"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
Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Well, at least people will want to know what blood libel really means now
Posted by Jill | 4:27 PM
About a dozen years ago, I had a co-worker who was from Cuba. Al is a very nice, Catholic boy, but he didn't know jack about other religions. One day we were talking about religions, and Al said, "We have the 10 Commandments. What do Jews believe in?"

He was serious.

Of course my first thought was to tell him about how we slaughter Christian babies on Shabbos and use them to make flanken, but I thought snark would be lost on him. So I had to tell him about Who Had the Ten Commandments First.

It's still astonishing just how much ignorance people have about Jews, Jewish holidays, Jewish rituals. And it isn't just the orthodox practices of the Hasidim that are a mystery; the infamous hole-in-the-sheet nonsense is always asked when the conversation comes around to Judaism.

So in the spirit of "It's An Ill Wind That Blows No Good", I'm kind of glad that Snowflake Snooki, in her inimitable "IT'S ALL ABOUT ME!! ME!!! ME!!!!" fashion, brought the notion of blood libel to the foreground. Because on that day so long ago, if I had told Al that we eat Christian babies on shabbos, he might have believed it.

Here's why (for those who don't already know):
In 1144 CE, an unfounded rumor began in eastern England, that Jews had kidnapped a Christian child, tied him to a cross, stabbed his head to simulate Jesus' crown of thorns, killed him, drained his body completely of blood, and mixed the blood into matzos (unleavened bread) at time of Passover. The rumor was started by a former Jew, Theobald, who had become a Christian monk. He said that Jewish representatives gathered each year in Narbonne, France. They decided in which city a Christian child would be sacrificed.

The boy involved in the year 1144 hoax became known as St. William of Norwich. Many people made pilgrimages to his tomb and claimed that miracles had resulted from appeals to St. William. The myth shows a complete lack of understanding of mainline Judaism. Aside from the prohibition of killing innocent persons, the Torah specifically forbids the drinking or eating of any form of blood in any quantity. However, reality never has had much of an impact on blood libel myths. This rumor lasted for many centuries; even today it has not completely disappeared.

Check out a whole list of what Jews have endured over the centuries as a result of this "blood libel."

No one has said that Sarah Palin took a gun into her hands and shot over a dozen people. What people have said is that Sarah Palin uses the metaphor of guns and gunsights and other eliminationist rhetoric for political gain. You can argue whether she bears any responsibiility for the current climate of believing that those who disagree with the right-wing agenda should be "taken out" (Sharron Angle's expression). But that would be a difficult argument to make. What is easier to demonstrate is that for Sarah Palin, it's all about her. It's always about her.

Let's face it -- the decrying on the left (and among the more responsible, less-insane quarters of the right, including -- God help me -- Joe Scarborough) of this kind of rhetoric is something that Sarah Palin had better learn to accept if she is going to have a future on the public political stage. Because what I see in Sarah Palin is someone who talks a good game about grizzly bears and gun-totin', but say "Boo!" to her and she squeals like a stuck pig. And her disgusting self-serving performance today just further underlines her narcissism. Because there is a dead child and five other dead people whose families loved them. There are wounded people who aren't celebrities in the hospital, and there is a Jewish Congresswoman with a hole in her brain who is miraculously still alive, but has a long road ahead of her. But in Sarah Palin's world, they aren't the victim's of Saturday's crime. Only Sarah Palin is. Because for Sarah Palin, it's a Sarah Palin World. The rest of us just live in it. And die in it.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, December 12, 2010

Because nothing projects "joy" like cholera and homelessness
Posted by Jill | 3:32 PM
Saint Sarah of the Cookies visits Haiti:
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti (AP) -- Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin began a tightly stage-managed visit to Haiti on Saturday in which she visited cholera clinics while avoiding crowds and the press.

The 2008 vice presidential candidate was a guest of Rev. Franklin Graham, whose aid group works in the impoverished country. Haiti is facing a brutal cholera epidemic while struggling with an electoral crisis and reconstruction from the January earthquake.

Palin, who traveled in part by helicopter, provided access on her tour solely to the U.S. cable network Fox News.

Graham's organization, Samaritan's Purse, refused to discuss Palin's itinerary with other media and asked Haitian and American reporters to leave its compounds, citing a "security lockdown."

"I've really enjoyed meeting this community. They are so full of joy," Palin was quoted as saying on the organization's website. "We are so fortunate in America, and we are responsible for helping those less fortunate."

Associated Press television journalists saw Palin talking with foreign aid workers. She wore cargo pants, a T-shirt and designer sunglasses on her first trip outside the United States since speaking to investors in Hong Kong last year. That speech was also closed to the media.

Samaritan's Purse posted pictures online of Palin touring a post-quake shelter, touching the hand of a Haitian child and laughing with Graham and Fox News host Greta van Susteren.

Palin's visit comes amid a cholera outbreak that has killed more than 2,000 people and sickened more than 96,000 others.

