General Petraeus and the Neo-Con connection

This is like something from one of us crazy conspiracy theorists.

Seriously, you can't make this stuff up.

From Chris Matthews at MSNBC:

Fred and Kimberly Kagan are hawks. They share the ideology of those who backed the Iraq War. Why are they on the inside of an administration elected based on its opposition to the Iraq war?

I am one of those who believed from square one that the war in Iraq was an ideological war pushed from the outset by those who wanted us to overthrow the Iraq government and install ourselves in Baghdad. They got their way under a less-than-informed President, George W. Bush. Now we discover that a pair of them, the Kagans, have been right there in the room with the head of the Afghan mission, advising him every step of the way.

Why? Why did General Petraeus assume the right to allow people who represent the very opposite of President Obama’s philosophy to advise him? What agenda was his seeking here? What was he buying into? Was he buying into the hawkish agenda of those who advocated war on Iraq in the first place? If so, why was he working for President Obama who stood out there against that war?

I have to think that Petraeus either doesn’t understand politics and ideology or he shapes his ideology, or accepts the ideology of those who have stood against Obama from the beginning. This is really strange, really strange and someone in the administration better start paying attention to who is getting into the tent and who they are indeed working for.

Kimberly and Frederick Kagan are very interesting people indeed, close to the American Enterprise Institute and similar neo-con hit-squads. As Matthews asks, why were they "advising" Petraeus?

The Washington Post has the whole timeline of neo-con infiltration of the Obama administration:

Frederick and Kimberly Kagan, a husband-and-wife team of hawkish military analysts, put their jobs at influential Washington think tanks on hold for almost a year to work for Gen. David H. Petraeus when he was the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan. Provided desks, e-mail accounts and top-level security clearances in Kabul, they pored through classified intelligence reports, participated in senior-level strategy sessions and probed the assessments of field officers in order to advise Petraeus about how to fight the war differently.

Their compensation from the U.S. government for their efforts, which often involved 18-hour workdays, seven days a week and dangerous battlefield visits?

Zero dollars.

Although Fred Kagan said he and his wife wanted no pay in part to remain “completely independent,” the extraordinary arrangement raises new questions about the access and influence Petraeus accorded to civilian friends while he was running the Afghan war.

Petraeus allowed his biographer-turned-paramour, Paula Broadwell, to read sensitive documents and accompany him on trips. But the entree granted the Kagans, whose think-tank work has been embraced by Republican politicians, went even further. The four-star general made the Kagans de facto senior advisers, a status that afforded them numerous private meetings in his office, priority travel across the war zone and the ability to read highly secretive transcripts of intercepted Taliban communications, according to current and former senior U.S. military and civilian officials who served in the headquarters at the time.

The Kagans used those privileges to advocate substantive changes in the U.S. war plan, including a harder-edged approach than some U.S. officers advocated in combating the Haqqani network, a Taliban faction in eastern Afghanistan, the officials said.

The pro-bono relationship, which is now being scrutinized by military lawyers, yielded valuable benefits for the general and the couple. The Kagans’ proximity to Petraeus, the country’s most-famous living general, provided an incentive for defense contractors to contribute to Kim Kagan’s think tank. For Petraeus, embracing two respected national security analysts in GOP circles helped to shore up support for the war among Republican leaders on Capitol Hill.

Fred Kagan, speaking in an interview with his wife, acknowledged the arrangement was “strange and uncomfortable” at times. “We were going around speaking our minds, trying to force people to think about things in different ways and not being accountable to the heads” of various departments in the headquarters, he said.

The extent of the couple’s involvement in Petraeus’s headquarters was not known to senior White House and Pentagon officials involved in war policy, two of those officials said. More than a dozen senior military officers and civilian officials were interviewed for this article; most spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters.

Petraeus, through a former aide, declined to comment for this article.

As war-zone volunteers, the Kagans were not bound by stringent rules that apply to military personnel and private contractors. They could raise concerns directly with Petraeus, instead of going through subordinate officers, and were free to speak their minds without repercussion.

Some military officers and civilian U.S. government employees in Kabul praised the couple’s contributions — one general noted that “they did the work of 20 intelligence analysts.” Others expressed deep unease about their activities in the headquarters, particularly because of their affiliations and advocacy in Washington.

Fred Kagan, who works at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, was one of the intellectual architects of President George W. Bush’s troop surge in Iraq and has sided with the Republican Party on many national security issues. Kim Kagan runs the Institute for the Study of War, which favors an aggressive U.S. foreign policy. The Kagans supported President Obama’s decision to order a surge in Afghanistan, but they later broke with the White House on the subject of troop reductions. Both argue against any significant drawdown in forces there next year.

Petraeus’s successor, Gen. John R. Allen, allowed the Kagans to stay at the headquarters for his first few months on the job last year and permitted them to return for two additional short visits. After the couple’s most recent trip in September, they provided a briefing on the war and other foreign policy matters to the Republican vice-presidential candidate, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

The Kagans said they continued to receive salaries from their think tanks while in Afghanistan. Kim Kagan’s institute is funded in part by large defense contractors. During Petraeus’s tenure in Kabul, she sent out a letter soliciting contributions so the organization could continue its military work, according to two people who saw the letter.

On Aug. 8, 2011, a month after he relinquished command in Afghanistan to take over at the CIA, Petraeus spoke at the institute’s first “President’s Circle” dinner, where he accepted an award from Kim Kagan. To join the President’s Circle, individuals must contribute at least $10,000 a year. The private event, held at the Newseum in Washington, also drew executives from defense contractors who fund the institute.

“What the Kagans do is they grade my work on a daily basis,” Petraeus said, prompting chortles from the audience. “There’s some suspicion that there’s a hand up my back, and it makes my lips talk, and it’s operated by one of the Doctors Kagan.”

Now, why would we think that?

What an interesting turn of phrase.

Hopefully, we will be getting more on this... in the meantime, read the entire investigative piece by the Washington Post, which is stellar.

Bring Joe-Bob back to the Drive-In, and other horrifying updates

Joe-Bob Goes to The Drive-In was the name of Joe Bob Briggs' old B-movie column in the Dallas Morning Herald. These reviews were compiled into a very entertaining book by the same name. The book's sequel was titled, of course, Joe-Bob goes back to the drive-in (introduction by Wayne Newton). Both books are totally indispensable and absolutely necessary for any serious trash-culture fan!

