"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
Monday, November 19, 2012

72 to 3
Posted by Bob | 12:25 AM

Do 72 "enemy" deaths for every 3 of their own give Israel enough of a tactical advantage? Why not go for 100 to 3, 500 to 3, 1,000 to 3?  Keep up the killing long enough & there won't be any "enemy" left to kill, but plenty of your own remaining. That would be a great strategic success.

While my natural sympathies tend to be with Israel, anything but blind support in America is treated as anti-Semitic.  One may not even point out that Israel's conquest by gradual displacement   policies toward Palestinians are how we rid most of  our continent of the indigenous peoples & occupied their lands.     When they resisted, we sent armies & killed them. When they complained but didn't resist, we forced them off their land. They wandered off on the own or we arranged  Trails of Tears for them.

Heaven forbid  if you're a United States President who actually tries to understand the predicament of the Palestinian people, regarding both Israel & their own radical, rocket-shooting  leaders.  Then you're either Jimmy Carter or perhaps  a secret Muslim educated in the fundamentalist  madrassahs of Indonesia .

The Israelis have no land to trade. They also have no deadly, contagious diseases to spread among Palestinians; European  diseases probably rid the territory of the future United States of 75% of Indians before we even began to seriously spread out.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, August 01, 2008

But he still hasn't lost Joe Scarborough
Posted by Jill | 9:11 AM
If John McCain has lost the Murdoch Street Journal, how long is it before he loses everyone else?

Is John McCain losing it?

On Sunday, he said on national television that to solve Social Security "everything's on the table," which of course means raising payroll taxes. On July 7 in Denver he said: "Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I won't."

This isn't a flip-flop. It's a sex-change operation.

He got back to the subject Tuesday in Reno, Nev. Reporters asked about the Sunday tax comments. Mr. McCain replied, "The worst thing you could do is raise people's payroll taxes, my God!" Then he was asked about working with Democrats to fix Social Security, and he repeated, "everything has to be on the table." But how can . . .? Oh never mind.


I mean seriously....when you have a columnist at the Wall Street Journal not only using the kind of snark usually reserved for Democratic candidates with a brain in their heads, but very nearly slips in a Firesign Theatre reference, you know we are living in Very Strange Times.

There's a certain hysterical undertone to the McCain campaign these days. No one who doesn't feel that he was supposed to have a clear path to the presidency by running against That Clinton Woman and instead finds himself running against a rock star would allow his campaign to claim that his opponent is no different from Paris Hilton or Britney Spears or Lindsey Lohan.

I don't see what they're so upset about; after all, Faux Noise and CNN and everyone on MSNBC other than Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow is firmly in the McCain camp forevermore. Their candidate can't even construct a coherent English sentence anymore but he's less than ten points down in the polls -- a gap that's only one really effective Scary Negro Muslim Commie ad away from narrowing.

Of course McCain is trying to pander to so many constituencies now that he sounds alternately appallingly craven and utterly pathetic. He's trying to get the Christian Scold vote while at the same time chipping away at independents who could just as easily go for Obama. And the result is that not only has the so-called Straight Talk Express started running making all local stops and is in danger of derailing at any moment, but he's sounding more like one of Grandpa Simpson's disjointed rants every day.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, May 05, 2008

If "elite" is a dirty word, then why can't I play right field for the Mets?
Posted by Jill | 6:46 AM
To hear Republicans (and now Hillary Clinton) talk, elitism is a bad thing and should be trounced anywhere we find it:

Hillary Clinton has just started doing an Indiana town-hall meeting being broadcast on ABC, and George Stephanopoulos asked her a direct question:

Could she name a single economist who agrees with her support for the gas tax holiday?

Hillary sidestepped the question, and tried to use the complete dearth of expert support for the idea to her advantage, pointing to it as proof that she's on the side of ordinary folks against "elite opinion" -- a phrase she used twice.

