"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
Friday, July 13, 2012

My tinfoil hat is tingling
Posted by Jill | 7:01 AM
It's difficult to watch Willard Rmoney's ghastly performance at the NAACP conference this week without cringing. The man is so obviously trying to twist himself into a pretzel to try to appeal to enough people outside the batshit crazy Republican base -- and it shows. There's something vaguely deranged about the man as he stomps around the country in the quadriennial ritual of kissing babies and pretending that you care about every individual that you meet. Romney isn't like the country fair attendees in the flyover states. He knows it, and on a deep level, they know it too. And he's certainly not like the rank-and-file members of the NAACP, and he knows that too. That's why he had to bus in plants to applaud him.

Now there are people sniffing around not just Romney's offshore accounts (just the thing every patriotic American who "believes in America" does, right?), but his very tenure at Bain Capital.

And now it turns out that Willard Rmoney may very well have lied about the tenure of his time at Bain Capital:
Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time.

Romney has said he left Bain in 1999 to lead the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ending his role in the company. But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.”

Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.

Romney's financial disclosure report has him claiming that he left Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 and that "Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way."

There's just one problem -- those pesky SEC documents, which conflict with Rmoney's financial disclosures. So which one is true? If Rmoney lied on either one of them, that's what's called a felony.

All of which makes me wonder -- at what time do we stap talking about "misstatements" and "dissembling" and start calling Rmoney a liar?

All of which brings us to tinfoil and Rmoney at the NAACP.

This week saw an Ipsos poll showing President Obama with a six-point lead over Willard Rmoney. Obama has been going around the country pointing out the dichotomy of a presidential candidate talking about job creators and believing in America -- and then storing his money in accounts in the Cayman Islands, as if he were a Saudi king or shady underworld operative. And it's working, because people are starting to look more closely at the GOP candidate who wants to take power so he can enact policies that will screw over the middle class even more and stuff his offshore accounts with more money. Not to know Willard Rmoney might be to love him, but to know him is to realize that this is just another greedy, power-mad GOP sociopath who can't even be said to serve his multimillionaire masters, because he is one.

In order to win, the GOP must field candidates who can convincingly pretend that they care about regular people. This is why Chris Christie is so popular among the pundit class. He's every bit the corporatist scumbag that Willard is, but when angry white guys see Christie's sizable frame clutching an ice cream cone on a Jersey Shore boardwalk and emulating Robert DeNiro in Taxi Driver, all that is forgotten and the reptilian brain thinks, "He's just like me." GOP voters love this sort of thing.

But I digress again.

Rmoney just isn't wearing well. The GOP can disenfranchise millions of people, and stiff minority districts on voting machines. They can even try to throw the election to the House. But that still may be too risky. Rmoney may be a reliable partner for moneyed interests, but some kind of a sham charade election still has to happen. And if Romney's unpopularity continues to grow, then the GOP has a problem.

So that's where my tinfoil comes in. I'm not at all convinced that this sudden attention to Rmoney's financial disclosures is coming from the Democrats. The party that turned the other cheek while their 2004 candidate, a decorated war hero, was branded as a traitor and coward while their guy, who spent the Vietnam era in a cushy National Guard gig for which he didn't even bother to show up, was painted as a macho Rambo tough guy, is just not smart enough to come up with something like this.

So here's my prediction: By the time of the convention, the offshore accounts and financial disclosures will become such a huge issue that Rmoney will have to withdraw. This will leave the field clear for the oligarchs to select the candidate they wanted all along. Even he has said "This was probably my time."

And it yet may still be.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, February 18, 2012

Who needs impeachment when they have the gas pump?
Posted by Jill | 7:34 PM
It shouldn't be news to anyone that the Republicans' primary order of business over the last three years has been to make sure that Barack Obama is not a successful president. I'm quite sure that a good part of the reason they're going off the deep end about contraception (and I'll have more on that as soon as I can organize my thoughts on their motivatin and mindset and what it all means) is because the money guys are looking at their candidates, realizing that they're going to have to draft Jeb Bush, and wondering what they're going to do if he won't consent to such a draft.

Last night I filled up the Civic. I paid $3.63. A few weeks ago, at the same station, I was paying just over $3.00. I know the guy who runs the place. He works on my car, and he's as honest as you'll find anywhere. It's not just him. Look at the posted price of gasoline anywhere in the country. It's ridiculous. (And let's not even TALK about heating oil....)

Perhaps some of it is attributable to fears over what is going to happen with Iran. Oil to rise in price if anyone in the Fertile Crescent twitches an eyelash. But Rick Ungar thinks there's more to it than that:
I’ve never been much of a conspiracy theorist as it is not my inclination to see evil lurking behind every bush (no pun intended.) More times than not, things are—for the most part—pretty much as they appear to be.

However, there is a strange anomaly occurring on the highways of America and in the boardrooms of some of our largest investment institutions that has caused me to consider whether a plan is afoot that, if successful, could represent the best possible strategy for ending the presidency of Barack Obama.

According to the Automobile Club of America, gasoline prices have risen, on average, 13.1 cents in the past month—despite the fact that gas prices traditionally fall in the month of February as people drive fewer miles during the wintery month.

What’s more, virtually every projection out there suggests that gas prices are about to make a dramatic rise to, potentially, record levels with some suggesting that $5.00 a gallon gas or more —double the prices of just a few months ago—could very well be in our future.

This becomes a particularly odd statistic when one considers that Americans are using less gasoline than it has at any time in the last fifteen years. Currently, we burn up 8 percent less gas than we did during the peak year of 2006 while most experts expect the trend to continue to where we will be using 20 percent less gasoline by 2030.

[snip]

While Wall Street’s ‘priority one’ is to make money, it is clear that, for this year, priority two is the destruction of Barack Obama’s presidency. Accordingly, from a Wall Street point of view, it certainly is a happy coincidence that that priority one, making big money on oil speculation, could directly lead to accomplishing their second highest mission.