"So full of joy." Just like that nice Mr. Robinson who danced with Shirley Temple and then had to stay in the chauffeur's quarters at the Desert Inn instead of in the hotel itself.

How willfully ignorant and heartless do you have to be to visit an area stricken with cholera and describe the people that were allowed through your "tightly stage-managed" entourage to greet you as "joyful"?

Sarah Jones:
Shuffle shuffle Miss Daisy. Them people are always smiling and so good at basketball too. Oh, no, I kid. I kid. We’re lucky she didn’t accuse the Haitians of being limp, impotent and weak as is her wont (see Barbara Walters interview). But, bonus time, she did come bearing every socialist’s tool: a push up bra. Double points for morale boosting.

Good news is that Palin now says we are responsible for helping those less fortunate and this is a great turn around. Pretty soon she’s really gonna deserve at least a teabag’s worth of community organizing cred. It seems like just yesterday that Palin was saying they were supposed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps like Palin did, but without the government cheese and pork because, like, healthcare for everyone was a bad thing….

Since she’s only there for a day, and has no plans to get dirty helping out with actual work, bestowing the beauty of her visage upon the deprived and desperate Haitians is all we can expect from the goddess of charity.

Nothing says Presidential like waiting a year to show up in Haiti — a year spent trying to destroy your own country’s democratically elected president no less. But no worries, Palin is in Haiti now, getting her picture taken by Fox News to sell herself in 2012 as Someone Who Has Been to Other Countries, also, too. Now, the real question is will the prolific tweeter find time to at least tweet out a call to help the Haitians, or will the miser in her overwhelm any urge of Christmas spirit, knowing as any teabagger does that there’s only so much to go around and she’s still got loads of books to sell?

Maybe when someone suggested she visit Haiti she thought that a country with "Hate" in its [incorrect] pronunciation was right up her alley.

And just to finish off your weekend on just the right note of hopelessness, John Quiggin projects what a Palin presidency would look like.

(via)

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, June 13, 2010

Trig Palin as political prop
Posted by Jill | 9:16 AM
Regina over at Palingates has an interesting post comparing Sarah Palin's handling of her role as parent to a Down's Syndrome child to those of other parents of Down's Syndrome children who don't use their children as political props, and for whom their children are a reason to become involved with organizations that provide assistance and support for parents who want their children to live normal lives, as opposed to being props for a parent's political grievances:
Let's continue to look at the contrasts between Sarah and other parents with children with DS. Catherine pointed out to me that actor John C McGinley, who plays one of the doctors in the series Scrubs, is the father of another Max, who also has Down syndrome. John was just as overwhelmed as any other parent when he learned that Max had DS. Did he say Max is an adorable miracle and stop at that? No. He and his wife tried to learn everything they could about the condition, joined groups, used his fame to promote events to raise money and awareness about DS; John C. gave numerous interviews and wrote articles where he pulled no punches regarding the irresponsible use of the word "retard."

John C. is committed to building awareness and acceptance of people with Down syndrome. In 2002, he joined the National Down Syndrome Society as the National Buddy Walk Spokesman, providing significant national visibility for the program. He served as the 2005/2006 national spokesperson for the Society's annual Buddy Walks, advocacy walks that take place in hundreds of cities across the United States and Canada.

A simple google search will return results pointing to countless blogs written by parents of children with special needs. I had a quick look at some of them and noticed that they share a few things: Networking, supporting special needs organizations, supporting other parents, asking readers to pray for a particular child going through a bad patch. They all celebrate their children and are proud to share their achievements and landmarks with their readers. They share resources, united in their quest to make their children's lives richer and the path a bit smoother.

A bunch of unknown people do their best for their children and hope to raise awareness about their conditions, share what they know with others, giving tips and linking to helpful organizations. These parents want to make a contribution and make a difference in any way they can. Some of the contributors to Palingates, like StephiLou, tXdAd and others generously shared their experiences in the comments section. We learned from them and our little community was enriched, we became more aware in the process.

Please note that I refer to parents of children with special needs simply as parents of children with special needs. They don't like to define themselves or their babies by their diagnoses. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, wears Down syndrome as a badge, using Trig and his condition to serve her own skewed agenda. That's why I refer to her as a "DS mom." She likes to point out that she "chose" to have Trig, knowing he was going to be born with Down syndrome. So did many other parents. The big difference is that they saw the child first and the condition was secondary in their choices. Some other parents were not aware of DS before the birth of their babies, but again, they fell in love with their babies, not their diagnoses. They see themselves as parents and don't feel special because their children are a bit different.