"I think we've been for the last seven years seeing a tremendous amount of government power and elite opinion behind policies that haven't worked well for hard working Americans," she said.

A bit later she added: "It's really odd to me that arguing to give relief to a vast majority of Americans creates this incredible pushback...Elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that don't benefit" the vast majority of the American people.


"Elite opinion"? Does she mean the "elite opinions" she listened to when she voted for the Iraq War? Does she mean the people who were in her husband's Cabinet that she plans to recycle for her own? Who are these "elites", anyway?

If you want to argue that "elites" ought not to be regarded as elite, I'd be happy to include the men Bill Moyers quoted on Bill Moyers' Journal last week:

BILL MOYERS: Every year at this time for five years now, we're reminded of the armistice that never happened. On may first, 2003, the White House staged a spectacular photo opportunity for the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces to announce the end of major combat operations in Iraq.

BILL MOYERS: You've been seeing these images all week...our president landing on the USS Lincoln, announcing peace was at hand.

REPORTER: President made history today. It was a historic day.

REPORTER II: This one could be called historic.

REPORTER III: The first sitting president to land on a carrier.

REPORTER IV: Congratulating them on a mission accomplished.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed!

BILL MOYERS: Unfortunately, that was not true. The war had just begun...Once again the official version of reality was false. The experts, remember, had all agreed: there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH ...of uranium from Africa

BILL MOYERS: ....Saddam Hussein had ties to the terrorists...

DONALD RUMSFELD: ...Al Qaeda members.

BILL MOYERS: The war would be a slam dunk...and quickly over.

DONALD RUMSFELD: It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

BILL MOYERS: No one had pushed the war more than vigorously than Vice President Cheney. He said..."I think it'll go relatively quickly...weeks rather than months."

BILL MOYERS: And, said the experts, it won't take many troops or require much sacrifice...Rumsfeld's deputy Paul Wolfowitz...

PAUL WOLFOWITZ: ...we can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark...

BILL MOYERS: And the cost to the taxpayer, the experts assured us -- practically nothing.

PAUL WOLFOWITZ: ...we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.

BILL MOYERS: Ted Koppel put the question to America's top aid official on Nightline:

TED KOPPEL: ...you're not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is gonna be done for $1.7 billion?

ANDREW NATSIOS: Well, in terms of the American taxpayers' contribution, I do; this is it for the U.S. the rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges...

BILL MOYERS: And now, mission accomplished, experts savored the triumph. The editor of The Weekly Standard William Kristol, "The first two battles of this new era are now over. The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably."

BILL MOYERS: The neo-conservative warrior Richard Perle told doubters to get over it. The war, he said "...ended quickly with few civilian casualties and with little damage to Iraq's cities, towns or infrastructure...it ended... without the quagmire [the war's critics] predicted...relax and enjoy it."

BILL MOYERS: Said columnist Mona Charen of the Commander in Chief, "the man who slept through many classes at Yale and partied the nights away stands revealed as a profound and great leader who will reshape the world for the better. The United States is lucky once again."

BILL MOYERS: And columnist Charles Krauthammer said, "The only people who think this wasn't a victory are Upper West Side liberals and a few people here in Washington."

BILL MOYERS: The Iraqis, said the experts, were sure to rally 'round...

WILLIAM KRISTOL: "I think there's been a certain amount of frankly, Terry, pop sociology in America...that...the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."

BILL MOYERS: You'll find these quotes and many others like them in this new book, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! OR HOW WE WON THE WAR IN IRAQ. It's an in-depth study and analysis of five years of expert commentary on the Iraq war. The authors have somewhat sadly, if not reluctantly, concluded that the most distinguished cast of experts ever before assembled reached a grand consensus on the Iraq war — and that all of them got it wrong. How did it happen? The whole thing is so tragic perhaps only satire can give us the answer.