Joe-Bob Briggs was really John Bloom, and with his TEXAS MONTHLY writing partner, Jim Atkinson, wrote a very good true-crime account of one woman killing another with an axe. I sure never forgot THAT one! (Aside: An Amazon reader informs us that this woman, Candy Montgomery, is now a nurse in Atlanta... remind me never to go to the hospital in Georgia, for any reason.) He hosted his own TV show for awhile: Joe-Bob's Drive-In Theater. This was one of the great treasures of the 90s, my friends. You may also recall Joe-Bob as the host of the more mainstream 90s cable-show MonsterVision, which brought us some far-out B-movie classics, such as the inimitable Basket Case.

Joe-Bob has been in a few movies himself, and was even in the mini-series of THE STAND, playing a character named Deputy Joe-Bob Brentwood (attesting to Stephen King's excellent B-movie sensibilities). He was also in Martin Scorcese's Casino, one of my favorite movies, where you may remember him getting fired by Robert DeNiro and hollering in protest, "This is not the way to treat people!" (I remember thinking, is that Joe-Bob Briggs he is firing????) Unfortunately, his scenes were deleted from Texas Chainsaw Massacre II, which I am sure upset him terribly.

My question: WHERE is the contemporary Joe-Bob? Why are we Joe-Bobless? It doesn't seem fair that we have no trash-movie impresario on regular TV these days. (Note: I'm sure one of the millions of satellite channels has this kind of programming, but I refer to mass-market TV.) I grew up with horror movies hosted by the incomparable Ghoulardi of Cleveland, and I love that kinda stuff.

Come back, Joe-Bob!!! And no offense, but you can leave your politics back in Texas. Nonetheless, if I have to put up with Libertarian jabber to get some decent B-movies, I am willing to do that.

~*~

Some more stuff:

:: Conspiracy theories! As an ex-Yippie, I eat em for breakfast. (I also figured this would go well with Joe-Bob.) Bin Laden Death Deemed Murder of CIA Case Officer as 9/11 Coverup:

President George W. Bush knew Osama bin Laden was a CIA agent and in no way ever involved in 9/11. He knew bin Laden personally from family visits and knew bin Laden had been to the White House while living in the US under the cover name of “Tim Osmon.”

This has been verified by CIA officials.

It has? Well, color me surprised.

I definitely need to hear more about this one.

:: Monica runs a video from Ellen DeGeneres, calling out the "One Million Moms" (actually only 40,000) who have targeted her as a gay spokesperson for JC Penneys. (I also thought homophobes go well with horror movies, so that is the reason the link goes here.)

:: And finally, from Politico: The political transformation of Barack Obama, which has most assuredly been horrifying.

Add your own, play along at home.

The house is rockin, still I gotta go in

It has been a somewhat hellish weekend so far, but unfortunately, can't blog about any of it. (If you're my friend, send me a Facebook message and I will be more than happy to vent privately!) I'll just say: apartment living has its definite drawbacks, as I have previously written in this space. (And I will leave the rest to your feverish imaginations.)

This afternoon, went down to the Grand Opening of the new Yoga place. Now, why did I drive to the old Yoga place? ((sigh)) Not paying any fucking attention ... see aforementioned description of hellish weekend. Obviously, if it's a GRAND OPENING (duh!) it's a NEW place... but I was momentarily confused since it's the 6th anniversary of the old place, too, and they were doing special events there as well.

So I finally get to the new place, just in time for them to be all done. :(
My personal yoga instructor-friend was finished, and yes, I want my FRIEND, please. It's not a lot to ask! (If I ever move to a large city, I will miss knowing everyone in town!) So, drove home and waited for more shit to hit the fan, as it undoubtedly will.

I practiced breathing while I drove, so that should count for something.

Decided to share some recent favorite reads:

:: The Tea Party's anarchist streak, by Jacob Weisberg in Newsweek:

What’s distinctive about the Tea Party is its anarchist streak—its antagonism toward any authority, its belligerent self-expression, and its lack of any coherent program or alternative to the policies it condemns.

In this sense, you might think of the Tea Party as the right’s version of the 1960s New Left. It’s a community of likeminded people coming together to assert their individualism and subvert the established order. But where the New Left was young and looked forward to a new Aquarian age, the Tea Party is old and looks backward to a capitalist-constitutionalist paradise that, needless to say, never existed. The strongest note in its tannic brew is nostalgia. Tea Partiers are constantly talking about “restoring honor,” getting back to America’s roots, and “taking back” their country.

How far back to take it back is one of the questions that divides the movement. The tricorn-hat brigade holds the most extreme libertarian view: a constitutional fundamentalism that would limit the federal government to the exercise of enumerated powers. The Roanoke Tea Party, for example, proposes a Freedom for Virginians Act, which would empower the state to invalidate laws it deems unconstitutional. It’s been settled business that you can’t do this since the Supreme Court decided McCullough v. Maryland in 1819, but never mind. [Glenn] Beck, a century more modern, feeds his audience quack history that says the fall from grace was the progressive era, when Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson introduced socialism into the American bloodstream.

Other than nostalgia, the strongest emotion at Tea Parties is resentment, defined as placing blame for one’s woes on those either above or below you in the social hierarchy. This finds expression as hostility toward a variety of elites: the “liberal” media, “career” politicians, “so-called” experts, and sometimes even the hoariest of populist targets, Wall Street bankers. These groups stand accused of promoting the interest of the poor, minorities, and immigrants—or in the case of the financiers, the very rich—against those of middle-class taxpayers.

Anti-elitism is hardly a fresh theme for Republicans. But here too, the Tea Partiers take it to a new level. The most radical statement of individualism is choosing your own reality, and to some in the Tea Party, the very fact that experts believe something is sufficient to disprove it. The media’s insistence that Barack Obama was born in the United States, or that he is a Christian rather than a Muslim, merely fuels their belief to the contrary. Other touchstones include the view that Obama has a secret plan to deprive Americans of their guns, that global warming is a leftist hoax, and that—according to Delaware’s Christine O’Donnell—there’s more evidence for creationism than for evolution.

As I said in my piece on GOING ROGUE, the mainstream media's trashing of the Tea Party just continually backfires, and I think that is a good analysis of why it does.

:: Gleen Greenwald takes this a bit further in his Salon piece on Christine O'Donnell (Tea Party candidate for Senate; surprise-winner of the recent Delaware primary) and the outright classism in the mainstream media's attacks.

