Posts by Tana Ganeva

Hot Chicks Eating Burgers: Carl's Jr. Finds a New, Sexist Way to Hawk Its Disgusting Crap
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on July 8, 2009 at 12:01 PM.

It’s a little-known industry secret that models and actresses eat massive amounts of fast food. That’s why Carl’s Jr.’s recent series of ads, featuring “top-rated bikini body” Audrina Patridge ramming a Carl’s Jr. burger in her mouth while wiggling around in a gold bikini, is both realistic and helpful.

“To look this hot in a bikini” she coos, “I have to give up ... like ... everything. But there is no way I’m giving up that Terriyaki burger. I have to be a little bad. I call it my ... bikini burger.”

Is this a public service announcement? Because it's about time somebody armed women with the information they need to achieve the sexy, lithe frame of a pre-pubescent boy with fake boobs.

But that’s not the only way Carl’s Jr. has chosen to empower women. The burger chain is also offering some lucky "girls" the life-changing opportunity to star in their own Carl’s Jr. commercial. A few days ago Feministing posted a blog about a craigslist ad promising women 1,000 dollars and a spot in a Carl's Jr./Hardees ad if they “submit a video of themselves eating one of their burgers and is "hot" enough for their marketing campaign.”

While the Craigslist ad is down, the campaign is still in the works. And if you needed more convincing of the burger chain’s noble intentions, the kicker to the campaign, itself aptly titled “Hot Chicks Eating Burgers”, is “More than just a piece of meat.” It’s like a fun-house mirror version of the ads in the Dove 'real beauty' campaign (in themselves problematic, but not in such a vomity way.)

Now, before Carl's Jr. decided to promote the interests of women, their ad campaigns for a million years consisted of those infuriating "dude-bro" commercials. In those ads, manly, attractive guys did manly things like ignore their carping, whiny girlfriends while eating manly things like Carl's Jr. burgers.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Sarah Palin Resigns: Is She Fleeing Scandal?
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on July 4, 2009 at 12:25 AM.

At a news conference on the lawn of her Wasilla home yesterday morning, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin announced that she'll give up her post in the next few weeks. A day later, Palin’s abrupt and confounding move has left political analysts and the media scrambling for an explanation.

Many observers expected Palin to say that she was not seeking re-election – a prediction driven by speculation that the Governor is preparing for a Presidential bid in 2012.

But Palin's shocking announcement seems to belie plans for a Presidential run. As Josh Marshall points out at TPM, "Generally, when you run for election to a high office it's understood that you'll stick around to do the job."

Some observers have nevertheless toyed with the idea that Palin is quitting to free up time to campaign. Conservartive columnist Bill Kristol wrote in the Weekly Standard blog:

If Palin wants to run in 2012, why not do exactly what she announced today? It's an enormous gamble - but it could be a shrewd one.

After all, she's freeing herself from the duties of the governorship. Now she can do her book, give speeches, travel the country and the world, campaign for others, meet people, get more educated on the issues - and without being criticized for neglecting her duties in Alaska.

But many Presidential hopefuls finish up their time in office. And Palin's rambling statement did little to lay the groundwork for a future campaign: the Alaska Governor vaguely stated that she would do more good "outside government" and issued some Nixonian grumblings about the press, according to a reporter at the scene to whom Palin allegedly said: "You are naive if you don't see a full-court press on the national level, picking apart a good point guard."

(Palin did, however, also offer some suspiciously campaigny-sounding rhetoric: "I'm not wired to operate under the same old politics as usual.")

Many analysts also point out that Palin’s resignation highlights her main weakness in a potential Presidential run — that many conservative elites see her as unprepared to serve for National Office.

John Weaver, a former strategist for the McCain campaign said “If this is her launching pad for 2012, it's a curious move. Policy is politics, and she has no real accomplishments as governor" according to the AP.

With little information coming from the Palin camp following the announcement, observers speculate that Palin’s bizarre decision and rushed press conference point to a brewing scandal.

(If it turns out Palin is fleeing office in the face of some bombshell revelation scandalous enough to kill any chances she might have in 2012, we would be averaging the loss of one GOP Presidential hopeful per week over the past month.)

Even in the absence of a Mark Sanford-style drama, Palin may be resigning to escape ongoing ethics inquires. The state of Alaska has spent nearly $300,000 investigating ethics complaints against the Governor. Palin has said that contesting the complaints has cost her family $500,000.