I am left to wonder whether this is a happy Wall Street coincidence or a clever strategy that could pay off big-time come November.

Gasoline prices have a ‘real time’ impact on middle-class voters. Can you imagine a better way to make voters good and angry than to insure that they are paying five bucks a gallon for the gasoline that will be powering them to the voting booth in November? And if you subscribe to the theory that the President’s opponents would like to keep economic growth down until the election is over, what better way to accomplish such a goal than to force a precipitous rise in gas prices?

Rick, I'll take your Wall Street and raise you two Koch brothers.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, July 29, 2011

Is MSNBC deliberately trying to taint its own brand?
Posted by Jill | 6:39 AM
Pundits whose brains are incapable of holding two thoughts at the same time think that MSNBC is "the left's Fox News". But while most (not all) of MSNBC's news/commentary shows lean to the left of what passes for the center these days (which really resembles 1964 Goldwater conservatism more than anything else), there is one characteristic of MSNBC's hosts that does not apply to Fox: With the exception of Joe Scarborough, who's still living in a delusional Republicanland where idiotic mouth-frothing teabagger lunatics don't control his party, MSNBC hosts don't just pull lies out of their asses and pass them off as demonstrable fact. And especially now that they've unwisely jettisoned the oh-too-confrontational Cenk Uygur, MSNBC represents the genteel left. Like it or not, you're never going to see Lawrence O'Donnell (who admirably fought bravely on as Joey the Scar tried to filibuster him yesterday morning) call Rep. Peter King an asshole on the air. And even Rachel Maddow, who is now completely free to do pretty much whatever she wants, as MSNBC's reigning star, tends to wield tiny poison darts at those she demolishes rather than of carrying a big stick -- and doing it all with a smile. It's a successful formula that has managed to survive, and even thrive, in the post-Olbermann era, even as people like me have returned to the Olbermann fold, preferring to watch "The Last Word" as time permits the next day.

But aside from the factual differences between MSNBC's coverage of current events and that of Fox, MSNBC's point of pride is hat it hasn't acted as the propaganda arm of a political party the way Fox News does. O'Donnell is a bit too much of an Obama cheerleader for my taste; obviously still subscribing to the 11-dimensional chess theory of Obama rather than what increasingly looks like the reality -- that at best Obama is twisting himself into pretzels to appeal to and appease the right because of his unique childhood baggage, while at worst he really IS a moderate-right conservative. At least O'Donnell has arrived at his views through a coherent thought proess and is prepared to argue his points rather than just spouting talking points. But as we found out with the jettisoning of Cenk Uygur, MSNBC is first and foremost about access, and when opinion interferes with that access, Phil Griffin steps in.

The best spin on the decision to replace Uygur with Al Sharpton, despite strong ratings, is to add more diversity to MSNBC's all-white lineup (though it seems to me that with Muslims and gays being the hated minorities of choice on the right these days, a lineup that has an out lesbian in Rachel Maddow as its public face, the British-of-Pakistani-origins Martin Bashir on in the afternoon and Uygur, who was born in Turkey to Sunni Muslim parents, is more diverse than ANY on other news channel). So when MSNBC decided to replace Cenk Uygur with Al Sharpton at 6 PM, I had to scratch my head. Sharpton? Yes, Sharpton can be incisive and even funny when talking off-the-cuff, and he stole the show at the 2004 presidential debates, but even cable news is not journalism school. And for a sizable portion of the population, the name "Al Sharpton" is still far too closely associated with the image of Tawana Brawley insisting that "No one manipsnates (sic) me or my family."

Sharpton is a bright guy and has been a media star, or at the very least a media figure, for a long time; and even Rachel Maddow had that deer-in-the-headlights look for a few weeks in the beginning as she became more comfortable with a teleprompter. I'm sure that once he's more comfortable, we'll see the witty side of Sharpton come out, but demeanor isn't Sharpton's only problem. As Glenn Greenwald notes, Sharpton really IS the left's equivalent of a Fox News host -- to the detriment of the MSNBC brand:
On Sunday, Cenk Uygur was interviewed by CNN's Howard Kurtz about Uygur's departure from MSNBC, and Ugyur claimed that Al Sharpton -- widely reported to be his replacement -- vowed in a 60 Minutes interview never to criticize President Obama under any circumstances.  When I first heard Ugyur make this claim, I assumed it was hyperbole -- until I watched the video and read the transcript of the Sharpton interview.  The 60 Minutes segment was aired on May 19, 2011, and chronicles what it calls Sharpton's "metamorphosis: today he's down right tame. So much so, that he has made his way into the establishment."  It includes this:

Sharpton told us that having a black president is a challenge: if he finds fault with Mr. Obama, he'd be aiding those who want to destroy him. So he has decided not to criticize the president about anything -- even about black unemployment, which is twice the national rate.

The segment also described Sharpton as "now a trusted White House adviser" and recounts that "given his loyalty and his change from confrontational to accommodating, the administration is rewarding him with access and assignments."

How can a media outlet such as MSNBC that purports to be presenting political journalism possibly employ someone as a journalist -- even an opinion journalist -- who publicly and categorically pledges never to criticize the President of the United States under any circumstances?  That would be like hiring a physician who vows never to treat any diseases, or employing an auto mechanic who pledges never to fix any cars, or retaining a pollster who swears never to make any findings about public opinion.  Holding people in political power accountable is the prime function -- the defining feature -- of a journalist, including a pundit; if you expressly and publicly vow never to do that, how can you possibly be credibly presented as being one?  And how can the political analysis of someone who takes this pledge possibly be trusted as sincerely held, let alone accurate?  Note that this vow was not from three years ago; it was from two months ago.