For example, Karl Rove mounted his platform to detail O'Donnell's lifetime of financial difficulties and why that means she is not a good candidate. On the contrary, as Greenwald writes, that might be her only characteristic that most people could readily identity with:

Most people are not like Rove's political patron, George W. Bush, who was born into extreme family wealth. O'Donnell's financial difficulties, which Rove [described in detail on TV], and [was] implicitly condemning, are far from unusual for ordinary Americans. In 2009 alone, there were 2.8 million home foreclosures. Contrary to what Rove is trying to imply, an inability to pay one's college tuition bills or a struggle with taxes are neither rare nor signs of moral turpitude. Those are common problems for a country whose middle class is eroding as the rich-poor gap rapidly widens. If the kinds of financial struggles O'Donnell has experienced are disqualifying from high political office, then we will simply have an even more intensified version of the oligarchy which our political system has become.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion, at least for me, that, claims to the contrary notwithstanding, much of the discomfort and disgust triggered by these Tea Party candidates has little to do with their ideology. After all, are most of them radically different than the right-wing extremists Karl Rove has spent his career promoting and exploiting? Hardly. Much of the patronizing derision and scorn heaped on people like Christine O'Donnell have very little to do with their substantive views -- since when did right-wing extremism place one beyond the pale? -- and much more to do with the fact they're so . . . unruly and unwashed. To members of the establishment and the ruling class (like Rove), these are the kinds of people -- who struggle with tuition bills and have their homes foreclosed -- who belong in Walmarts, community colleges, low-paying jobs, and voting booths on command, not in the august United States Senate.

You want to know why it's so unusual for a U.S. Senate candidate to have what Rove scorned as "the checkered background" of O'Donnell, by which he means a series of financial troubles? In his interview with me earlier this week, Sen. Russ Feingold said exactly why. It's not because those financial difficulties are rare among Americans. This is why:

It's not a new thing; it's been going on for a couple of decades. If you look even in the Senate, I'm one of the very few people in there who doesn't have a net worth over a million dollars; my net worth is under half a million dollars, after all these years.

And as poor as Russ Feingold is relative to his colleagues in the Senate, he's still a Harvard Law School graduate who owns his own home and has earned in excess of $100,000 as a U.S. Senator for the last 18 years. People with unpaid Farleigh Dickinson tuition bills and home foreclosures just aren't in the U.S. Senate. And there are a lot of people -- those who see nothing wrong with the U.S. Senate as a millionaire's club and as an entitlement gift of dynastic succession -- who want to keep it that way.

And this ethos is hardly confined to admission requirements for the Senate, but extends to the entire Versailles on the Potomac generally. The Washington ruling class is embodied by the vile image of millionaire TV personality Andrea Mitchell, wife of Alan Greenspan, going on GE-owned MSNBC and announcing that it's time for ordinary Americans to "sacrifice" by giving up Social Security benefits (that she, of course, doesn't need). All sorts of right-wing extremism is tolerated and even revered in Beltway culture provided it comes from the Right People. A Washington political/media culture that rolls out the red carpet for every extremist Bush official is now suddenly offended by these Tea Partiers' extremist views? Please. What's most frowned upon is the inclusion in their circles of those Who Do Not Belong. Hence, the noses turning upward at Christine O'Donnell's lower-middle-class struggles and ordinariness as though they disqualify her for high office. If anything, one could make the case that those struggles are her most appealing -- perhaps her only appealing -- quality.

These socio-economic biases have been evident for many years. Bill Clinton's arrival in Washington caused similar tongue-clucking reactions because, notwithstanding his Yale and Oxford pedigree, he was from a lower-middle-class background, raised by a single working mother, vested with a Southern drawl, and exuding all sorts of cultural signifiers perceived as uncouth. Much of the contempt originally provoked by Sarah Palin was driven by many of the same cultural biases. As I wrote at the time, the one (and only) attribute of Palin which I found appealing, even admirable, when she first arrived on the national scene was that she came from such a modest background and was entirely self-made (Obama's lack of family connections and self-made ascension was also, in my view, one of the very few meaningful differences between him and Hillary Clinton). So much of the derision over Palin had nothing to do with her views or even alleged lack of intelligence -- George Bush, to use just one example, was every bit as radical and probably not as smart -- but it was because she hadn't been groomed to speak and act as a member in good standing of the elite class.

I'm not defending Palin or O'Donnell; they both hold views, most views, which I find repellent. But it's hard not to notice the double standard which treats quite respectfully many politicians with the right lineage who espouse views every bit as radical. This is the kind of condescension that causes Sarah Palin's anti-elitism screeds to resonate and to channel genuine resentments.

Amen, amen! Preach it! (I sorta said the same thing, not nearly as well, here.)

And what do you think of the Tea Party's rising popularity and the reasons for it?

~*~

Today's blog post title comes from my favorite Cheap Trick song.

Now, ladies and gents, this is how it is supposed to sound.

The house is rockin (with domestic problems) - Cheap Trick

<

My world is in a spin, you wanna come on in?

Can I ask for my vote back, Mr President?

Tonight, as President Barack Obama makes a mockery of his Nobel Peace Prize and decides to escalate the Afghanistan War, I take formal leave of the Democratic Party.

I am now, officially, out the door.

I am also reminded of Lyndon Johnson's famous speech defending our similar cranked-up intervention in that Southeast Asian debacle so very long ago... Deja Vu all over again.

I regret my vote already. I should never have trusted.

And I can't do any better than Keith Olbermann on MSNBC last night, addressing the president personally:

So, much of the change for which you were elected, Sir, has thus far been understandably, if begrudgingly, tabled, delayed, made more open-ended. But patience ebbs, Mr. President. And while the first one thousand key decisions of your presidency were already made about the economy, the first public, easy-to-discern, mouse-or-elephant kind of decision comes tomorrow night at West Point at eight o'clock.

You know this, Mr. President: we cannot afford this war. Nothing makes less sense to our economy than the cost of supply for 35,000 new troops. Nothing will do more to slow economic recovery. You might as well shoot the revivified auto industry or embrace John Boehner Health Care Reform and Spray-Tan Reimbursement.

You know this, Mr. President: we cannot afford this war. Nothing makes less sense to our status in the world than for us to re-up as occupiers of Afghanistan and for you to look like you were unable to extricate yourself from a Military Chinese Finger Puzzle left for you by Bush and Cheney and the rest of Halliburton's hench-men.

And most of all, and those of us who have watched these first nine months trust both your judgment and the fact you know this, Mr. President: unless you are exactly right, we cannot afford this war. For if all else is even, and everything from the opinion of the generals to the opinion of the public is even, we cannot afford to send these troops back into that quagmire for second tours, or thirds, or fourths, or fifths.

We cannot afford this ethically, Sir. The country has, for eight shameful years, forgotten its moral compass and its world purpose. And here is your chance to reassert that there is, in fact, American Exceptionalism. We are better. We know when to stop making our troops suffer, in order to make our generals happy.

You, Sir, called for change, for the better way, for the safety of our citizens including the citizens being wasted in war-for-the-sake-of-war, for a reasserting of our moral force. And we listened. And now you must listen. You must listen to yourself.