[snip]

Sarah Palin is the most famous "DS mom" in the country. But apart from parading Trig all over the place in inappropriate attire, spouting some soundbites in her speeches and giving a token donation to NADS, she has done absolutely nothing for children with special needs and their families. She uses her Facebook page to attack people and not much else. There are so many avenues open to her if she really wanted to support families raising children with special needs... What's stopping her from creating a Facebook group dedicated to sharing stories about Trig, how he's making progress thanks to early intervention programs, giving links to resources, having a forum where other parents could tell their stories, talk about their triumphs and their struggles?

If she would put a fraction of the energy she uses to attack people (in a very aggressive manner) into promoting a group dedicated to children with special needs instead, she could make a greater impact than all the little known blogs put together.

But Sarah Palin is not about the positive. She's not for solutions or anything constructive.

Today Ramesh Ponnuru has an op-ed piece in the New York Times about the rise of so-called "pro-life" women in politics this year. Sarah Palin is of course the poster child for these women, but the piece also cites California Senate candidate Carly Fiorina, who has decided that no woman should have the right to reproductive self-determination because she is infertile. Sarah Palin, whose motivations in putting baby Trig in danger of infection by flying from Texas to Alaska after her water broke are suspect, not only would disallow other women from choosing differently than she did (though her actions make me wonder if said flight wasn't an attempt at late-term self-induced abortion), but refuses to use her considerable political clout to advocate for Americans with Down's Syndrome, instead making Trig's situation all about HER. If the narcissism of Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina is what pro-life is all about, pro-choice women in politics ought to be able to make the case that narcissism is no basis for allowing the government to take away women's freedom -- the "F" word to which these women give only lip service.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, October 05, 2009

Bu..bu...but they told him he was SPECIAL and CHOSEN!
Posted by Jill | 6:01 AM
Mark Sanford simply won't go away:


Gov. Mark Sanford said he was a broken man after admitting an extramarital affair in June, a revelation that required him to pick up the pieces of his administration and fend off efforts to remove him from office.

In the 100 days since he returned from his secret trip to Argentina to acknowledge his affair, Sanford's schedule shows - and observers agree - the Republican governor has turned his focus to the state's moribund economy.

But that new focus came only after weeks of vacations and apologies and a campaign to defend Sanford from questions about his use of state planes.

[snip]

What has Sanford done over the last 100 days?

- He has been on out-of-state trips or vacations a fifth of the time.

- He has spent another 16 days traveling the state to speak to civic and community groups, generally opening his speeches with an apology.

- He has toured a handful of state manufacturing plants and small businesses and also visited with job-creation and technical school programs.

- He moved, by an executive order, a program for developmentally challenged infants and toddlers to First Steps, an early education program created by his Democratic predecessor.

Sanford's official schedule typically contains no more than three or four items a week.

The never-ending Mark Sanford saga is interesting not just because it demonstrates a man with one hell of a pathological narcissism monkey on his back, but also one whose very belief system has been shaken to its core. It's easy to understand why pathological narcissists would be attracted to the doctrine put forth by "The Family" (of which Sanford is a member), because it elevates "clean slate Christianity" to an entirely new plane, one where there is an even smaller "elite" than the huge number of worldwide Christians, one that is, according to David Coe, heir apparent to the group's founder Douglas Coe, exempt from the rules of conduct according to which the rest of us are obligated to live.

Jeff Sharlet, in an excerpt from his book:
Attempting to explain what it means to be chosen for leadership like King David was -- or Mark Sanford, according to his own estimate -- he asked a young man who'd put himself, body and soul, under the Family's authority, "Let's say I hear you raped three little girls. What would I think of you?" The man guessed that Coe would probably think that he was a monster. "No," answered Coe, "I wouldn't." Why? Because, as a member of the Family, he's among what Family leaders refer to as the "new chosen." If you're chosen, the normal rules don't apply.

The article linked above is worth reading in its entirety, because it is a portrait of a man who has yet to believe that his spiritual leaders have lied to him when they said he was part of a special elite for whom the rules don't apply. If you thought Mark Sanford had already had his complete breakdown, you haven't seen anything yet.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, June 21, 2009

But of course journalists and Washington politicians have health care, and who else matters,really
Posted by Jill | 7:47 AM
Only Democratic and Republican Congresscritters and Senators and the journalists who love them don't want a public option to mandated shoveling of money into the pockets of insurance companies. The vast rabble that doesn't matter, does want one:
Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.

Yet the survey also revealed considerable unease about the impact of heightened government involvement, on both the economy and the quality of the respondents’ own medical care. While 85 percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt, 77 percent said they were very or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their own care.

That paradox was skillfully exploited by opponents of the last failed attempt at overhauling the health system, during former President Bill Clinton’s first term. Sixteen years later, it underscores the tricky task facing lawmakers and President Obama as they try to address the health system’s substantial problems without igniting fears that people could lose what they like.

Across a number of questions, the poll detected substantial support for a greater government role in health care, a position generally identified with the Democratic Party. When asked which party was more likely to improve health care, only 18 percent of respondents said the Republicans, compared with 57 percent who picked the Democrats. Even one of four Republicans said the Democrats would do better.