The widely publicized inquiry into Palin’s firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan after he refused to can the state trooper involved in a divorce with Palin’s sister is the most prominent of over a dozen investigations.

Others include allegations that Palin used the governor's office for personal gain by receiving improper gifts, and that she used state time and resources for partisan political purposes.

(The AP has the full list here)

Max Blumenthal, writing for the Daily Beast, points to Todd and Sarah Palin’s suspicious ties to Spenard Building Supplies (SBS), an Alaskan contractor. Blumenthal writes that the Feds may be launching an investigation into whether Palin and her husband helped bring lucrative contracts to the company in exchange for gifts:

Though Todd Palin told Fox News he built his Lake Lucille home with the help of a few "buddies," according to Barrett’s report, public records revealed that SBS supplied the materials for the house. While serving as mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin blocked an initiative that would have required the public filing of building permits—thus momentarily preventing the revelation of such suspicious information.

Just months before Palin left city hall to campaign for governor, she awarded a contract to SBS to help build the $13 million Wasilla Sports Complex. The most expensive building project in Wasilla history, the complex cost the city an addition $1.3 million in legal fees and threw it into severe long-term debt. For SBS, however, the bloated and bungled project was a cash cow.

Whatever facts may emerge, Palin’s latest bewildering move has ensured that she will command the public spotlight for a while to come.

Here’s a video and a full transcript of the press conference.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Sleazy Newspaper Scheme Exposed: Washington Post Offers Lobbyists Access to Lawmakers for Cash
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on July 2, 2009 at 9:17 AM.

This will require some hilariously desperate backpedaling.

The Washington Post is offering lobby groups access to its editorial staff, top officials in the Obama Administration, and lawmakers in Congress for $25,000 to $250,000. Politico reports that a flier circulated by the paper this week promises lobbyists the chance to mix with top lawmakers in a setting described as, "Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No." The flier further explains:

"Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate," says the one-page flier. "Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. ... Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders."

The flier was leaked by a health lobbyist, who felt the event represented a breach of the Post's journalism ethics. Does that bear repeating? A health lobbyist  scolded the paper for poor ethical practices.

Read the rest of the story here.

Limbaugh Blames President Obama for Sanford's Sex Melodrama
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on June 25, 2009 at 12:58 PM.

Who’s to blame for Governor Mark Sanford having an affair, abandoning his post without telling anyone or leaving emergency instructions, and becoming the latest poster boy for the hypocrisies of family values conservatism? Is it Mark Sanford? Eros? Not according to Rush Limbaugh!

On his show today, the self-professed head of the GOP —  you know, the party of personal responsibility — thinks the person responsible for Sanford’s affair isn’t Sanford, but President Obama.

According to Limbaugh, Obama — in direct contravention of his widely hailed intended purpose — has actually inaugurated an era of hopelessness. The latest victim of Obama’s pernicious plan, which also includes outlawing laughter, is Mark Sanford.

Here’s the sad tale of Sanford’s downfall, as told by Limbaugh: The South Carolina Governor had emerged a broken man from the battle over stimulus funds. (In reality, Sanford was fighting against crucial funding that would have kept South Carolina’s public schools functional and staffed with teachers.  In Conservative reality, Sanford waged an epic war for Freedom.)

With the battle lost, and only a limited time before the Federal Government took over and set about abolishing Freedom, Sanford decided: “What the hell? the federal government is taking over, i want to enjoy life.”

Who can blame him? What would you do if an asteroid was about to hit the earth, wiping out all life? Leave your job and screw.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Video of Shootings at Iran Protests
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on June 15, 2009 at 3:15 PM.

Earlier today members of an Iranian paramilitary group fired on protesters, allegedly leaving at least one person dead and many more injured. Britain's Channel 4 captured exclusive video:.

Eyewitness Accounts of Iran Protests on Twitter
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on June 15, 2009 at 11:47 AM.

The Iranian government has tried to clamp down on coverage of the protests, shutting down websites, blocking access to social media sites and intimidating foreign reporters. But first-hand accounts are nevertheless proliferating on Twitter (text-messaging has been shut down, but many eye-witnesses are getting their stories out through proxy servers.)

For up-to-the-minute coverage of the protests, check out this Twitter feed:

 Caveat: This feed is obviously unedited, so not everything can be verified.

George Tiller's Alleged Murderer Threatens More Violence
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on June 8, 2009 at 12:13 PM.