Text of Olbermann's entire commentary (with video) here.

More:

Where's that Endgame he promised us? (Huffington Post)

President Obama 'accelerates' 30,000 troops to Afghanistan (Politico)

Democrats Campaign Against Obama's Afghan Plan (The Nation)

Obama Approves More Troops for Afghanistan (CBS News)

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) compares Afghanistan troop increase to Vietnam (Politico)

I am sick over this, and very, very disappointed.

Your thoughts?

We love Sonia!--and other ruminations on a young presidency

After all the fervid Obama-blogging I did during election season, I deliberately laid off after Inauguration Day. I wanted to give him a 100-day break, like (haha!) everybody else was. Or was supposed to. Or something.

Like I said, haha. Nobody else did. I felt like he got maybe a 48-hour honeymoon period with the press, if that long.

Primarily for this reason, I extended my hands-off policy even longer, pausing only to criticize the president's rather uncharitable attitude towards freeing the weed. I was floored that Obama wasn't getting the "honeymoon" that other presidents have enjoyed (which they have historically used to "coast" for their first year or so). And then I realized, this is different; times are currently quite disastrous and all bets are off.

And then there is the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is habitually examined microscopically in a manner I can recall no other modern president perpetually and constantly inspected...with the exception of the post-Watergate Richard Nixon (who approved a criminal break-in and thus deserved to be closely-inspected). But Obama? Why is everyone so panicked and seemingly afraid he is going to screw the pooch?

Certainly, it seems obvious that the pooch was already royally screwed by Dubya, who seemed utterly free of any similar close inspection. But much of the microscopic-inspection that should have been directed at Dubya, is now directed at the successor who is attempting to clean up his considerable mess.

And so, I have now decided to jump in and reassert my support for the prez, which is not to say he can't do some serious pooch-screwing of his own, and I suppose he will at some point. All politicians do, after all. (Old bumper sticker: To err is human, to really screw things up takes a politician.) But so far, I am not teeth-gnashingly livid over anything he has done. Bill Clinton used to make me livid with his very predictable Bubba-routine, which I found just too close for comfort. (I had a Bubba-boss for part of that time, which made it significantly worse... familiarity breeds contempt!) As a feminist, I also greatly resented the fact that Slick Willie could not keep his hands to himself. (After hearing the story of Kathleen Willey, whom I found very credible, I would not defend Bill Clinton AT ALL.) By contrast, Obama shows no signs of Clintonian excesses, and in fact, comes off as downright ascetic in comparison--with his frequent sports and healthy diet--tobacco appears to be his only vice, which is a relief. (There is some argument about whether he is still smoking; I say, let the man have a vice, people!)

I am pissed off about Obama's whole Afghanistan adventure, however. The left, as a rule, has been far too easy on him about this, as Tom Hayden writes in AlterNet today. Peter Rothberg in THE NATION states that only 0.6% of military-oriented media coverage is about Afghanistan in particular (!) and most of the American public is pro-intervention in the region. (But if there was more detailed media coverage, would that change?) There was a "national day of action on Afghanistan" last Thursday, but MoveOn did not participate, and most people I know were not even aware of it.

Regarding Afghanistan, we need to keep the heat on.

~*~

One thing our new prez has done is... NOMINATE A WOMAN TO THE SUPREME COURT!!!! (((happy dance)))) Yes, this carries serious weight with me, folks. You bet it does!

And Sonia Sotomayor is making the GOP-baddies go crazy... tee hee! Politico reports:

President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court was the latest and most powerful blow in the president’s relentless courtship of Hispanic Americans, whose flight to the Democratic Party was central to his election.

Hispanic leaders across the country, many of whom attended the White House announcement, praised the appointment swiftly and in the strongest terms, and Republican leaders signaled an awareness of the political sensitivities by avoiding any suggestion of disrespect for the first Latina nominee to the nation’s highest court.

“The picture of an African-American president standing next to a Hispanic woman as his first choice for the Supreme Court — that picture is the worst nightmare for the Republican Party,” said Fernand Amandi, a Florida pollster whose firm, Bendixen Associates, surveyed Hispanic voters for Obama’s presidential campaign.

“The numbers, the symbolism and now the acts of the Democratic Party and this Democratic president underline and underscore the very bleak outlook for Republicans, where the…fastest growing demographics in the county are leaving them,” he said, noting that surveys earlier this decade suggested broad hunger among Hispanic voters for a court pick.

Jeanne Cummings reports that the right-wing is mobilizing, but confused and disoriented:

Conservative groups know they want to oppose Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor — but exactly how that campaign will be conducted is a major unanswered question that is splitting the Republican right.

The early fissure among opponents to Sotomayor, the New York federal appeals judge nominated by President Barack Obama on Tuesday, is over whether to push for a filibuster.

“The Republicans have got to take a stand on this one,” said Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and a proponent of a filibuster. “If they don’t, they can kiss their chances of ever getting back into power away,” he added.

Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry, an anti-abortion rights activist, is urging members to block a Senate vote on Sotomayor.

“Do GOP leaders have the courage and integrity to filibuster an activist, pro-Roe[v. Wade] judge?” asked Terry, who argued that Democrats — including then-Sen. Obama — opened the door to such action after threatening to filibuster Justice Samuel Alito’s nomination in 2005.

And Holly gets right to the point over at Feministe:

Sotomayor grew up in the housing projects of the South Bronx, was raised by a single mother after the death of her father, is a diabetic, a Catholic, and is divorced with no children. Obama described her life as an “extraordinary journey,” talking about how she graduated at the top of her class from Princeton and then Yale Law School.

You might be wondering why I rattled off a laundry list of her life experiences, or what you might call identity categories. Two reasons: first, her career has been batted around for years by feuding Democrats and Republicans because she’s a woman of color. Once she made the short list for an Obama nomination, the rumors and sniping started up again. What, she doesn’t have any kids? Not only that, but some people think she’s fat. Or are even spuriously linking her weight to her diabetes.

Get ready for a whole season of this kind of thing as her nomination is challenged.

Also check out Jill's post at Feministe, as well as nojojojo's and Ampersand's posts at Alas, a Blog.

I am just so proud of Obama right now. And wonderful Sonia too, of course!

Odds and Sods - Snowed-in edition

We've got snow in South Carolina! It happens about once a year, and everybody goes crazy. Sitting here watching THE VIEW and wasting some time. They are talking about Michelle Obama's official portrait, which is stunningly lovely!

Tell me again, how did we get stuck with Elisabeth Hasselbeck? Oh yeah, she was on Survivor. Why does that make her qualified to talk about politics (or anything else)? Does anyone know? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?