Let's go back and revisit what Mark Halperin said, shall we:

Time's Mark Halperin frequently repeats right-wing myths about the "liberal media." But today he undermined his already-weak case by arguing that one reason "to bet AGAINST major health care reform passing this year" is that "Most journalists still have health insurance."

The clear implication is that because most journalists have health insurance, they don't see the need for reform -- and that colors their reporting.



Because only the people who live and work in the bubble of Washington matter -- and the ones shoveling cash into the campaign coffers of Senators from both parties.

And still Americans keep re-electing these guys and taking clowns like Mark Halperin seriously.

(Yes, I am in Germnany. Silly photos of insignificant things to come.)

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, June 19, 2009

Oh, well, as long as journalists have health insurance, nothing else matters
Posted by Jill | 10:07 PM
Why the mainstream media perhaps deserves to die:

Time's Mark Halperin frequently repeats right-wing myths about the "liberal media." But today he undermined his already-weak case by arguing that one reason "to bet AGAINST major health care reform passing this year" is that "Most journalists still have health insurance."



The clear implication is that because most journalists have health insurance, they don't see the need for reform -- and that colors their reporting.

Sounds pretty reasonable.

Now, when do you think Halperin will consider other, similarly reasonable things?  Like the fact that all working journalists have jobs, which -- by Halperin's logic -- colors their coverage of policies meant to help the unemployed.  Or the fact that few national political reporters earn the minimum wage -- and, indeed, those like Mark Halperin make considerably more than the average worker, which likely colors their coverage of minimum wage proposals and tax policy.  And so on.



Wow. It's rare that you see this blatant a display of utterly clueless narcissism. It would be impressive if assholes like this didn't have so much impact on what people think.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, January 22, 2009

"NO! NO! NO! IT'S ALL ABOUT MEEEEEEE!!!"
Posted by Jill | 5:06 AM
The Thing That Wouldn't Leave:
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is going on the offensive against news organizations and bloggers she says are perpetuating malicious gossip about her and her children. But political observers say the former Republican vice presidential candidate can't have it both ways: trotting out the children to showcase her family values, then trying to shield them from scrutiny.

Palin's criticism also raises questions about her motivations because she has said she is open to a presidential run in 2012.

"I think she's positioning herself. She's attacking the media as a way to generate support among a base she hopes will support her," said Leonard Steinhorn, a professor of communications at American University in Washington and an expert on the presidency.

Palin shied away from interviews during the campaign, although her children often accompanied her on her travels, including her oldest daughter, Bristol, who was pregnant at the time.

But in recent weeks, she has personally reached out to media outlets such as People magazine and The Associated Press to complain about information she claimed is wrong.

She slammed reports that 18-year-old Bristol Palin and the teen's fiance are high school dropouts. The governor insists the two are not dropouts because they enrolled in correspondence courses.


Sarah Palin: Determined to give comedy writers enough material to get them through the Obama drought.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, October 05, 2008

Another sociopath
Posted by Jill | 11:28 AM
A number of people noticed how, at her debate with Joe Biden the other night, Sarah Palin didn't so much as gaze over at Biden with a look of feigned sympathy when Biden alluded to his own sons' stay in the hospital after the death of his wife and daughter soon after his election to the Senate. Hilzoy wrote about it here. Nice Greek Boy wrote about it too. Simple human decency and kindness warranted some kind of a response. You can bet that if Sarah Palin was recounting a personal tragedy, however obliquely, Biden would have found something comforting to say.

The more I watch Tina Fey play Sarah Palin, the more I begin to realize that no matter how spot-on Fey is, she never really quite captures the cold, hard core at the center of Sarah Palin. Because Fey has a warmth, a light in her eyes that Sarah Palin just doesn't have.

Dr. Sam Vaknin, author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited, describes pathological narcissism as:
a pattern of thinking and behaving in adolescence and adulthood, which involves infatuation and obsession with one's self to the exclusion of others. It manifests in the chronic pursuit of personal gratification and attention (narcissistic supply), in social dominance and personal ambition, bragging, insensitivity to others, lack of empathy and/or excessive dependence on others to meet his/her responsibilities in daily living and thinking.

Palin's bizarre non-response to Biden's indirect reference to his own experience was jarring coming from someone who presents herself as a paragon of apple pie and American motherhood.

It's always treacherous, especially these days, to ascribe nefarious motives to a woman's ambition, motives that are not questioned when they are attributed to a man. Frank Rich wrote about this ambition today:
But there’s a steady unnerving undertone to Palin’s utterances, a consistent message of hubristic self-confidence and hyper-ambition. She wants to be president, she thinks she can be president, she thinks she will be president. And perhaps soon. She often sounds like someone who sees herself as half-a-heartbeat away from the presidency. Or who is seen that way by her own camp, the hard-right G.O.P. base that never liked McCain anyway and views him as, at best, a White House place holder.