Scott Roeder, the 51-year-old man accused of fatally shooting OB-GYN George Tiller last Sunday, has threatened more violence against abortion providers. In a conversation with the AP, the alleged murderer stated:

"I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal," ... When asked by the AP what he meant and if he was referring to another shooting, he refused to elaborate further.

It’s not clear if Roeder was just mouthing off to get publicity or if the alleged killer was referring to specific events planned by possible accomplices. While it sounds like the former, this time around authorities are thankfully taking the threat seriously and upping protection of abortion facilities:

Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said in a written statement Sunday that "we take this matter seriously, which is why the Attorney General ordered increased protection of appropriate people and facilities last week."

As many commentators pointed out following Tiller's murder, violent acts by anti-choice extremists are meant to intimidate women's health providers into abandoning abortion services. As Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, pointed out in a statement released following Tiller's death:

Dr. Tiller's murder will send a chill down the spines of the brave and courageous providers and other professionals who are part of reproductive-health centers that serve women across this country. We want them to know that they have our support as they move forward in providing these essential services in the aftermath of the shocking news from Wichita.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Rick Santorum Offers Up Some Racist Dating Advice
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on June 2, 2009 at 12:39 PM.

Last night, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., was tapped by Fox news to discuss the crucial, timely matter of Obama's Saturday night date. Santorum covered the relative advantages of various date destinations (Broadway or the corner bar?). He philosophically mused about what makes a marriage special (it's, in fact, the mundane!). And, he also took the opportunity to casually propagate some terrible racial myths and stereotypes (via Salon):

Number one, I think it's great that the president has a date night with his wife. He's a role model. He's a role model in particular, whether he likes it or not, in the African-American community.

And you have an African-American community, particularly in the poor inner city areas, we're looking at out of wedlock birthrates in three quarters to 75 percent (sic) of children being born out of wedlock. Marriage is an institution that's a bridge too far for too many African-American woman and is not desirable among African-American males.

I know this doesn't need explaining, but just for fun: Here Santorum taps into centuries-old stereotypes that paint black men as sexually deviant and irresponsible, and hence to blame for the existence of the black underclass (as opposed to blatant as well as structural racism, the lack of support for all poor people and families, a legacy of violence and discrimination, etc. etc.)

Marriage is an institution that is "not desirable" for African-American men? Really?

Santorum also slips up by saying "African-American women and men", without qualifying the statement with some sort of reference to class status -- thereby implying that African-Amercans are naturally averse to marriage, regardless of class, social status, or education. This also nicely dovetails with classic racist myths about African-American sexuality.

Anyway, nice to know that social conservatives can deeply embarrass themselves and the GOP even when talking about something as trivial as the President's date night.

Here's the rest of Santorum's wise take on modern relationships in case you need some dating advice:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Time Warner Lays Groundwork for Future Rip-Off
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on June 1, 2009 at 4:00 PM.

In April, a full-blown customer revolt forced Time Warner Cable to temporary halt its metered billing program — a tiered-pricing system that charges customers based on how much bandwidth they consume. (Like cell phone plans, but more unworkable and annoying because it’s impossible to gauge how much bandwidth is being used at any one time).

As customer ire grew, TWC spokespeople unconvincingly argued that the program was meant to keep heavy users from devouring too much bandwidth and slowing down Internet traffic for everyone else. Not surprisingly, no one bought TWC's claims that their primary concern was the wellbeing of customers, as opposed to, say, creating a new revenue stream and curbing online consumption of their cable offerings.

Not to be swayed by consumer wants and needs though, Time Warner pledged to reintroduce the program at an undisclosed later date, following a sinisterly-termed “customer education process."  So, it’s only a matter of time before there's an explosion of fake consumer rights groups and other fun astrosurf that try to convince you it’s in your interest to pay more for Internet. (Look forward to ads featuring distressed old people wondering why they can’t read emails from their grandkids. “You! It’s because of you and all that online porn you watch!” their eyes will accuse.)

It looks like TWC is already laying the legal groundwork for their propaganda campaign. Some sharp-eyed TWC customers noticed a recent change to their terms of service, as Stacey Higginbotham reports on Gigaom:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

WWJD? According to Pat Robertson, Jesus Would Screw the Poor
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on May 28, 2009 at 5:24 PM.

Today, noted biblical scholars Neil Cavuto and Pat Robertson settled a complex theological question that has perplexed philosophers and  religious thinkers for two millennia:  Was Jesus a fan of big government? Or, more specifically, WWJD if confronted with a failing auto industry in the midst of a global economic meltdown? 