But that's not what Hillary is doing. Instead, she's playing for the First Beer Buddy vote by claiming that anyone who knows anything about economics is just the kind of smarty-pants who always sat at the front of the class, wore plaid pants, and was always the first to raise his hand when the teacher asked a question -- when everyone knows that the cool kids sat in the back, passed notes, and didn't do their homework.

For eight years, this country has reaped the consequences of electing Eric Stratton, Rush Chairman, damn glad to meet you. You'd think that after eight years of the kind of mind-boggling short-sightedness, ineptititude, and just plain fuckupery that we've endured when we elect a First Beer Buddy instead of a president, that playing fraternity pledge would have worn thin for Americans and that maybe the Debate Club guys aren't so bad after all.

But when you're talking about depriving the Federal government of needed funds to repair and maintain bridges and tunnels in exchange for no guarantee whatsoever that oil companies won't just raise the prices and pocket the incremental bonanza, that has nothing to do with eschewing elitism, and has everything to do with craven political opportunism.

We don't complain when only the "elites" make it to the major league club. We don't complain when the "elites" win the Super Bowl. We don't complain (though we should) when legacies like George W. Bush are able to get into Ivy League colleges despite having a C average. We don't complain when corporate executives rake in huge compensation packages (though again, we should).

Once upon a time, Hillary Clinton said "It takes a village to raise a child." Today she's telling those very same children that they can go fuck themselves, because her need to be elected outweighs their need to live in a world that doesn't resemble Mad Max and in which they don't risk drowning in their car seats because Mommy's car fell into the river when the bridge over which she was driving collapsed.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, May 03, 2008

Note to Senator Clinton: Congress is not your campaign staff
Posted by Jill | 5:38 AM
Dear Senator Clinton:

I'm willing to believe that your campaign had nothing to do directly with the Women's Voices, Women's Vote vote suppression debacle; that it was simply a function of overzealous allies. It's hard, but I'm willing to do it.

But if you thought a gas tax holiday was a great enough idea that it should be legislated immediately, why didn't you introduce it before John McCain started talking about it?

Sen. Hillary Clinton plans to introduce legislation today in the U.S. Senate following up on her campaign commitment to put the federal gas tax on hiatus during the peak summer driving season, said campaign spokesman Doug Hattaway.

The bill, which is to be co-sponsored by Sen. Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), would essentially implement the break in the gas tax on consumers while imposing a tax on oil companies to make up for lost revenue. Hattaway said it is unclear when the bill would come up for a vote, but added that the goal is to have the policy in place in time for the summer driving season, which is traditionally viewed as opening on Memorial Day.

There’s virtually no chance Congress will approve a gas tax holiday before then–or at all. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that she, like Sen. Barack Obama, does not support the moratorium.


So in essence, Senator, you're asking the Democratic Congress to fall on its sword for the sake of YOUR campaign, so that YOU can be just like McCain in pandering to cash-strapped voters by tossing a few bucks their way this summer and hoping it shuts them up. Between this and your "God blessed us" words in talking on Faux Noise about how you and your husband got your $100 million, as if The Almighty Himself deemed that you should be financially rewarded for your travails, you're behaving more like a Republican than a Democrat.

I want to believe that if you manage to wrangle this prize you want so desperately, as if your very ability to draw breath depends on it, that you would at least be marginally better than John McSame and his narcissistic predecessor. But every day you give me less confidence that such is the case.

And as for you, Sen. Menendez, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, September 30, 2007

No Jeebus, no presidency
Posted by Jill | 7:39 AM
Thus spake John McCain in an interview with BeliefNet:

BeliefNet: A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think?

McCain: I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.


And if you don't like it, you will be stoned to death.

It's sad that John McCain has so little knowledge of, or cares so little for, the facts of American history. What are "Christian principles", anyway? Gay-bashing? Punishing women who become pregnant? Hmmmm....it must be the principle of proseletyzing and conversion (by force if necessary). That's a strong part of Christian principle, isn't it?

