Friday, November 23, 2012

P.S. Confederados: A Presidential Connection

In 1972, GEORGIA GOVERNOR (PRESIDENT, FOUR YEARS LATER) JIMMY CARTER AND HIS WIFE ROSLYN visited the grave of her great uncle, one of the original Confederados, at Campo. He said that the Confederados sounded and seemed just like Southerners.

Thursday, November 22, 2012




MEMO TO THE SECESSIONIST MOVEMENTS IN TEXAS, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, et al: It would please, and probably surprise you to know that some 10,000 to 20,000 of your brethren emigrated to Brazil after the Civil War rather than accept surrender to the Yankees. They settled in many regions of that vast nation, but concentrated mostly in the state of São Paulo. Unfortunately, a guest on a Hardball segment dealing with the latest secessionist movement, "author" James Moore, trivialized and ripped this colorful aspect of Brazilian culture by referring to these settlements as "New Texas" — WRONG! The Confederate immigrants actually came from most, if not all the states currently with secessionist petitions — then had the GALL to call them "El Confederados," when anyone with an OUNCE of NON-ETHNOCENTRIC education knows that SPANISH IS NOT THE LANGUAGE SPOKEN IN THE COLOSSUS OF SOUTH AMERICA; IT IS PORTUGUESE. Therefore, the correct name is "OS CONFEDERADOS." Naturally, all of this was received with untoward and OBNOXIOUS mirth by Chris Matthews, who has the belly-laugh of AN IDIOT. (But we knew that.)

Anyway, here's the Confederados annual cookout/party (2011), introduced by none other than a Portuguese-speaking Robert E. Lee! (Did you know there are hail storms in São Paulo?) Most of the revelers depicted in the video are direct descendants of the Confederate rebels who refused to surrender to the North, and they are very proud of their traditions. Word of advice, however, for any secessionists considering an exodus to be with their Southern relatives in São Paulo: Brazil is a very generous and welcoming nation; but moochers, deadbeats, and principally RACISTS need not apply. This ought to limit applications quite a bit.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012


LET'S FACE IT FOLKS, OUR SEC. OF STATE LOOKS HOTHOTHOT playing the diplomatic power game at the highest level, negotiating a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. The difference between her visiting a Buddhist temple in Thailand with the President, and this pic, is like night and day! Hillary in profile looks 20 years younger and totally in command. IMPRESSIVE, to be polite.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

How ANONYMOUS Saved American Democracy

THIS IS FOR THE BELTWAY ELITISTS, PARTICULARLY CHUCKLES TODDY AND CHRIS MATTHEWS, who scoff at persistent reports that our electronic voting system is eminently hackable, and that elections have been stolen — on the presidential level in Ohio (2004), and nearly stolen once again in 2012, were it not for the vigilance of those unsung heroes, ANONYMOUS. Toddy and Matthews are two sides of the same coin; they refuse to consider mountains of evidence, as if it's all too tin-foil hat for their rose-tinted, good guys (us) worldview. 

While Chuckles was poring over his demographics statistics — important, no doubt — Harper's Magazine in its November 2012 issue gave us a chilling account, largely ignored by the Beltway pseudo-cognoscenti, of how an election could be rigged, but thanks to ANONYMOUS was cut off at the pass. See, if Toddy were the least bit honest he would understand, and probably does, that to steal an election it's margin that counts. Considering how close the "experts" anticipated this election to be, its theft in Ohio, at least, was within reach for Karl Rove and his criminal co-conspirators. After all, they'd done it before, in 2004. Read more about it here; from the GAO report, commissioned by Senior Judiciary Committee Democrat, Rep. John Conyers, which concluded "some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes;" more from Harper's yeoman's work (2005 issue).

Meanwhile, Chuckles Toddy, like a good card-carrying member of the Beltway elites, perpetuated the false narrative by brushing off claims of voting machine fraud with the following tweet: "The voting machine conspiracies belong in same category as the Trump birther garbage." Oh really, Chuckles? Then why haven't you (a) provided any hard evidence to back up your claim, much less (b) addressed the 17 specific examples of voting machine "irregularities" outlined in The Brad Blog, who stated, "Todd does an extraordinary disservice to the electorate with Tweets like the one above, and I'd be happy to come on his daily MSNBC show any time to explain why, as I have told him via Twitter in response to the above." Chuckles' reply: *CRICKETS*.