This was first apparent when Palin extolled a “small town” vice president as a hero in her convention speech — and cited not one of the many Republican vice presidents who fit that bill but, bizarrely, Harry Truman, a Democrat who succeeded a president who died in office. A few weeks later came Charlie Gibson’s question about whether she thought she was “experienced enough” and “ready” when McCain invited her to join his ticket. Palin replied that she didn’t “hesitate” and didn’t “even blink” — a response that seemed jarring for its lack of any human modesty, even false modesty.

In the last of her Couric interview installments on Thursday, Palin was asked which vice president had most impressed her, and after paying tribute to Geraldine Ferraro, she chose “George Bush Sr.” Her criterion: she most admires vice presidents “who have gone on to the presidency.” Hours later, at the debate, she offered a discordant contrast to Biden when asked by Gwen Ifill how they would each govern “if the worst happened” and the president died in office. After Biden spoke of somber continuity, Palin was weirdly flip and chipper, eager to say that as a “maverick” she’d go her own way.

But the debate’s most telling passage arrived when Biden welled up in recounting his days as a single father after his first wife and one of his children were killed in a car crash. Palin’s perky response — she immediately started selling McCain as a “consummate maverick” again — was as emotionally disconnected as Michael Dukakis’s notoriously cerebral answer to the hypothetical 1988 debate question about his wife being “raped and murdered.” If, as some feel, Obama is cool, Palin is ice cold. She didn’t even acknowledge Biden’s devastating personal history.

After the debate, Republicans who had been bailing on Palin rushed back to the fold. They know her relentless ambition is the only hope for saving a ticket headed by a warrior who is out of juice and out of ideas. So what if she is preposterously unprepared to run the country in the midst of its greatest economic crisis in 70 years? She looks and sounds like a winner.


I'm quite sure that the Usual Suspects on both the right and the left will be shrieking about Rich's sexism in painting her ambition as being sexist and part of a double standard.

But there's something about Palin's speeches and interviews that I've found unnerving, and this morning I finally realized what it is.

She never, ever talks about the future.

Ever.

One would think that the mother of four five children, including an infant, and the soon-to-be-grandmother of another infant, would use her "hockey mom" persona to frame her ticket's agenda as creating a better world for her children. Barack Obama does it when he talks about his daughters. Joe Biden does it when he talks about his grandchildren. Even Hillary Clinton, a woman who Sarah Palin makes look like Mamie Eisenhower by comparison, did it. Sarah Palin doesn't. And I think I know why.

It's because Sarah Palin doesn't believe there is a future.

Philip Munger at Progressive Alaska recounts a conversation he had with Palin in 1977:
In June 1997, both Palin and I had responsibilities at the graduation ceremony of a small group of Wasilla area home schoolers. I directed the Mat-Su College Community Band, which played music, and she gave the commencement address. It was held at her church, the Wasilla Assembly of God.

Palin had recently become Wasilla mayor, beating her earliest mentor, John Stein, the then-incumbent mayor. A large part of her campaign had been to enlist fundamentalist Christian groups, and invoke evangelical buzzwords into her talks and literature.

As the ceremony concluded, I bumped into her in a hall away from other people. I congratulated her on her victory, and took her aside to ask about her faith. Among other things, she declared that she was a young earth creationist, accepting both that the world was about 6,000-plus years old, and that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time.

I asked how she felt about the second coming and the end times. She responded that she fully believed that the signs of Jesus returning soon "during MY lifetime," were obvious. "I can see that, maybe you can't - but it guides me every day."

Our next discussion about religion was after she had switched to the less strict Wasilla Bible Church. She was speaking at, I was performing bugle, at a Veterans ceremony between Wasilla and Palmer. At this time, people were beginning to encourage her to run for Governor.

Once again, we found ourselves being able to talk privately. I reminded her of the earlier conversation, asking her if her views had changed. She was no longer "necessarily" a young earth creationist, she told me. But she strongly reiterated her belief that "The Lord is coming soon." I was trying to get her to tell me what she felt the signs were, when she had to move on.


Think of the cold, dead look in Sarah Palin's eyes. Think of her bizarre non-response to Joe Biden's tragedy. Now watch about 4:15 into this video:



...when Palin says about Biden's current wife, "I know you're passionate about education, with your wife being a teacher for thirty years, and God bless her, her reward is in heaven, right?"

Go back and watch this video again. Then think about how a mother of four five never once on the stump talks about her children's future.

Now imagine that John McCain is elected and dies of a stroke while in office. And this woman now has the nuclear codes.

Then ask yourself, and your friends, just how important a passing acquaintance with William Ayers is when the alternative is a pathological narcissist who's also a believer in the Left Behind model of the apocalypse.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Oh, I get it. McCain's is the ONLY military service that matters
Posted by Jill | 10:25 PM
It's perfectly OK to smear John Kerry. It's perfectly OK to smear Iraq war veterans who support withdrawal from that country as "phony soldiers."