Does John McCain ever wonder why the name "Jesus" never appears in any of the founding documents? For that matter, why the word "God" in the "Jehovah" sense never appeears? The only place the word "God" appears in the Declaration of Independence is in the first paragraph, and then it could just as easily refer to any deity, including a female one:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


Nature's God? Sounds kind of pagan, doesn't it?

The opening to the second paragraph reads:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


Christians may assume that this refers to "Jehovah" (it sure as hell doesn't refer to Joshua of Nazareth), but that doesn't make it so. In fact, I would say that these oblique references were worded this way for a reason, that reason being to avoid any implication that it refers to a deity of ANY religious tradition.

If we go to the United States Constitution, nothing about God or religion appears at all. Not "God", not "Creator", not "deity". The Bill of Rights addresses the issue of religion only in Amendment 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


The notion of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has been what the Christofascist Zombie Brigade has latched onto in their efforts to force Christianity down our throats in every area of public life, because of their mandate to "spread the Word." Well, your right to "spread the Word" ends at my right to not be subject to coercive conversion efforts.

That John McCain doesn't understand the great care the Founding Fathers took to put language into both of the founding documents that doesn't embrach ANY religious tradition -- not even the so-called Judeo-Christian one -- disqualifies him for the presidency, as it does anyone who in trying to throw red meat to the Flat Earthers in a quest for the Ignorant Vote.

(h/t Matt Ortega, who has more.)

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, August 06, 2007

Just because he's innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law doesn't mean you have to honor him
Posted by Jill | 7:07 AM
What on earth is the SCLC thinking? And what on earth are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama thinking?

While he waits for his trial related to dogfighting charges to start, Michael Vick will be honored by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

SCLC President Charles Steele announced Thursday during a news conference that the group will find a way to honor Vick during its national convention that began Friday.

"We will recognize Vick for being an outstanding human being," said Steele. "We will work with anyone who opens their heart and arms to us."

The president of the SCLC told Channel 2's JaQuitta Williams the organization will honor Vick by praying for him. Steele said supporting people in need is what the SCLC has been about for the past 50 years.

"We're in support of Michael as a human being," SCLC president Charles Steele said. "Right now, he's feeling discarded, ostracized by people who are rushing to judgment. It's our responsibility to save him."

Steele said he did not know if Vick will attend any of the events at the conference.

Former President Bill Clinton is a scheduled speaker and will cut the ribbon of the SCLC's new headquarters. Presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) , Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) , Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are also expected to attend.

The 27-year-old Vick has pleaded not guilty to charges of sponsoring a dogfighting operation. His trial begins November 26.


The most benign spin one can put on Michael Vick is that a dogfighting ring was being run out of his home without his knowledge for six whole years. To believe that Vick is simply a generous guy whose friends took advantage of him is to believe in the Great Pumpkin. To believe this you'd have to believe that there is no connection between Vick's purchase of the property in May 2001, the beginning of the accumulation of pit bulls from various states starting the following month, the "Bad Newz Kennels" gear they had made up. You'd have to believe that all of the cooperating witnesses who have testified to seeing Vick and his friends participate in dogfights over the next five years are lying. You'd have to believe that he had NO KNOWLEDGE of the kennels housing the dogs, the scars and injuries on the 54 dogs that were confiscated during the April raid and the "rape stand" used for breeding the dogs.

I'm not one to always take the word of law enforcement against a citizen, but if we learned anything from the O.J. Simpson case, it's that Americans are willing to blind themselves to just about anything, no matter how heinous, that a sports hero does. Mark Fuhrmann is the reason O.J. Simpson gets to walk a free man. But while Michael Vick has the right to defend himself in course, the evidence cited in the indictment is significant -- and disturbing. It's a mistake to convict him before he's even tried, but that doesn't mean that he should be honored right now by any respectable organization; and it sure as hell doesn't mean that presidential candidates ought to be there kissing the ring.
-

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share