Enter ANONYMOUS with a dire warning for Karl Rove before the election of 2012:

Progressive radio host and author Thom Hartmann who, thankfully for us, takes the hacking theft of our elections as a clear and present danger to our democracy, puts meat on the bones of how this was attempted; Karl Rove's totally bizarre reaction when Ohio was called for Obama, his frantic phone exchanges with the Romney camp, or with who knows who, are perfectly understandable in this context. Pay attention, Chuckles and Chris. Not only is it fascinating, but you might learn something:

Here is part of the ANONYMOUS text, post-election (reproduced in full, below) in which what they did is explained:
"After a rather short time, we identified the digital structure of Karl's operation and even that of his ORCA. This was an easy task in that barn doors were left open and the wind swept us inside. So what do we do with these doors? Do we leave them open and catch the thieves as they steal the prize? Or do we close them so they cannot steal the prize?

Our decision — protect the citizens.

We coded and created, what we call, The Great Oz. A targeted password protected firewall that we tested and refined over the past weeks. We placed this code on more than one of the digital tunnels and their destinations that Karl's not so smart worker bees planned to use on election night. We noticed that these tunnels were strategically placed to allow for tunnel rats to race to the server sewers from three different states. Ah yes, Karl tried to make it appear that there were more than three but we quickly saw the folly of his ploy. We watched as Karl's little boys and girls confidently ran their tests while Karl told his barons to smoke cigars."
FINAL NOTE: One doesn't have to be a RATIONAL conspiracy theorist to FIX OUR VOTING MACHINE problem. Here are but a few suggestions: (a) Nationalize/legislate presidential elections by taking their management AWAY FROM PARTISAN SECRETARIES OF STATE, and hand them over to nonpartisan, neutral blue ribbon citizens groups; (b) create a PAPER TRAIL WHICH RECORDS EVERY SINGLE VOTE, in the same way one gets a paper receipt from an ATM machine; (c) de-privatize the vote count so that it is managed and supervised by nonpartisan, highly respected groups, such as the League of Women Voters. And (d) prosecute Karl Rove and his henchmen.

Monday, November 19, 2012

Crystal-Unclear: Pins Climate Change Solutions On Gadfly Senators

SENS. RON WYDEN AND LISA MURKOWSKY GIVE YOU OPTIMISM, CRYSTAL?! You've been hanging around your resident false asymmetry scion — "both sides do it" — S.E. too long! (Yeah, right Cuppster; go ask Baby-Face Rubio HOW OLD THE EARTH IS.) Face it, Crystal, by 2100 the Earth will be 10 degrees warmer; too hot for human life. Better start planning for that Mars timeshare.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

NYT's Maureen Dowd Plays Inside Beltway Game

HAS ANYONE READ MAUREEN DOWD'S LATEST COLUMN, "IS RICE COOKED"? The title, by itself, is revealing, and it's more interesting than most of Dowd's usual fluff of clever phrases and breezy, opinionated assessments of her subjects. This time, Dowd was actually fed information on "background" by "one administration official" and "one intelligence official" who signaled their desire to throw UN Ambassador Susan Rice under the bus, through Dowd's more than willing and flattered auspices. The "beheaded Head Spook David Petraeus" (visions of Ichabod Crane) — who did speak on the record at those not-so-closed sessions of the intelligence committees —
"said the C.I.A. knew quickly that the Benghazi raid was a terrorist attack.

“It was such a no-brainer,” one intelligence official (emphasis mine) told me." [Oh, really?]
Maureen is obviously getting a rise out of playing the inside Beltway cloakroom-and-backstab-dagger "spook" game, with her precious anonymous sources ... and everything. Obviously, the vermin who spoke to Dowd anonymously (one, a Petraeus, possibly GOP, loyalist, and the other, who knows, an administration double- or triple-agent) have their own ox to gore, which is to throw Susan Rice under the bus. But here's the kicker: All of a sudden, Dowd embellishes by feeding us largely unsubstantiated "dirt" on Susan Rice. Whose conclusion was it that Rice, "[a]mbitious to be secretary of state ... wanted to prove she had the gravitas for the job and help out the White House"?