I remember she campaigned for Sarah Palin, which gave me unsettling Stepford Wives flashbacks when I saw them onstage together.

BTW, has anyone seen The Stepford Husbands? (Highly recommended for rank hilarity, if you should feature a "bad movie night" at one of your parties!)

Recommended random reading:

Marion talks about her sweet doggies developing cabin fever and related canine oddities up there in the Great White North. I had no idea dogs could be as neurotic as cats--another animal stereotype destroyed. The vast majority of dogs I have known (with the exception of my mother's neurotic inbred schnauzer, mentioned on the linked post) have been far healthier mentally than their owners! In addition, I've always heard that "big dogs" were free of neurosis.

Definitely a post for the dog people!

Meowser (from dogs to cats!) writes a bang-on post about one of my big worries... mammograms, false positives, false negatives, and all of that hairy-assed shit. If you have boobs, go over there and READ, right now!

Check out the lovely photo of Renegade Evolution being just so reasonable, as befits her reputation in some stubborn feminist circles.

The caption is "How do we boost morale?" and the photograph offers one helpful solution!

Me and the good Comrade PhysioProf and his atheist friends, discuss why atheists have to be so insulting, calling religious people wackaloons, and suchlike. BONUS: Barefoot Bum, ex-Kerista denizen who once worshiped a goddess so he could have multiple wives, informs me "Atheists don’t hate religious believers, at least not most of them, we have contempt and disdain for their stupidity and credulity." (Well, that IS a comfort.)

BACKGROUND: Barefoot Bum was a KERISTAN, and once belonged to what was possibly the flakiest (certainly, the most well-known) group-marriage cult on the West Coast, outside of the Manson Family. They had a highly-developed pagan theology, with multiple rituals to go with it. I guess believing in weird shit was acceptable back then, as long as he was given a different woman to sleep with every night, as reward. EVERY ATHEIST HAS THEIR PRICE, right, Barefoot Bum? You've all heard of "no atheists in the foxholes"--apparently, there are no atheists in group-marriage cults, either, baby. ;)

The argument is still in progress, so feel free to jump in!

Should Dubya be indicted for war crimes? Check out Peace Arena's Ramsey Clark: Why Indictment is a Must

And in case you needed still another reason to love Aunt B! A post about abortion, titled, Why I'm Flip:

I’m flip about abortion because most anti-abortion folks in this state aren’t themselves serious about ending abortion. They always make it like if pro-choice people were just sorrier, if we just threw ourselves on the ground crying about what a great tragedy abortion is and how it’s always wrong, wrong, wrong, but sometimes we need it, pretty please, they could be moved to maybe let us have abortions when our own lives are at risk (with them getting to determine what “at risk” is) or when we’ve been raped (with them getting to decide if we’ve been “raped” enough). But that’s not true. There isn’t sorry enough.

And if there isn’t sorry enough, I refuse to be sorry at all.

Amen, amen! (Isn't she just so great?)

And finally, my DEAD FROM THE CUTE link for this session, comes from Fruit Femme... will you just look at those little angels!?!?!

(((gurgly grandma noises, in extremis)))

And now, I go try to start my car, which is in minor shock from snow.

Happy Inauguration Day!

Lots of great stuff happening... unfortunately, I'll be working this evening and will miss the local MoveOn.org party, at Connolly's. (((waves at everyone there!))) I am glad to be home to watch it as it happens, though. You can't have everything!

I think I will find the mention of his middle name HUSSEIN, during the swearing-in, the most inspiring. If you need any more proof that this country has CHANGED, obviously, you didn't grow up with presidents with boring-ass names like Johnson and Ford.

Too thrilling for mere words. The Angry Black Woman and Vanessa of Plucky Punk, are both ON THE SCENE--check out their blogs!

~*~

Below: From Boing Boing, comes Obama as Bob Marley and St Martin de Porres.

Interestingly, the folks at Boing Boing (not well-versed in Catholic iconography) thought the image on the vigil candle was supposed to be Jesus. (The photo was taken in the Mission District of San Francisco.) In fact, St Martin de Porres was a Peruvian Dominican of mixed-racial heritage, the patron saint of the poor. I just realized this meant that the folks at Boing Boing didn't fully get the reference that was being made with that candle.

Madonna fans, of course, will remember St Martin's famous appearance in her controversial 1989 video, Like a Prayer.

~*~

And finally, it's time to throw our virtual shoes at the departing Dubya! Good riddance, and thanks for screwing everything up beyond belief!

This act is in solidarity with Iraqi shoe-thrower Muntader al-Zaidi, who made world-headlines throwing his shoe at George W. Bush.

Let us also throw our shoes today, with aplomb!

If you haven't thrown yours yet, there's still time!


~*~

I had my final X-ray yesterday, and I have moved up from the leg cast/boot in this photo, to a sort of corset-looking thing, that laces up around my ankle. At long last! So, I am finally FREE to THROW this cast at Bush. (Is that great timing or what?)

I throw this leg cast in solidarity with all the people not lucky enough to get a final X-ray, not lucky enough to get their broken and twisted bones healed by modern medicine. I throw this leg cast in hopes we will AT LAST HAVE A CIVILIZED MEDICAL SYSTEM IN THIS COUNTRY, that does not throw people out in the cold when they have no money. That does not look only at the bottom line, but attempts actual healing. That doesn't let Big fucking Pharm rule the roost! WE PRAY THAT THE PEOPLE WILL BE HEALED, AMEN.


What might our economy look like, if people weren't so bogged down with health-insurance concerns, that they (we!) are too afraid to change jobs? How can we start dynamic new businesses (like the capitalists are always burbling about) when we are worried that one simple illness could totally take us down? If we were free to actually move up, as the so-called American dream has promised? How many people stay in one awful job forever, when they have so much to contribute, all because they are afraid to lose usually-shitty health-insurance, that is indeed, still better than none at all? How many kids drag-out their time in college, since they know when they finally graduate, they probably won't have any health insurance on their entry-level job?

How many people with disabilities do not bother to find jobs, afraid they will lose the few benefits they have? (Some are having benefits cut constantly, as it is.)

THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS is disgusting... the fact that we are supposed to be THE GREAT WESTERN CIVILIZATION, and pronounce on the affairs of other nations, and still can't even take care of our own sick and disabled citizens? This is totally and completely fucked up, maybe the most fucked up thing about this country. As an alternative-medicine practitioner, I hear about it daily. It is stagnating us. We must change.

Amen.

As Bill O'Reilly would say, there's the memo.

And now, I log off and join the virtual festivities, as HOPE comes to our nation.

Again, Amen.