There's an ongoing battle going on over at the Great Orange Satan about how much to criticize Barack Obama. And even here, I see comments every now and then telling me to STFU about Obama, that to criticize Obama is to want Mitt Romney to be president (speaking of not being able to hold two thoughts in one's head at the same time). But when we are seeing play out before our very eyes what happens when people put rigid ideology (and in the case of criticism of Obama, keeping one's mouth shut isn't even about ideology) or party loyalty ahead of the national good, it's difficult to justify keeping silent while President Obama time after time proceeds to blow whatever chance he had at being the transformational leader he could have been. It does the nation no favors, and in Al Sharpton's case, it taints whatever journalistic cred he's trying to build.

So here is MSNBC, a network that's established a niche, that can even point to the high morning ratings of Joe Scarborough as showing diverse points of view and Andrea Mitchell and Chris Matthews as the faces of "traditional journalism", that genuinely CAN be described as "fair and balanced" for the most part, getting rid of some of its most formidable talent for speaking too much to power and replacing one of them with a guy who has steamer trunks of credibility-tainting baggage.

It makes me wonder if Sharpton was hired specifically so that if he doesn't get Cenk's ratings, it will be deemed an excuse to abandon its even vaguely left-of-lunatic-right leanings and again try the "Let's Be Like Fox" tactic.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, July 27, 2011

The Truth: It Isn't Just for the Progressive Blogosphere and Brad Friedman Anymore
Posted by Jill | 8:00 PM
John Thorpe at the financial information site Benzinga agrees with Brad Friedman, with just about the entire progressive blogosphere, and anyone with a brain, that George W. Bush stole Ohio in 2004:

Three generations from now, when our great-grandchildren are sitting barefoot in their shanties and wondering how in the hell America turned from the high-point of civilization to a third-world banana republic, they will shake their fists and mutter one name: George Effin' Bush.

Ironically, it won't be for any of the things that liberals have been harping on the Bush Administration, either during or after his term in office. Sure, misguided tax cuts that destroyed the surplus, and lax regulations that doomed the economy, and two amazingly awful wars in deserts half a world away are all terrible, empire-sapping events. But they pale in comparison to what it appears the Republican Party did to get President Bush re-elected in 2004.

"A new filing in the King Lincoln Bronzeville v. Blackwell case includes a copy of the Ohio Secretary of State election production system configuration that was in use in Ohio's 2004 presidential election when there was a sudden and unexpected shift in votes for George W. Bush," according to Bob Fitrakis, columnist at http://www.freepress.org and co-counsel in the litigation and investigation.

If you recall, Ohio was the battleground state that provided George Bush with the electoral votes needed to win re-election. Had Senator John Kerry won Ohio's electoral votes, he would have been elected instead.

Evidence from the filing suggests that Republican operatives — including the private computer firms hired to manage the electronic voting data — were compromised.

[snip]


SmarTech was part of three computer companies brought in to manage the elections process for Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, a Republican. The other two were Triad and GovTech Solutions. All three companies have extensive ties to the Republican party and Republican causes.

In fact, GovTech was run by Mike Connell, who was a fiercely religious conservative who got involved in politics to push a right-wing social agenda. He was Karl Rove's IT go-to guy, and was alleged to be the IT brains behind the series of stolen elections between 2000 and 2004.

Connell was outed as the one who stole the 2004 election by Spoonamore, who, despite being a conservative Republican himself, came forward to blow the whistle on the stolen election scandal. Connell gave a deposition on the matter, but stonewalled. After the deposition, and fearing perjury/obstruction charges for withholding information, Connell expressed an interest in testifying further as to the extent of the scandal.

"He made it known to the lawyers, he made it known to reporter Larisa Alexandrovna of Raw Story, that he wanted to talk. He was scared. He wanted to talk. And I say that he had pretty good reason to be scared," said Mark Crispin Miller, who wrote a book on the scandal.

Connell was so scared for his security that he asked for protection from the attorney general, then Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Connell told close friends that he was expecting to get thrown under the bus by the Rove team, because Connell had evidence linking the GOP operative to the scandal and the stolen election, including knowledge of where Rove's missing emails disappeared to.

Before he could testify, Connell died in a plane crash.

More tinfoily-but-true FACTS here.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, December 19, 2010

Today's tinfoil
Posted by Jill | 5:19 AM
When one is spending the entire weekend working and one is up at 5 AM on a Sunday because one's cat has been howling nonstop outside your bedroom door for an hour and a half, one can be forgiven for the donning o'the tinfoil:

Isn't it just possible that this whole business with Julian Assange is designed to reduce the hue and cry that will result when Comcast and others succeed in getting Washington to give broadband providers the power to block sites and implement tiered pricing? After all, if an open internet can be portrayed as a "threat to national security", it makes it much easier to try to lock it down for the casual user as much as possible.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, June 03, 2010

It's almost enough to make you think the rig was blown up on purpose
Posted by Jill | 5:24 AM
After reading this article in today's New York Times, I'm almost wondering if the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion was somehow deliberate. After all, how better to hijack a Democratic President's agenda:
Mr. Obama had hoped to spend his summer creating jobs, passing financial reform, promoting his health care program, getting a Supreme Court justice confirmed and an arms control treaty with Russia ratified, pressing for international sanctions against Iran and jump-starting the troubled Middle East peace process. While not abandoning any of those goals, Mr. Obama now must find ways to continue pushing them while demonstrating to the nation that he is concentrating on a spill he has called “our highest priority.”

“This has hijacked his entire legislative agenda,” said Douglas Brinkley, a historian at Rice University who has written about Jimmy Carter, whose presidency was consumed by the Iran hostage crisis. “The White House felt they were on a roll. They were looking to be a new New Deal or new Great Society and they were just getting momentum going. Something this awful has sidetracked the agenda.”

Sara Taylor Fagen, White House political director under President George W. Bush, said the failure to contain the spill would make it hard for Mr. Obama to accomplish anything this year. “He’ll likely be managing the fallout for years to come,” she said. “Not until his re-election campaign will he have an opportunity to press reset.”