Perhaps Susan Rice was the designated point person, period, rather than her boss Hillary Clinton, our current Secretary of State. Could it be that the administration did not wish to elevate the profile of its response, while they were still gathering intelligence on the matter? So rather than send out their heavy hitter, Hillary, with sketchy talking points, they designated their junior diplomat for the job, in the spirit of informing the public of what they (the intelligence agencies) knew at the time, and could divulge. Government bureaucracies typically respond in this fashion; longstanding protocols dictate it, with nothing more nefarious going on. Actually, a departure from established protocol would be the more unusual response.

Instead, Dowd the intelligence and foreign policy expert, claims:
"An Africa expert, Rice should have realized that when a gang showed up with R.P.G.’s and mortars in a place known as a hotbed of Qaeda sympathizers and Islamic extremist training camps, it was not anger over a movie. She should have been savvy enough to wonder why the wily Hillary was avoiding the talk shows."(Emphasis mine.)
Please. First of all, Maureen should have been well enough informed that Libya, post-Qaddafhi, is a country teeming with RPGs, mortars, and weapons of all sorts; a virtual arsenal, which is of great concern to the U.S. It does not follow that their use alone signaled an organized Al Qaeda attack, at least in the initial stages. And that is precisely the intelligence that was provided to Amb. Rice. Secondly, as stated above, the "wily" Secretary of State was following established protocol by not weighing in on the attack until more was known.

Maureen's flights of fancy don't stop here, though. She tells us "[s]ome have wondered if Rice, who has a bull-in-a-china-shop reputation, is diplomatic enough for the top diplomatic job." C'mon, Dowd. CUT THE BULLSHIT. First of all, I love it when members of the Beltway commentariat refer to "some" people, as if it's common knowledge that they are expert analysts with irrefutable inside knowledge. For all we know, "some" of these people could be Chuck Todd, or Moron Joe, or Mark Halperin, or Dick Morris. Get my drift?

Secondly, Susan Rice's supposed "bull-in-a-china-shop reputation" is the first I've heard of it. Not that we, the informed public, follow Amb. Rice's career at the UN that closely, but the President's laudatory adjectives — "exemplary" and "grace" — describing her are certainly much closer to her public image. Word of advice, Maureen: If you're going to use such charged language, please provide specific examples. After all, you write for the venerable New York Times. Maybe a note to their ombudsman is in order.

Dowd's fantasies, no doubt propelled by her pet anonymous Susan Rice backstabbers, continued with unfounded speculation of "zealous" White House staffers with a "tendency to gild the lily" and cast the President in a more "flattering" light vis-a-vis Al Qaeda. She speculated breathlessly, "[d]id administration officials foolishly assume that if affiliates of Al Qaeda were to blame, it would dilute the credit the president got for decimating Al Qaeda?"

It seems an absurd premise, given that the attack was widely described (1) as an intelligence failure, so the President's actions were not at fault, and (2) the administration has always cautioned, or issued the caveat, that while Al Qaeda may be "decimated" its operational capability, particularly in the region, is not. Therefore, we should not take our foot off the accelerator in going after them.

Maureen is apparently baffled by the "virile flare" of the President's "fierce defense" of Amb. Rice. Once again acting as mouthpiece for her pet anonymous Rice backstabbers, she argues the President "might have been better off leaving it to aides, so he did not end up going mano a mano with his nemesis John McCain on an appointment he hasn’t even made (though now Obama might feel compelled to, just to prove that he can’t be pushed around), and so he could focus on fiscal cliff bipartisanship."

In short, the President should have thrown Amb. Rice under the bus, rather than tackle his formidable "nemesis" John McCain. Funny, but to most of us outside observers, the President's "nemesis" has come across as an embittered, pathetic old fool, who is no match for the President's ire. Moreover, the President's reaction wouldn't be so baffling, rather a normal and human expression of anger if he actually believes Amb. Rice wasn't playing for "venerable" but following instructions from her boss. Being a good soldier Rice got a raw deal from an old fart calling for her scalp. One can see how the President would be pissed in such circumstances. Here's Maureen's grand finale:
"His argument that Rice “had nothing to do with Benghazi,” raises the question: Then why was she the point person? [ASKED AND ANSWERED, DOWD.]

The president’s protecting a diplomatic damsel in distress made Rice look more vulnerable, when her reason for doing those shows in the first place was to look more venerable."
Really? Nice alliteration, Maureen, but you have missed the point: As the saying goes, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."