Blow the horn and tap the tambourine

Annie posted a long statement from John Perry Barlow on her blog, which is just fabulous:

Ten years ago when I was a fellow at the Institute of Politics at Harvard's Kennedy School, I was on a panel with Senator Ted Kennedy and my tragically late sidekick John Kennedy, Jr. The focus of our discussion was determining when the Internet would likely have the pivotal role in shaping a presidential campaign that television had assumed in the 1960 election of their brother and father. Oddly, for a couple of guys who were deeply suspicious of Cyberspace, they both thought this would happen much sooner than I did, possibly as early as 2000. I said it would be a decade at least. It has now been a decade. And this will now be that election.

Among the many lines of division at contest here - between the 50's and the 60's, between football and frisbee, between a high regard for education and a contempt for it, between weed and whiskey, between Monotheism and Pantheism, between love and fear, between greed and responsibility - is the contest between the highly cybergenic Obama and the apoplectic old race-bating, fraudulently heroic, tail-hook gunning, womanizing, pathologically gambling, unindicted Keating 5 co-conspirator who is literally treasonous enough to possibly entrust the American republic during its darkest hour to a woman who has great legs and cheekbones, combined SAT scores lower than either one of mine, and who, with her "First Dude" were helping lead, until recently, the Alaskan Independence Party, a powerful pro-secession movement. (Imagine Lincoln choosing Jefferson Davis as his first running mate and you get the idea.)

McCain, that disgraceful curdle-brain, that grimacing little tantrum of spoiled Naval nepotism whose greatest military accomplishment (if you don't count crashing three multi-million jets while on joyrides, and contributing to a deck fire that almost sank the Forrestal) was in getting shot down and breaking under torture, spent the first part of the debate whining about Obama's low blows and then informed the women and children of America that his opponent had promoted an Illinois law that now legally requires doctors to refuse medical treatment to any child who somehow survives an abortion attempt. Given the abortion methods I'm familiar with, I'm inclined to think such a child would also survive the flame-throwers they'd be using against him toward the end of the movie.

But among his other qualifications for being a 21st Century President , Senator McCain remains proud that, like both Bushes before him, he is computer-illiterate and that he makes his wife Cindy deal with all that.

I thought George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had made me ashamed to be a Republican. But McCain and Palin have pretty well completed the job.

However, since God is merciful, McCain probably doesn't know what I'm talking about. He's watching the campaign on television where he's presented with an edit of reality that is far less damning to him and his campaign than the one I've been watching on the Internet. John McCain is blessed indeed to be spared the online version of himself.

On the Internet, he would see the "people's edits" immediately, like the YouTube condensation of all 3143 of his eye-blinks during last night's debate into a thirty second segment, or the highlighting of his reference to Obama's "eloquence" in a fashion that left no doubt that this was his painfully polite euphemism for the vile effluent one can squeeze out of an fast-talking sack of lying shit when he talks about the "health" - a word McCain enclosed in finger quotes - of the baby murdering "mother", who is unable to accept that a child is the natural punishment for her coozing around in fornication, which is pretty much all these black Muslim terrorist baby mamas do, if you know what I mean.

If he watched the much more elaborate coverage of the campaign on the Internet, even McCain would have to be in awe of the fact that Senator Obama has shown almost superhuman dignity, humor (as opposed to sarcasm), and that quality that Hemingway defined as courage, "grace under pressure" even while being carpet-bombed, first by the Clintons and now the McCain/Palin Golem, with six months of sucker punches, lies, trivialities, the guilt of distant or even non-existent associations (often involving black people behaving ungracefully), and now, finally, the direct incitement of murderous intent in crowds spiked with many people who are insane with racial hatred, well-armed, and trained by their government in the accurate use of long-range weapons.

He would have seen the look of enlightened acceptance on Obama's face tonight when McCain fiercely declared his pride in the people who attended his rallies, including, presumably, the ones who shout "kill him" and "off with his head." As he pronounced his appreciation for these unmasked Klansmen, someone like me who doesn't have an abused wife he can use as a computer interface could, with a slight enhancement of certain frequencies, make clearly audible the dry, cold wind that was whistling through McCain's dentures.

At this point, I must pause and ask any other digeratum who zoomed into the Senator's forehead pulse at such moments: Who do you want answering the phone at 3:00 am in the White House: someone with unassailable poise and courage or someone whose rage-readiness and blood pressure make him a fine candidate to pop a valve, thus creating the scenario in which the more blink-resistant President Palin returns the call at 3:45 am?

Who do you want salvaging the economy, someone who believes that if the government is going to recover what Bush's and McCain's cronies looted from the public treasury, the very rich will have to pay some taxes, or someone who believes that we can spend extravagantly on war, greed, weapon systems we don't need, and subsidies for our friends, while taxing only the middle class and the poor?

Read the whole thing!

Outrageous, honest and wonderful, as anyone who has written the lyrics to several of the most poetic Grateful Dead songs would HAVE to be.

Thanks to Annie for the great missive!

----------------
Listening to: Grateful Dead - Cassidy
via FoxyTunes

Is everybody happy?

Mr Natural by R. Crumb.

~*~

Dow and S&P 500 close with dramatic falls after House vote

By Michael M. Grynbaum
Reuters, The New York Times
September 29, 2008

Stocks took a deep plunge on Monday after the government's bailout plan — touted by its supporters as a balm for the current market stress — failed to pass the House of Representatives, setting off a fresh wave of anxious selling.

In yet another day that has shaken the embattled canyons of Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average fell nearly 778 points, or 7 percent, while the Standard and Poor's 500-stock index lost 106.59 points, or 8.79 percent. The Dow posted its biggest daily percentage decline since the October 1987 stock market crash, while the benchmark S&P 500 had its worst day in 21 years after the House sent the bailout plan to defeat by a vote of 228 to 205.

The fear was most pronounced in the world's credit markets, considered gauges of anxiety among investors. Yields on Treasuries plummeted after the House rejected the plan, with the one-month Treasury note yielding virtually zero.

Banks are charging enormous premiums for short-term financing; the difference between the cost of a three-month loan from a bank, and a three-month loan from the government, rose to the widest point since at least 1984. Other lending rates stayed high.

On Wall Street, the drops were sharp and swift, catching many investors and stock strategists on Wall Street by surprise. Many had expected the measure to be passed in the House, and lawmakers in Congress had suggested as much in comments earlier on Monday.

Instead, traders around the world turned to their television screens to see the votes opposed to the bill adding up, and eventually surpassing those in favor. The banal image broadcast on several television networks — a no-frills table of 'yay' and 'nay' votes — contrasted with the expressions of increasing concern on the faces of workers on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange.