Republicans couldn't have asked for something politically better for themselves if they, well, planned for it.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, January 24, 2010

Put on your tinfoil bonnet with the blue ribbons on it...
Posted by Jill | 7:33 AM
Maybe you haven't put on your tinfoil hat in a while. Maybe it's buried deep in your closet, behind all the half-pairs of globes, the old acrylic knit mufflers with lint-pills all over them and the old holiday wreath you decided you didn't like anymore and are just waiting till it's warm enough to hold a garage sale so you can see if someone else might be willing to pay a quarter for it. But I think it's time to take it out.

Remember Dr. David Kelly? He was the U.N. weapons inspector who doubted the claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and later showed up "suicided" in a park near his home. His death was, in fact, ruled a suicide, despite the fact that first responders at the scene doubted that he had taken his own life.

Larisa Alexandrovna has unearthed this little tidbit of tinfoiliana:
A highly unusual ruling by Lord Hutton, who chaired the inquiry into Dr Kelly's death, means medical records including the post-mortem report will remain classified until after all those with a direct interest in the case are dead, the Mail on Sunday reported.

And a 30-year secrecy order has been placed on written records provided to Lord Hutton's inquiry which were not produced in evidence.

The Ministry of Justice said decisions on the evidence were a matter for Lord Hutton. But Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who has conducted his own investigations into Dr Kelly's death, described the order as "astonishing".

Dr Kelly's body was found in woods close to his Oxfordshire home in 2003, shortly after it was revealed that he was the source of a BBC report casting doubt on the Government's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction capable of being fired within 45 minutes.

An inquest was suspended by then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, who ruled that Lord Hutton's inquiry could take its place. But in the event, the inquiry focused more on the question of how the BBC report came to be broadcast than on the medical explanation for Dr Kelly's death.

Lord Hutton's report in 2004 concluded that Dr Kelly killed himself by cutting an artery in his wrist. But the finding has been challenged by doctors who claim that the weapons inspector's stated injuries were not serious enough.

One of the doctors seeking a full inquest, former assistant coroner Michael Powers, told the Mail on Sunday he had seen a letter from the legal team of Oxfordshire County Council explaining the unusual restrictions placed by Lord Hutton on material relating to his inquiry.

The letter states: "Lord Hutton made a request for the records provided to the inquiry, not produced in evidence, to be closed for 30 years, and that medical (including post-mortem) reports and photographs be closed for 70 years."

...and asks:
If Dr. Kelly committed suicide, then his medical records should not be sealed as there is no reason to seal them. If, however, Dr. Kelly was murdered, then the sealing of the medical records only adds more weight to what most reasonable people already suspect actually happened.

Someday, long after ALL of us are dead, perhaps the truth about the extent of the Bush Administration/Tony Blair crimes to gin up a war in Iraq will be known. But between this astonishing ruling and the lack of will to hold these criminals to account, even here in the U.S., where a kid can be put away for years for smoking pot, it's clear that what Nixon said is de facto true: When the president does it, then it is not illegal.

Unless he's a Democrat, of course. Then all bets are off.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, January 04, 2010

Are they REALLY going to go there?
Posted by Jill | 9:03 PM
I can't believe what I was just watching on Countdown. Richard Wolffe is reporting that the Obama Administration plans to investigate whether intelligence information relative to the December 25 attempted airplane bombing was deliberately withheld. The question being asked is whether this is some kind of turf war among intelligence agencies -- the kind of turf war that was supposed to have stopped after the 9/11 attacks; or if the withholding of information was somehow deliberate -- "designed to make someone look bad."

I'm astounded that ANYONE in the press, let alone the Obama administration, is willing to go there. Because when you look at this information Wolffe is receiving in the context of Dick Cheney coming out of his hidey-hole to call Barack Obama weak on national security, it's not hard to imagine whom it was designed to make look bad. And if that's where the Administration is going, then we have something that some of us have been open to ever since that night in September 2001 when Larry Kudlow was on CNBC grinning from ear to ear because the attacks meant an end to any talk of a Social Security "lockbox"; one that should scare the bejeezus out of all of us -- that there are elements in this country's intelligence apparatus who are willing, even eager, to allow terrorist attacks to take place for Republican political gain.

We'll know more about this investigation tomorrow, when the President makes a statement around 4:00 PM Eastern time.

I'll post the clip as soon as I can get it.

UPDATE: Here it is:




...and Rachel's take:


Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Why, when there is a threat of an attack, is the President not told?
Posted by Jill | 7:29 AM
What's wrong with this picture:

The president was told during a private briefing on Tuesday morning while vacationing here in Hawaii that the government had a variety of information in its possession before the thwarted bombing that would have been a clear warning sign had it been shared among agencies, a senior official said.

Two officials said the government had intelligence from Yemen before Friday that leaders of a branch of Al Qaeda there were talking about “a Nigerian” being prepared for a terrorist attack. While the information did not include a name, officials said it would have been evident had it been compared with information about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old Nigerian charged with trying to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight to Detroit on Christmas Day.

The government also had more information about where Mr. Abdulmutallab had been and what some of his plans were.

Would someone please explain to me why, when intelligence agencies have evidence that there is someone being prepared for a terrorist attack, that the President is not told until FOUR DAYS AFTER THE ATTEMPT? Hell, even George W. Bush was notified in August 2001 that something was being prepped to go down. That he chose to ignore it doesn't mean he wasn't told. But if Barack Obama is telling the truth, then there is something very strange going on within our intelligence agencies. These agencies are charged with gathering information to anticipate and stop people like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from getting on a plane armed with explosives. That they didn't manage to put the pieces together, even after there were plenty of pieces back in 2001 that they didn't put together, is disturbing enough. But that they had the pieces and didn't think the President needed to be informed is even worse. Perhaps they got so used to George W. Bush, who genuinely didn't give a shit. Or perhaps there are elements in the intelligence community who know that an attack on this country would justify the Republican meme of "Barack Obama is a wuss" -- and ensure a return to Republican governance in 2010. And what's worse is I don't know which is a scarier prospect. But something is very, very rotten in the bowels of Washington. And Americans are going to be the collateral damage.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, December 29, 2009

What do increased efforts at security checkpoints matter when someone can just get on the plane at the gate?
Posted by Jill | 5:11 AM
This article to which I linked yesterday (and here's the link again) describes a witness who says that a "sharp-dressed man" accompanied Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab to the airport GATE, where he talked the GATE AGENT into letting Mutallab on the plane.