It's even OK to hold a fundraiser for a chickenhawk who accuses a soldier who lost both her legs in Iraq of wanting to "cut and run" -- if you're John McCain.

Because in John McCain's world, only HE served honorably. Only HE is entitled to a free pass to the White House because he sacrificed for his country. Only HE is entitled to unquestioning devotion by the press -- and everyone else.

It's all about him.

There's a word for that. It's narcissism.

Haven't we had enough of that over the last eight years?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, June 20, 2008

How dare your needs get in the way of Saint Maverick's photo-op?
Posted by Jill | 9:29 PM
He's getting more like Bush every day:

An aide to Iowa's governor said Thursday that Republican presidential candidate John McCain ignored the governor's request to cancel a campaign visit amid a massive flood recovery effort in the state.
McCain toured flood-damaged sites in Iowa on Thursday, including the town of Columbus Junction in the southeast.

Patrick Dillon, Gov. Chet Culver's chief of staff, said the governor was concerned that McCain's trip would divert local law enforcement from the flood recovery effort to provide security for McCain.

David Roederer, who chairs McCain's campaign in Iowa, said McCain's trip didn't hamper Iowa's recovery operation. He said McCain proceeded with the visit because the campaign was providing much of its own security.

"There was really no state resources diverted," Roederer said.


Note how that assurance doesn't come from Iowa officials, but from the McCain campaign.

Pathological narcissism? Check.

Daddy issues? Check.

Insistence in staying in Iraq till "victory" is achieved but not defining what that would look like? Check.

Selling America's coasts to Big Oil? Check.

So just where DOES John McCain differ from George W. Bush?

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, May 29, 2008

And then she'll take it to the Supreme Court if she has to
Posted by Jill | 7:04 AM
If you thought that Hillary Clinton was going to settle for anything less than the nomination; if you thought that this was going to be settled after this weekend's Rules Committee meeting; if you thought this was going to be over after the June 3rd primaries, guess again. Wesley Clark last night said that Clinton will settle for nothing less than giving Hillary Clinton all the delegates from Florida and Michigan:





As usual, Jon Swift puts it all into perspective.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, February 24, 2008

He's BAAAAAACK....
Posted by Jill | 10:37 AM
We've all had them, those friends who cause nothing but trouble, the ones we try to tactfully excise from our lives, but they don't take a hint.

Ralph Nader is kind of like that, and he's just announced in Press the Meat that he's running for president again in his continuing effort to keep the White House in the hands of Republicans.

That's not his stated goal, of course, but that IS the net result. Every one of Nader's points about the current state of both the Democratic Party and the government is valid. But where the hell is Ralph Nader when he's not out there every four years trying to keep Republicans in power? There are those who track what he does when he's not deciding he wants some presidential attention, and it's not a pretty sight. We all know how he took campaign funds from the GOP in 2004. And every four years, like those e-mail hoaxes about Olympic Torch viruses, he shows up, running for president.

How long is this guy going to be able to live off his consumer advocacy in the early 1960's?

We can argue back and forth about whether Al Gore should have been able to trounce George W. Bush in 2000 even without Florida and/or Ralph Nader's 93,000 votes till the cows come home. But advocacy is a commitment that requires vigilance every year, every month, every day -- not just every four years when Tim Russert calls.

Ralph Nader may have the right message, but he's the wrong messenger. They way to effect change is not to vote for some egomaniac who doesn't do jack shit until the presidential elections come around and then all he does is ensure the perpetuation of Republican power. The way to effect change is to run progressive candidates at the local, state, and Congressional level, running credible progressives to mount primary challenges to entrenched hacks like Al Wynn. It involves not being afraid to take on people like Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers who have allowed themselves to be co-opted by the corrupt Washington corporatist system.

I am by no means convinced that the Democratic Party can be saved. Barack Obama may be transformational for a number of reasons, but I think that as president, he's likely to be cautious, consistent with his role as "the first black president." That would not be a major problem if he has a Congress that'll have his back -- but I'm not convinced he does.

Radical change to a system that's become as corrupt as ours has doesn't happen overnight. That doesn't mean, however, that we should be content to support corporate apologists like Hillary Clinton on the grounds that they are "maybe a bit less in the pockets of multinational corporations" than the Republicans. And this year hopefully we won't have to. But while a third-party vote CAN be a statement, a vote for Ralph Nader at this point, given his track record of using the national electoral process to feed his ego and generate donations to a bunch of PIRGs that don't seem to accomplish much, IS throwing away your vote. You don't put a brand new kitchen with granite countertops in a house where the floor is bowing because the joists underneath have been eaten away by termites; you fix the structural damage first. This means development of a progressive infrastructure starting at the state and local level.