More:

House rejects bailout plan

McCain slams "phoning it in"--then makes some calls

Jim Wallis commentary: Principles in an Unprincipled Crisis

Did [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi's ad lib doom the deal?

Thomas Frank commentary: Wrecking, Wrecking, Wrecked

Bush Sidesteps Congress? $630 Billion To Be Pumped Into Economy Despite House Bailout Rejection

McCain scared to debate

...because he will look like a fool when he does.

According to Politico:

John McCain called Wednesday for the first presidential debate, scheduled for Friday in Mississippi, to be delayed and urged Barack Obama to join him in Washington for a high-level meeting of congressional leaders to address the financial crisis. Obama responded that the debate should go on.

In a roll of the dice that jolted the presidential race, McCain said he is suspending his campaign - and his fundraising and campaign advertising - as of Thursday and will return to Washington. He also scrapped a planned appearance on David Letterman.

President Bush, in his televised address to the nation Wednesday night, said he had invited both men to come to the White House on Thursday for a summit meeting with congressional leadership.

A McCain aide told Politico Wednesday night that the campaign is proposing to the Presidential Debate Commission and the Obama camp that if there's no bailout deal by Friday, the first presidential debate should take the place of the vice presidential debate, currently scheduled for October 2 in St. Louis.

What do you all think of this? Is it on the level? I think it's as calculated as the McCain campaign restraining Sarah Palin from answering any unscheduled, off-the-cuff questions. (And what's that about?)

I agree the financial crisis is dire, and I'd like to hear what BOTH parties have to say about it.

Maybe McCain doesn't have anything to say and needs to come up with something, so he hopes a week will buy him some time?

----------------
Listening to: Gin Blossoms - Allison Road
via FoxyTunes

Dead Air Church: Bring them home now

EDIT = June 4, 2008, in bold.

Left: Furman University professors silently protest during President George W. Bush's commencement speech at Furman University yesterday.

The Greenville News has removed all photos of any protests at Furman, with three very polite, somewhat tepid exceptions. The rest of the photo galleries are all positive, and you would not realize there was an extensive, all-day demonstration from looking through the existing posted photo galleries. The original photo I used is no longer available. (I wonder why?) Professors obviously rate inclusion, but Code Pink doesn't.

My original photo description: Code Pink member protesting President George W. Bush's commencement speech at Furman University yesterday. Greenville News photo by Gwinn Davis.

~*~

As I said yesterday, I missed the anti-Bush demonstration at Furman. Some excerpts from the commencement speech, in which Bush cutsified it up:

I am proud to be joined by my friend and an outstanding leader of South Carolina: Governor Mark Sanford, Class of 1983. Governor, I’m not going to ask if you ever got caught “swimming in the fountains.” Twenty-five years ago, the governor sat where you now sit – as a member of his graduating class. As it happens, the commencement speaker that year was my Dad. This means that some at Furman will have heard graduation speeches from two generations of Bushes. This is a great step forward for the Bush family, and a great step backward for your English Department.

My family has other ties with Furman. In the early 1930’s, a student named Willa Martin graduated from the women’s college that soon became part of Furman. Willa went on to marry my mother’s father. She also spent time as a columnist for the Associated Press, thus beginning the long history of warm relations between the Bush family and the media.

Ohhhh, she chortled, how cute is that? Meanwhile, as GWB jokes about bank accounts, some people won't be going to college, ever. That has never concerned him.

And some people, soldiers in particular, won't even be coming back home. Sparse mention of that in the text.

It's probably best that Blueblood Bush stays behind the gates of the expensive, private schools; a public school commencement audience might try to roast his sorry ass on a BBQ-spit.

Apologies for my lack of churchly sentiments this sabbath. Even Jesus got mad when the situation called for it.

If you pray, pray for our troops.

~*~

Bob Dylan - Masters of War

[via FoxyTunes / Bob Dylan]

I Wanna Grow Up To Be A Politician

EDIT = June 4, 2008, in bold.

Left: President George W. Bush with Furman President David Shi, preparing to deliver the commencement address. Obviously, he is earnestly praying that he will not be condemned to everlasting hellfire for crimes against humanity.

The Greenville News has removed all photos of any protests at Furman, with three very polite, somewhat tepid exceptions. The rest of the photo galleries are all positive, and you would not realize there was an extensive, all-day demonstration from looking through the existing posted photo galleries. The original photo I used is no longer available. (I wonder why?)

My original photo description: Greenville News photo of a local unidentified member of Military Families Speak Out, demonstrating against President George W. Bush's commencement speech at Furman University this evening. (Photo by Gwinn Davis)

~*~

Duty calls, and today my attendance was required at the annual Medicines from the Earth symposium in Black Mountain, North Carolina. On the way back, we passed the main Furman University entrance (via Highway 25/Asheville Highway), which appears to be under siege. Crestfallen, I realized the traffic would be too dense and difficult to make the commencement demonstration in time, so I went to Saturday Mass instead. I prayed for the anti-war demonstrators at Furman, that they may successfully change hearts and minds.

The news has just announced that George W. Bush has arrived at Greenville-Spartanburg airport; it won't be long now.

More about the demo and the symposium to come!

~*~

I Wanna Grow Up To Be A Politician ~ The Byrds

[via FoxyTunes / The Byrds]

Guess who's coming to Furman?

Left: Shamelessly stolen from comicvine.com.

~*~

I protested a certain Vice President back in the 80s, when he gave a commencement speech at Ohio State in 1985. Will I get a chance to protest his son at a commencement speech, also? How often in a lifetime does one have the opportunity to protest matching father AND son presidents? This one would definitely go on the resume!

Local peaceniks haven't yet decided if there actually will be a protest. If you know the layout of Furman University, there wouldn't be much public space in which to do so without being run over, and don't think it couldn't happen!

Furman student group slams foes of Bush speech

Letters support, oppose May visit by president

By Dan Hoover • STAFF WRITER • May 20, 2008 • GREENVILLE NEWS

President Bush's planned May 31 commencement address continued to roil the Furman University campus Monday as a conservative group released what it said was a letter signed by 502 students and "Furman community" members critical of faculty objections to the visit.

The "Support Our Seniors" letter by Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow said, "Unfortunately, some professors seem intent on turning what should be a celebration of their students' accomplishments into a forum to air their political differences with President Bush."

It asked Furman to:

• Require faculty members to heed their contractual agreement to attend commencement and not opt out as "conscientious objectors."

• Refuse to post the political views of a "fraction of the faculty and student body on our Web site."

• Pair the CSBT letter with the anti-Bush letter on the Web.