So my question is this: Did Mutallab even go through a security checkpoint at all? Did the "sharp-dressed man" have some kind of special clearance? With all the handwringing going on about airport security in the aftermath of the Christmas Day bombing attempt, is it possible that the checkpoint system didn't fall apart; but rather, that Mutallab somehow never even went through it; that he had some sort of "special dispensation"?

Dutch authorities are investigating:

American lawyer Kurt Haskell, who was standing in line with his wife Lori on Christmas morning at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport, said Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was with a man aged about 50 of Indian appearance in an expensive suit talking with a ticket agent.

Mr Haskell claims that the second man told the ticket agent Abdulmutallab was from Sudan and did not have a passport. The ticket agent then referred the men to her manager down the hall, and Mr Haskell did not see the suspect against until after the failed bombing attempt.


Michael Lind today asks what the hell we're paying the government for:

Whether under Republicans or Democrats, whether the threat is Hurricane Katrina or Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab, America seems to be facing a general crisis of state incapacity. Money can be found by Democratic and Republican administrations alike to bail out campaign contributors on Wall Street, but not to repair our crumbling infrastructure.

The U.S. fought and won World War II in less time than it took to adequately protect U.S. soldiers against primitive weapons in Iraq. We are told that we have to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely, because withdrawing would be admitting failure. Translation: We haven't won and are unlikely to win in the foreseeable future, if ever.

And now the narrowly averted Christmas massacre in the skies above Detroit. I don't think I'm overreacting when I say that if ever overreaction on the part of a citizenry has been justified, it is now. We the people deserve to be angry. It's not as though Abdulmutallab came up with a clever new tactic while our national security agencies were focused on the last tactic. He used more or less the same tactic as the "shoe bomber," Richard Reid, and nevertheless got through every layer of international and national security.

It's almost as though Osama bin Laden had been allowed through screening at Boston Logan, used a box cutter to hijack a jet, and would have crashed it but for the heroic intervention of other passengers defending themselves after their government failed to defend them.

Forget Democrats and Republicans for a minute. Every American should be asking the same questions: Why are we paying these people?

Our elected leaders and public servants can't do the hard stuff, and they can't do the easy stuff either. They can't provide universal, affordable healthcare, of the kind that all other advanced industrial societies have. They can't give us a system of banking that channels money from depositors to productive enterprises in our country, without being channeled into gambling with obscene profits skimmed off for the gambler-bankers. They can't win wars or avoid unwinnable ones. They can't even repair bridges and keep levees in operating condition, tasks mastered by the relatively primitive ancient Romans and ancient Chinese.

And now, after two invasions justified in the name of the "war on terror," the creation of a cumbersome Homeland Security bureaucracy and a Patriot Act, and countless studies, reports and hearings, it turns out that we Americans may have to defend ourselves against jihadists. First we were told ad nauseam that it was our job to identify possible terrorists in airports and bus terminals and train stations. What next? "Passengers are advised to be prepared to throw themselves if necessary on the flaming traveler next to them in the aircraft, in order to prevent a bomb from detonating. Please watch the demonstration by the flight attendants."

The reality as well as the perception of government incapacity threatens liberalism more than conservatism. After all, if public safety deteriorates, antisocial plutocrats can retreat into doormanned buildings and gated communities and hire their own private security forces, and rural conservatives can amass home arsenals. And if the costs of personal security reduce the room for taxes for public goods, well, then, so much the better, from the perspective of certain strains of anti-government conservatism.

In contrast, America's modest and inadequate system of social democracy rests on economic growth made possible by effective government provision of basic public goods. Economic growth in turn rests on physical security — the protection of citizens against criminals in their midst and hostile or law-breaking foreigners. Libertarians to the contrary, the indispensable preconditions for the free society are effective armed forces and police forces, be they citizen militias or professionals.


It's all well and good to look at airport security checkpoints, but it's beginning to sound as if Mutallab had one heck of a lot of help getting on that plane; help that may not even have involved lapses in airport security. But Lind's article is interesting in that it posits a world in which government is ineffective and we end up with paramilitary forces and gun nuts -- exactly the kind of world that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, the teabaggers, and Dick Cheney regard as their utopian vision.

As I said last night, my tinfoil is tingling. Stay tuned.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, December 28, 2009

...every girl's crazy 'bout a sharp dressed man
Posted by Jill | 7:01 PM
What else can I title this entry, even if it forces me to post Z.Z. Top videos:




But all kidding aside, if the account we're being fed about Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab didn't already stink enough, what should we make of this:

Flight 253 passenger: Sharp-dressed man aided terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab onto plane without passport (MLive.com exclusive)

A Michigan man who was aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 says he witnessed Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab trying to board the plane in Amsterdam without a passport.

Kurt Haskell of Newport, Mich., who posted an earlier comment about his experience, talked exclusively with MLive.com and confirmed he was on the flight by sending a picture of his boarding pass. He and his wife, Lori, were returning from a safari in Uganda when they boarded the NWA flight on Friday.

Haskell said he and his wife were sitting on the ground near their boarding gate in Amsterdam, which is when they saw Mutallab approach the gate with an unidentified man.

Kurt and Lori Haskell are attorneys with Haskell Law Firm in Taylor. Their expertise includes bankruptcy, family law and estate planning.