I realize that we may not have the luxury of time to develop this kind of infrastructure, given the relentless march towards authoritarian theocracy on the part of the Republican Party and the increasing corporatization of the Democrats. But what choice do we have? Electing supposed "moderates" like Heath Shuler and Jim Webb just because they have a (D) after their names isn't the answer. But any one Congresscritter or Senator has limited influence and can only do limited damage. A president is another ballgame entirely.

Hillary Clinton is a candidate I would probably vote for in November if only because the thought of John McCain and whatever Christofascist Zombie he names as his #2 shaping the Supreme Court for the next two generations is just too horrifying. I'll vote for Barack Obama with somewhat more enthusiasm, though I don't see him as the kind of courageous, groundbreaking progressive I'd prefer. But even though neither of these candidates give me a whole lot of hope for a sea change in the way our government operates, neither would Ralph Nader. Because at his core, Ralph Nader is out for the interests of Ralph Nader...and no one else.

And that is NOT the definition of a progressive leader.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, November 12, 2007

Bernie Kerik equates his indictment with 9/11
Posted by Jill | 7:39 PM
On the one side, there's being charged with federal crimes. On the other, there's the deaths of almost 3000 people right before your very eyes. No difference, right?

That's right -- if you are Bernie Kerik, who is proving to be every bit the "It's All About Me" narcissist that his boss Adolf (sic) Giuliani is:

I just want to say I'm disappointed the government brought forward this case. It is an extremely difficult time for me and my family," Kerik said.

"My life has been marked by challenge ... (This is) the worst challenge, until this time (since) my challenges during and after 9/11," Kerik said.


There you go: noun, verb, and 9/11.

And here's what he did:

IRS officials said Kerik did not claim more than $500,000 in income on his tax forms. This includes more than $200,000 he received from a New Jersey construction firm, Interstate Industrial, that was seeking city contracts at the time. The payment came in the form of free renovations to Kerik's then Riverdale apartment. In exchange, prosecutors said Kerik set up meetings with city officials to try to help the firm get contracts even though it had alleged ties to the mafia. Prosecutors said from 1998-2006, Kerik engaged in a conspiracy to cover up the payments he received from Interstate. When he applied for government posts, including U.S. Homeland Security Secretary, the indictment alleges Kerik lied about his ties to Interstate. They also say he lied by never reporting that he had received a a $500,000 loan from a wealthy Israeli industrialist. In addition to the renovation work, Kerik allegedly cheated on his taxes by not reporting $75,000 in royalties from a book deal, claiming New Jersey residence to avoid paying NYC taxes while living in an Upper East Side apartment and had claimed $80,000 in charitable deductions, contributions prosecutors said he never made. Officials said as he was leaving the post as police commissioner, he accepted a free Upper East Side apartment from a wealthy developer and future business associate. The apartment rent was worth $9,000 a month and totaled more than $236,000 in free rent over a two year period. Kerik allegedly never claimed this benefit on his tax returns.


But this is exactly the same as almost 3000 people losing their lives in a terrorist attack. Just like Rudy Giuliani's 29 hours at Ground Zero make him the same as those who worked on the pile for months.

Haven't we had enough sociopaths in the federal government for one lifetime?

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, September 27, 2007

Another Downing Street Memo...will anyone care this time?
Posted by Jill | 6:57 AM
Yesterday the story broke about George Bush's conversations with then Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar of Spain before the Iraq War, which confirmed what those of us in the reality-based community already knew: That the war was a foregone conclusion, and that all the talk of inspectors and diplomacy was just, well, lies.

Although Bush's public position at the time of the meeting was that the door remained open for a diplomatic solution, hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops had already been deployed to Iraq's border, and the White House had made its impatience clear. "Time is short," Bush said in a news conference with Aznar the same day.

El Pais, a leading Spanish daily and a critic of the war, said the transcript of the conversation was prepared by Spain's ambassador to the United States, Javier Ruperez, who was at the meeting in Crawford. The newspaper did not say how it obtained the memo.

In the transcript, translated from Spanish by The Washington Post, Bush said that Europeans were insensitive to "the suffering that Saddam Hussein has inflicted on the Iraqis" and added: "Maybe it's because he's dark-skinned, far away and Muslim -- a lot of Europeans think he's okay." But Bush was happy to play the "bad cop," he said. "The more the Europeans attack me, the stronger I am in the United States."


The psychopathology of that statement is just breathtaking: An American president making blatantly bigoted remarks about not just "dark skinned....Muslim[s]", but smacking down all of Europe, claiming that Americans just LOVE it when Europe attacks their president -- all this to the prime minister of one of those European countries.

And more psychopathology:

Bush noted that he had gone to the United Nations "despite differences in my own administration" and said it would be "great" if the proposed resolution was successful.

"The only thing that worries me is your optimism," Aznar said.

"I'm optimistic because I believe I'm right," Bush replied. "I'm at peace with myself."