Furman spokesman Vince Moore said the letter was being reviewed Monday night, and he said, "We're going to work with that group to see about posting it on the Web site."

Whether there will be a protest May 31 isn't clear.

Bush was invited after Furman administrators received unanimous approval from the senior class leadership.

But it was the April 10 announcement of the appearance that riled some faculty members, employees and students.

Two weeks ago a "We Object" letter signed by 221 active and retired professors, staff and students, expressed shame over the Bush visit.

"Under ordinary circumstances it would be an honor for Furman University to be visited by the president of the United States. However, these are not ordinary circumstances," they wrote. "We are ashamed of these actions of this administration."

The letter, posted on the Furman Web site, criticized the Bush administration over the Iraq war, classifying prisoners of war as nonmilitary combatants to detain them indefinitely, eroding constitutional guarantees, ignoring evidence of global warming and encouraging reckless spending.

Furman President David Shi said such "dissent is a revered American tradition," reflective of a university's "health and maturity."

Some students reacted sharply, creating what English professor Robin Visel called unexpected "push-back."

Some seniors were chagrined at what they said was the faculty's effort to detract from their accomplishments.

Christina Henderson, a senior, student body president and self-described "big Democrat," said she disagrees with Bush's policies but respects the office. "It is the faculty response that we feel has taken away from" the seniors' milestone.

In a press release accompanying Monday's letter, Nathan Guinn, a CSBT board member and Furman junior, expressed disappointment "that some faculty members continue to put publicity ahead of professionalism. We wish to send an alternative message: It is an honor for the president of the United States to celebrate with Furman the many accomplishments of our seniors."

Guinn said the fact that "nearly five times as many students signed 'Support our Seniors' as signed the faculty-led petition demonstrates the student body's desire to return the focus to the graduating seniors instead of professors' political differences with the president. Clearly, the faculty-led petitioners do not speak for all or even most of the members of the Furman community."

Professors should meet their obligation to attend commencement, he said.

"For people who supposedly revere tolerance and open-mindedness, such an arrogant refusal to even listen to a short congratulatory speech from the president during a day of celebration is an embarrassment to our university," Guinn said.

Any comments from you folks on the position of the faculty? I know I have at least three professors and countless quasi-professors regularly reading my blog. Anybody out there been caught between a similar rock and a hard place?

And check out my congressional candidate Ted Christian's comments at the Greenville News site:

Bush is an incompetent, unapologetic, bloodsoaked warmonger. We should be ashamed we reelected him. He is an embarrassment to this country, and his presence at Furman will be an embarrassment to this community.

You see why I have to elect him?

Pentagon liars exposed

From MEET THE PRESS (NBC) 2005: Tim Russert talks to Wesley K. Clark, center; Wayne A. Downing; Montgomery Meigs, right; and Barry R. McCaffrey, foreground. (photo from New York Times)

~*~

I woke up this morning to find Mr Daisy growling at the computer screen and gesticulating madly. I knew immediately, it was somehow related to Dubya and his friends. I was right.

Please check out the Sunday New York Times article about various news networks' so-called "military analysts" who, it turns out, have extensive connections to military contractors profiting off the war strategies they are being interviewed about. Are you surprised?

Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.

In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.

“It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,’ ” Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said.

It's an amazing, if predictably harrowing, investigative article. And it just gets worse:

Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.”

Though many analysts are paid network consultants, making $500 to $1,000 per appearance, in Pentagon meetings they sometimes spoke as if they were operating behind enemy lines, interviews and transcripts show. Some offered the Pentagon tips on how to outmaneuver the networks, or as one analyst put it to Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, “the Chris Matthewses and the Wolf Blitzers of the world.” Some warned of planned stories or sent the Pentagon copies of their correspondence with network news executives. Many — although certainly not all — faithfully echoed talking points intended to counter critics.

“Good work,” Thomas G. McInerney, a retired Air Force general, consultant and Fox News analyst, wrote to the Pentagon after receiving fresh talking points in late 2006. “We will use it.”

Again and again, records show, the administration has enlisted analysts as a rapid reaction force to rebut what it viewed as critical news coverage, some of it by the networks’ own Pentagon correspondents. For example, when news articles revealed that troops in Iraq were dying because of inadequate body armor, a senior Pentagon official wrote to his colleagues: “I think our analysts — properly armed — can push back in that arena.”

Real scumbags. (Here is a complete video report.)

~*~

The Disability Blog Carnival is over at Abnormal Diversity, so you should go over and read. The invaluable matttbastard (I remembered all the t's, mattt!) at bastard.logic pointed me to a rather wonky piece by Michael Bérubé, and I just MUST quote this one paragraph:

And I have to admit that I’ve been mightily vexed by this phenomenon in recent years. Not by Hillary Clinton herself, mind you – by the phenomenon of the avoidance of disability qua disability. It’s as if we Americans have been talking about disability all our lives, as Molière’s M. Jourdain has been speaking in prose, without realizing it. Remember that debate about SCHIP? You know, the one we lost on Bush’s veto? What the hell was that about? It was about disability, folks – about children suffering catastrophic illnesses and traumatic injuries for which their parents couldn’t (and their parents’ dastardly, moustache-twirling health-insurance providers wouldn’t) provide. Vets returning from Iraq with PTSD or TBI (post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury) and being warehoused and/or underserved and/or neglected by VA hospitals? Uh, well, once again, here we’re talking about disability. Why in the world do we frame these things as matters of “health” or “employment” or “veterans’ benefits,” when doing so prevents us from realizing that we’re all touching different appendages of the 8000-pound elephant in the room? The subject is disability, people. It’s about our common frailty and vulnerability. Get used to it.

~*~

Left: Quilt by Sandi Garris, at Artisphere.


Some other fun stuff you should be checking out:

Thene blogs a fascinating online conversation about marriage.

Zen Denizen's amusing resume: Hire her today!

A BRAND NEW BABY GOAT on Smokey Mountain Breakdown!

Aishwarya blogs about the importing of cheerleading to India. (Hey, we're really sorry about that!)

Theriomorph says these photographs are old, but I have never seen them before. The pics show a sled dog and polar bear, making friends. Too adorable!

I had this Saturday off, so it's been a great weekend for me--as I browse my favorite bloggers, drink ginseng tea and stay out of the rain. Hope yours is going well, too.

~*~

LATE EDIT FROM READER NAMED 'KELLY' (no link, or I would!): FYI - given the photo from the Times article you've got posted - you might want to let your readers know that one of the generals in the photo was not one of those enlisted by the Pentagon - in fact he was specifically not included, largely because of his criticisms of the Bush Admin and its handling of Iraq and Afghanistan...General Wesley Clark.

Thanks, Kelly!--D