While Mutallab was poorly dressed, his friend was dressed in an expensive suit, Haskell said. He says the suited man asked ticket agents whether Mutallab could board without a passport. “The guy said, 'He's from Sudan and we do this all the time.'”

Mutallab is Nigerian. Haskell believes the man may have been trying to garner sympathy for Mutallab's lack of documents by portraying him as a Sudanese refugee.

The ticket agent referred Mutallab and his companion to her manager down the hall, and Haskell didn't see Mutallab again until after he allegedly tried to detonate an explosive on the plane.

I don't know about you, but my tinfoil is tingling. And oh, yes, my little chickadees, it gets even better:

Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the Northwest bombing in a Monday statement that vowed more attacks on Americans.

Oh, and by the way, whether Dana Perino and Mary Matalin want to believe it or not, Barack Obama was not the President in November 2007.
American officials agreed to send the two terrorists from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia where they entered into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials.

Guantanamo prisoner #333, Muhamad Attik al-Harbi, and prisoner #372, Said Ali Shari, were sent to Saudi Arabia on Nov. 9, 2007, according to the Defense Department log of detainees who were released from American custody. Al-Harbi has since changed his name to Muhamad al-Awfi.


ART THERAPY REHABILITATION PROGRAM??? After all the tough talk we heard from the Dickster about "the worst of the worst", the Bushcheney Junta released these two guys into ART THERAPY REHABILITATION? Now I'm a strong believer in the redemptive power of art. I mean, look at Robert Downey Jr., who did a couple of years in prison and is now the King of Quality Popular Entertainment. But it's hard to believe that the phony tough Cheney bought this as being rehabilitative.

Everything that's happened regarding our relations with the Islamic world since September 11, 2001 stinks to high heaven. I don't know what's going on, but there's no way this is all a coincidence.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Breaking News from the Holy Shit! desk
Posted by Jill | 9:27 PM
Wow...there isn't enough tinfoil in the world for this one:

The man who was arrested with two guns and hundreds of rounds of ammunition near the Capitol during President Barack Obama's health care speech in September had been an employee of the George W. Bush White House. The arrest of the man, Joshua Bowman, was widely reported at the time, but the news stories made no mention of his previous employment: For several years he worked in the Executive Office of the President, dealing with tech issues, including White House emails, his lawyer, George Braun, tells Mother Jones.

On the night of September 9, Bowman was on his way to meet Braun, a Bush administration political appointee, at the National Republican Club on First Street, SE when he was stopped by Capitol Police around 7:45 p.m.—minutes before Obama was scheduled to deliver a major address to Congress pushing his health care initiative. Bowman had driven up to a security checkpoint and told officers he wanted to park, but his lack of a permit for the area aroused their suspicions, and they asked to search his car.

The previous weekend, Bowman and Braun had gone duck-hunting, according to Braun. But Bowman forgot that he still had the guns in his car when he consented to a search of his vehicle, a Honda Civic with a bumper sticker proclaiming, "I'll keep my guns, freedom, and money.... you keep the change." The officers found a Beretta 12 gauge semi-automatic* shotgun, a .22 caliber long rifle, and over 400 rounds of ammunition in Bowman's trunk. The guns were unloaded and in their cases, according to court records. Braun says they were disassembled. The Capitol Police took Bowman into custody and charged him with two counts of possession of an unregistered firearm and one count of unlawful possession of ammunition. He faced up to $3,000 in fines and as much as three years in jail. (The case is still pending.)

When Braun—who was at the National Republican Club, hanging out with congressmen including Iowa's Tom Latham and Nebraska's Lee Terry—finally heard from Bowman, it was around 10 p.m. Bowman told Braun he needed Braun to get him out of jail, explaining that he had been stopped with guns in his car. "Don't you know that's illegal?" Braun asked. Both men were surprised when they heard the story on the radio as they left jail the next day. Braun thought the coverage was excessive. "They were making him sound like a terrorist," Braun said. "Does [Bowman] look like a terrorist? He has the élan to walk around with a bowtie."

So it would seem to be "a big misunderstanding", but with the history of the Bush family (see also: The Carlyle Group & 9/11, The Octopus, etc., it's hard to blame a person for being skeptical.

And if a bow tie demonstrates "élan", I wonder how you explain this and this.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, November 30, 2009

Pathological liar Dana Perino plants the seed of scandal
Posted by Jill | 5:19 AM
Remember, a scandal involving a Democratic president only has to become a media meme, not necessarily an actual scandal, to get the media's panties in a twist. Last week it was all Salahis all the time, with speculation in my circles ranging from they just crashed a party to they were designated by someone (Cheney?) to do a dry run to see how close they could get to wiping out Obama, Biden, AND Pelosi, to they inadvertently saved Obama's life by showing a deliberate hole in security by Secret Service to allow a mass assassination/coup to take place. The two last scenarios sound a bit like that episode of Dynasty where everyone at the party was shot, but in a country that had its very own Darth Vader for eight years, and now finding out pretty definitively that our Vader and his frontman very likely allowed the man they claimed was the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks to escape, reality has become stranger than fiction.

So I don't know about you, but when I read this buried in an article about the Secret Service interviewing the Salahis, it got my Spidey-sense all a-tingle:
A former White House press secretary, Dana Perino, predicted a tough time for the White House social office as the holiday parties approached.

Ms. Perino, a press secretary in the Bush administration, said on “Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace” that once the Salahis were on the White House grounds, the social office might have played a role in processing them through the receiving line.

“What will be a concern for, I think, the social office going forward is they have their busiest season coming up,” Ms. Perino said. “It’s the holiday season. They’ll have a lot of people coming through.”

And that's how they do it: Have someone who's a not-very-bright, fairly non-hot-button member of the Bush administration just casually drop a White House connection to the Salahi matter into the equation, and suddenly we have the makings of a scandal that will resonate in people's minds because it has the word "office" in it, and therefore a meld into the Clinton "travel office" [non-]scandal.