And that's been the problem all along with this president -- this utter certainty that he's right. This is pathological Narcissistic Personality Disorder in full flower. NPD is described in the DSM-IV as:

"An all-pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behaviour), need for admiration or adulation and lack of empathy, usually beginning by early adulthood and present in various contexts. Five (or more) of the following criteria must be met:


  1. Feels grandiose and self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
  2. Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion
  3. Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions)
  4. Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation -or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (narcissistic supply). (See also: "Those around him have learned how to manipulate him through the art of flattery. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld played Bush like a Stradivarius, exploiting his grandiosity. Rumsfeld would later tell his lieutenants that if you wanted the president's support for an initiative, it was always best to frame it as a 'Big New Thing.' Other aides played on Bush's self-conception as 'the Decider.' 'To sell him on an idea," writes Draper, 'aides were now learning, the best approach was to tell the president, This is going to be a really tough decision.' But flattery always requires deference. Every morning, Josh Bolten, the chief of staff, greets Bush with the same words: 'Thank you for the privilege of serving today.'")
  5. Feels entitled. Expects unreasonable or special and favourable priority treatment. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her expectations
    Is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends
    Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with or acknowledge the feelings and needs of others
  6. Constantly envious of others or believes that they feel the same about him or her Arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes coupled with rage when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted.


Sound like anyone?

And it isn't as though Bush has tried to hide his psychopathology; it's been out there for the world to see. This account of his meeting with Aznar, aside from being yet another demonstration that he had no intention of doing anything BUT go to war with Iraq, is right up there with his disgusting table manners when talking with Tony Blair or his neck massage of Angela Merkel. It isn't just bad form, it's his way of asserting dominance and feeding his narcissistic grandiosity. In view of his obvious mental illness, it's even more surprising that the Democrats are still so frightened of him.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Next time this country is attacked, think about how Captain Codpiece double-dog-dared Osama bin Laden to do it
Posted by Jill | 4:13 PM
Driftglass translates Frances Townsend:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

...in front of several million viewers.

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

Jesus Fucking Christ.


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

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, July 02, 2007

When the president deems it meritorious, it is not pork
Posted by Jill | 7:10 AM
Libby at Newshoggers points out that when it comes to bills laden with extraneous spending, the biggest profligate is George W. Bush:

A House Appropriations Committee report accompanying legislation funding the Department of the Interior shows that Bush requested 93 of the 321 earmarks in the bill. A panel report for the financial services and general government spending bill showed that Bush requested 17 special projects worth $947 million, more than any single member of Congress.

Senate appropriators have identified more than 350 earmarks in the military construction spending bill requested by the president.

Lawmakers say these lists of earmarks are inconsistent with Bush’s tough talk on earmarks this year.

During a Rose Garden speech in January, Bush called for the number of earmarks to be cut in half.

“Earmarks often divert precious funds from vital priorities like national defense,” Bush said. “And each year they cost the taxpayers billions of dollars.

“Congress needs to adopt real reform that requires full disclosure of the sponsors, the costs, the recipients, and the justifications for every earmark,” he said. “And Congress needs to cut the number and cost of earmarks next year at least in half.”

When Bush recently nominated former House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-Iowa) as head of the White House budget office, he reminded Congress that he would veto bills with excessive levels of spending and curb the number of earmarks.

“It would appear the administration likes earmarks from their perspective,” said Rep. Robert Aderholt (Ala.), a Republican member of the House Appropriations Committee.

“Inconsistent would be a fair way to say it,” Aderholt said when asked if Bush was being hypocritical for simultaneously requesting and criticizing earmarks.

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), the chairman of the Senate Appropriations interior subcommittee, shares Aderholt’s view.

“Hypocrisy? No, but one might call that duplicity,” said Craig.


I'd call it hypocrisy. I'd also call it another example of his pathological narcissism.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

When the president is a pathological narcissist
Posted by Jill | 6:59 AM
It's all about HIM:

At the nadir of his presidency, George W. Bush is looking for answers. One at a time or in small groups, he summons leading authors, historians, philosophers and theologians to the White House to join him in the search.

Over sodas and sparkling water, he asks his questions: What is the nature of good and evil in the post-Sept. 11 world? What lessons does history have for a president facing the turmoil I'm facing? How will history judge what we've done? Why does the rest of the world seem to hate America? Or is it just me they hate?

[snip]

And yet Bush does not come across like a man lamenting his plight. In public and in private, according to intimates, he exhibits an inexorable upbeat energy that defies the political storms. Even when he convenes philosophical discussions with scholars, he avoids second-guessing his actions. He still acts as if he were master of the universe, even if the rest of Washington no longer sees him that way.

"You don't get any feeling of somebody crouching down in the bunker," said Irwin M. Stelzer, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who was part of one group of scholars who met with Bush. "This is either extraordinary self-confidence or out of touch with reality. I can't tell you which."


Do the math.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share