when one chooses the other for the VP spot. But you never saw John Edwards trashing John Kerry when he was Kerry's running mate. Somehow I can't imagine megalomaniacs like the Clintons suddenly deciding that Obama is OK if Hillary gets the #2 spot. It's more likely that they'll do whatever they can to cut him off at the knees if he's elected, and he'd be a damn fool to fall for it.

You know, I defended the Clintons for eight years when people told me they were dirty, they were corrupt, they were power-mad. But you know what? Maybe they were right.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Random thoughts
Posted by Jill | 7:30 AM
I was watching Sunset Boulevard yesterday morning and realized I'm older than Norma Desmond.

You know what can really make you feel like a schmuck? Canvassing when you're running for an office (in my case, it's county Democratic committee on a renegade ticket seeking to through the hacks and the pay-to-play goons out), and approaching someone and asking by name for the person in the house that your walk list says is a Democrat -- and finding out that she died last summer. Related: I really, really hate campaigning. I may be cut out for officeholding, but the door-to-door stuff is something I'd just as soon not do.

I have a sense that the Clintons feel they will somehow cease to exist if they don't win this nomination. Nothing else explains this level of tenacity. Related point: Why is Ellen Malcolm of Emily's List playing the "Hillary is a victim" card? Victimization is not empowerment. See also: framing oneself solely in terms of having survived a sexual assault as being somehow feminist. Again: Victimization is not empowerment. It doesn't mean what happened to you isn't terrible, but defining yourself that way is not female empowerment.

I wonder if it's really true that Oliver, who departed for the Great Beyond on December 10, 2000, came back in the form of Mr. Darcy and is now living with my sister.



Oliver, around 1992, in his audition to be the first "I Can Has Cheezburger" cat. Alas, he didn't make the final cut.


Mr. Darcy, May 2008. He doesn't seem to be in any particular need for cheezburger


If so, I'm glad he stayed in the family. (:-D)

The price of gasoline has already affected how we do things. Last week I didn't go see Iron Man with Mr. Brilliant because he went right from doing some things at work and it didn't make sense to take two cars to Nyack. Tonight we went to dinner at the funky but excellent Jack's Café instead of getting Chinese food from Lotus Café (the best Chinese restaurant in the county) just because it's close to home.

You know you're getting old when the news that one of your favorite restaurants is up for sale throws you for a loop.

With oil prices putting our annual Jamaica vacation, what should we do instead?

Today is Mother's Day. When do we get to celebrate Thank You For Not Inflicting Children With Your Neuroses On The World Day?

Now that Tweety has dyed his hair red, He Who Must Not Be Mentioned thinks we should now call him "Gossamer" instead of "Tweety." Am I a sellout because I think that's funny?
Bookmark and Share