You've got to admire in a way how they do it.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Or is it just about saving money?
Posted by Jill | 6:37 AM
When you have a health care "reform" bill in the Senate that not only may effectively make abortion a non-reimbursable procedure, but also does not explicitly cover procedures that are unique to women, you have to wonder if women's health care is going to be sacrificed on the altar of cost containment. That's why I'm skeptical about the mammography guidelines put forth yesterday by the United States Preventive Services Task Force:
The new recommendations, which do not apply to a small group of women with unusual risk factors for breast cancer, reverse longstanding guidelines and are aimed at reducing harm from overtreatment, the group says. It also says women age 50 to 74 should have mammograms less frequently — every two years, rather than every year. And it said doctors should stop teaching women to examine their breasts on a regular basis.

Just seven years ago, the same group, the United States Preventive Services Task Force, with different members, recommended that women have mammograms every one to two years starting at age 40. It found too little evidence to take a stand on breast self-examinations.

The task force is an independent panel of experts in prevention and primary care appointed by the federal Department of Health and Human Services.

Its new guidelines, which are different from those of some professional and advocacy organizations, are published online in The Annals of Internal Medicine They are likely to touch off yet another round of controversy over the benefits of screening for breast cancer.

Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chairwoman of the task force and a professor of biomedical informatics at Arizona State University, said the guidelines were based on new data and analyses and were aimed at reducing the potential harm from overscreening.

While many women do not think a screening test can be harmful, medical experts say the risks are real. A test can trigger unnecessary further tests, like biopsies, that can create extreme anxiety. And mammograms can find cancers that grow so slowly that they never would be noticed in a woman’s lifetime, resulting in unnecessary treatment.

Now that said, I have a certain amount of skepticism about mammograms, for all that I have one every year. I'm not sure I believe that they CAUSE breast cancer, as some believe (though I wouldn't rule it out, this IS women's health care that is aimed at women who are no longer "fuckable" and are therefore expendable in our society), but whether they prevent deaths remains to be seen. And then when I start thinking that way I think of the family friend who never had a mammogram and by the time her cancer was discovered, she had significant lymph node spread.

The timing of this report has my spidey-sense a-tingle, coming as it does from a group that advises doctors and insurance companies. If you think this report isn't going to affect coverage for mammograms, you're deluding yourself. And it just seems peculiar that it's WOMEN'S health care that is getting this kind of scrutiny.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, June 12, 2009

I really don't need this a week before going to Germany: random musings
Posted by Jill | 5:41 AM
Yes, folks, Your Humble Blogger will be only sporadically posting between June 20 and January 3. I am headed to the Rhineland, where I will lead a project team of people who know a lot more of what they're doing than I do. I must say that my employer does want to make its employees comfortable on a trip like this. Most companies these days, if you're not a top executive, would put you on a hang-glider and blow, then if you get to your destination, put you up at a youth hostel. But I will be at a nice hotel that claims to have wireless internet access, albeit at 22 euros per day. So unless I can hang two laptops off the same connection, in which case I may be able to post nightly (which would mean afternoon Eastern Time), posting will be sporadic for those two weeks. I'm sure my loyal compatriots, and perhaps a few surprise guests, will pick up the slack. But yes, I'm bound for my first trip to Europe, even if it is for work.

Cologne sounds like a fun town; too bad I'll be returning home on the day the biggest reggae and world music festival in Europe starts, and I'll miss the Cologne festivities of Gay Pride month. But there's the cathedral, and apparently there is a zoo and a botanical garden, and I will have a weekend there in which hopefully I won't have to spend ALL my time working.

But I am a nervous flier under the best of circumstances, and being someone who is, I'm ashamed to admit, less well-traveled than George W. Bush at this point, I needed the crash of a major European airline's jet like I needed a second navel. And to make matters worse, John Aravosis has noted a couple of peculiarities about Air France #447 passengers that just make me want to don my tinfoil chapeau right now, then pop a Benedryl and drink a glass of wine the minute I get on board and conk out rather than freak out:


If everyone is connected to everyone else by only six people, these coincidences are easy to explain. They're creepy, and perhaps it's just that I'm going to be getting on a flight to Europe in a week and don't have the luxury of going down that road, but I'm not convinced they mean anything.

But when right before Barack Obama made his Cairo speech and Osama Bin Laden released one of his "booga-booga" tapes right beforehand, it sounded like a plaintive cry for attention from someone realizing that perhaps his influence was waning now that his best recruiting tool was no longer on the world scene. Today the Iranians go to the polls. If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad loses this election, as he may very well, on the heels of the Lebanese election earlier this month, it will be a sign that the carrot works far better than the stick, and that the Middle East just might be rethinking its relationship with the west.

Last night I was on the phone with my mother, talking about single-payer health care and why "socialism" was still such a hot word. I opined that perhaps everyone whose fear button was pushed during the Cold War will have to die off, or at the very least, leave the corridors of Washington, before the knee-jerk response to the idea that the government perhaps ought to provide certain things that are NECESSARY, rather than leaving it up to people wearing headsets in cubicles at for-profit, publicly-held corporations to decide what care you get, is abject, pants-crapping terror. Watching the young people of Iran on the NBC special on Iran last Sunday getting involved in the future of their country, I had the same sense that change is coming there too, but it may take another generation of people without the baggage of the Shah, and the U.S. embassy hostage crisis, to do it.

Perhaps this is why neocon Daniel Pipes and his warmongering compatriots WANT Ahmadinejad to be re-elected. Becuase fear is a powerful tool. Without fear, what do the neocons have?

So next Saturday, I'll get on that plane loaded up on Benadryl and forget all about fear. Mr. Brilliant will mind the home front, and other folks will mind the blog front, and just maybe I'll be able to post some photos from the ancient city on the Rhine.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, January 19, 2009

I do not like this one bit
Posted by Jill | 6:55 PM
I don't know about you, but I am going to be a nervous wreck tomorrow until this inauguration is over. And I am even more nervous after hearing about this:
If the unthinkable happens on Inauguration Day, Robert Gates, the defense secretary, will be available to assume the reins of government.

"In order to ensure continuity of government, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been designated by the outgoing Administration, with the concurrence of the incoming Administration, to serve as the designated successor during Inauguration Day, Tuesday, January 20th," White House press Secretary Dana Perino said.

[snip]

Perino said that Gates will be at a secure, undisclosed location on Inauguration Day, according to CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller. Most of the others on the succession list, by contrast, will be participating in the inauguration festivities.


Note how it's the only member of the Bush Administration being asked to stay on who's the "designated successor."

I don't know about you, but I'm not putting the tinfoil chapeau back into the hatbox just yet.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Perhaps this is why they deliberately wrecked the economy
Posted by Jill | 5:10 AM
It is actually kind of brilliant, in a nefarious sort of way. This way the breakdown of society can happen on Obama's watch and the Bush Junta's hands get to stay clean:
A U.S. Army War College report warns an economic crisis in the United States could lead to massive civil unrest and the need to call on the military to restore order.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Nathan Freir wrote the report "Known Unknowns: Unconventional Strategic Shocks in Defense Strategy Development," which the Army think tank in Carlisle, Pa., recently released.

"Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities ... to defend basic domestic order and human security," the report said, in case of "unforeseen economic collapse," "pervasive public health emergencies," and "catastrophic natural and human disasters," among other possible crises.

The report also suggests the new (Barack Obama) administration could face a "strategic shock" within the first eight months in office.

Fort Bliss spokeswoman Jean Offutt said the Army post is not involved in any recent talks about a potential military response to civil unrest.

[snip]

arlier this year, Pentagon officials said as many as 20,000 soldiers under the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) will be trained within the next three years to work with civilian law enforcement in homeland security.

Joint Task Force-North, a joint command at Biggs Army Airfield, which conducts surveillance and intelligence along the border, comes under NORTHCOM. No one was available at JTF-North to comment on the Army War College's report. NORTHCOM was created after the 9-11 attacks to coordinate homeland security efforts.


So watch for the black helicopter/militia crowd to get back in action. After all, it seems to be that for these folks, mass wiretapping of Americans, scooping up all their electronic correspondence, and training the military to patrol the streets here at home is all perfectly OK to this bunch -- as long as the president is Republican.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, December 26, 2008

They report, you decide
Posted by Jill | 10:51 AM


Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, December 25, 2008

Because tinfoil is almost like tinsel
Posted by Jill | 12:32 PM
And a shiny hat looks so festive on Christmas.

Larisa Alexandrovna updates
what we know about the plane crash "accident" in which Republican operative Mike Connell died. Connell, who was Karl Rove's IT guru and at the center of the curious case of Ohio vote counts being shut down in 2004, gave a deposition on November 3 as a key witness in the King-Lincoln v. Blackwell lawsuit regarding fraud in the 2004 Presidential Election in Ohio. She finds it just a wee bit curious that:
Connell knew the Bush family very well. He knew members of Congress very well. He has been a staple of the GOP IT scene for ages. He even worked on the McCain camp. So what is wrong with this sorry lot of people, that not a single one of them issued a public condolence to this man? Not even the head of the RNC for crying out loud. Connell has worked with the RNC for years. He has worked with the Chamber of Commerce for years. He was friends with and knew very important people. He dies a few days before Christmas, leaving 4 kids and a widow behind and NOT ONE person could find the time to issue a public condolences to his family?

The President has time to pardon turkeys and pardon criminals, but not to issue even a single sentence of condolence to a man he has known for years? Rove? Where is he at? John McCain? Anyone? I don't understand how no one thought to issue a statement of support for the family, especially since a father of four won't be there for Christmas?


Cliff Baxter, the Enron executive who "committed suicide" in January 2002 was also a major player in the Republican party and was tight with Bush friend "Kenny Boy" Lay. The Bushistas and the GOP had no statement to make about that one either.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, December 20, 2008

Put on your tinfoil bonnet with the blue ribbons on it...
Posted by Jill | 4:18 PM
...and make what you will of this:
The Akron Beacon Journal is reporting that the private plane of the GOP's highly-placed "IT guru" Mike Connell's went down in Lake Township, Ohio on Friday evening. Connell was killed in the crash and is reported to have been the only person on board. There are no reports of anyone on the ground being hurt, though his plane crashed in a residential neighborhood.


Connell is a familiar name to readers of The BRAD BLOG as a key witness in the King-Lincoln v. Blackwell lawsuit regarding fraud in the 2004 Presidential Election in Ohio. That recently revived, long-standing lawsuit led to Connell's recent deposition on November 3, 2008, the day before this year's general election. According to plaintiff's lead attorney Cliff Arnebeck in July, a tipster had warned that Connell had been threatened by Karl Rove, as The BRAD BLOG reported at the time, in an attempt to intimidate him into "taking the fall" for Ohio election fraud not long after a motion was filed to lift the stay in that case.


Connell had been memorably described as a "high IQ Forrest Gump", by the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Ohio fraud case, for his apparent penchant at the scene of "every single crime" from Florida 2000 to Ohio 2004 to the network firewall on a number of key Congressional committees to the case of the missing White House emails. (Video and text transcript of the interview with the attorneys here.)


In late September, the federal judge in the Ohio case agreed to lift the stay, and in late October he compelled Connell to give a deposition to plaintiff attorneys on the Monday before the Tuesday general election.


Connell had been served with a subpoena to appear in the federal courtroom in Ohio at the same College Park, MD airport where his single engine plane reportedly took off from last night, on his final solo flight...



Oh, and it gets even better, as Larisa Alexandrovna notes. And this article from right after Election Day has some interesting stuff about Karl Rove changing his tune about the still-unresolved Minnesota Senate election after Connell's deposition.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share