Following a rigorous analysis of key biblical passages and an in-depth study of the New Testament's historical context, Cavuto and Robertson determine that it sure as hell wouldn’t be helping the poor!

Cavuto, brow furrowed: “You know Reverend ... you hear the argument from those espousing government intervention in companies like GM, and more stimulus ... is that this is the good and decent thing to do ... the humanitarian thing to do. Some even incorporate Jesus, to say: That’s what Jesus would do. Would He? Is Jesus a fan of big government?”

Shrunken, dried up Pat Robertson: “Ha Ha Ha ... no He wasn’t .. I don’t know that we had any situation like this in the Roman Empire ...  But I do believe that Jesus said “You don’t prefer a poor person over a rich person, at all.” That’s the biblical standage. You give them all equal treatment.”

But ... wait. Cavuto seems confused: “Wasn’t it tougher for the rich guy to get into Heaven?”

Robertson: "Oh, it’s tough because he’s so greedy. And greedy is a different thing ha ha ha!”

Good point. There have been no instances of foul, piggish greed in this financial crisis.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Ross Douthat Thinks We Should Bring Back Puritanism
Posted by Tana Ganeva on May 26, 2009 at 4:00 PM.

According to the 5 millionth study released on the subject just this week, American women are afflicted with a deep-seated  dissatisfaction ... or  unhappiness ... or malaise ... you know, a "problem with no name", just like that other problem Betty Friedan wrote about in the 1960s. Except that this time around, everyone can blame feminism!

That’s what Ross Douthat does in a New York Times op-ed, (very loosely based on the study) that the NYT chose to highlight with a slot on their online front page.

On some fronts — graduation rates, life expectancy and even job security — men look increasingly like the second sex. But all the achievements of the feminist era may have delivered women to greater unhappiness.

Douthat also chalks up the crushing dissatisfaction plaguing women to another terrible development: the "advance" of single motherhood:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Glenn Beck: 'The Federal Government Wants to Nationalize the States!'
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on May 18, 2009 at 12:18 PM.

On his radio show today, Glenn Beck yet again stoked the paranoia of the type of people who think the federal government wants to take their guns/land/freedom and force their kids to watch gays make out.

This time, Beck used some very twisted logic and no fact-based information to sound the alarm over the federal government, led by our glorious Socialist/Fascist leader, Barack Obama, "nationalizing" the states. Don’t think it won’t happen!!!

As is often the case, Beck's rant was triggered by a caller saying something crazy and weird. A listener named Ed brought up the point that  if the federal government "bails out California, and every taxpayer from Coast to Coast is now part owner of this state, shouldn't California now cease to exist as a state?" He goes on to articulate the conservative wet dream of California dropping Nancy Pelosi, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and all of its electoral votes.

"Ha!" says Beck, and concedes that the caller might be onto something. But then he goes on to point out that state nationalization is NO laughing matter, because it is, in fact, what the federal government wants to do.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Glenn Beck: 'Gay Marriage Will Make the Universe Collapse'
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on May 12, 2009 at 4:48 PM.

According to Glenn Beck, marriage (rather than the atom) is the building block of the “entire universe”. Hence, same-sex marriage will destroy the universe.

And you thought same-sex marriage only threatened the virtue and innocence of children! That’s how much you know about science. In fact, equal treatment under the law, (which some hippies consider a key component of our democracy) is more like anti-matter -- capable of swallowing up the whole of existence.

Anyway, some lady called Glenn Beck’s radio show today, and brought up the totally original point that gay marriage will lead to incest.

If gay marriage is “all about love”, she wonders, “Why wouldn’t I be able to argue for wanting to marry my sister?”

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Conservatives Party Like It's 1992: "The Government Is Giving All Your Money to Welfare Recipients!"
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on May 8, 2009 at 6:55 PM.

Uh oh! Looks like the government is sneakily spending your hard-earned cash to shower welfare moms with Cadillacs again!

One of the GOP’s all-time favorite talking points — the racist, classist (and non-existent in real life) specter of welfare recipients living large on the government’s dime — appears to be making a comeback, this time inspired by a Massachusetts car ownership program for welfare recipients.

A Fox Nation headline proclaims in outrage:  “What?? Free Wheels for Welfare Recipients!”

Clicking through to the actual article, or course, reveals that the program’s beneficiaries are hardly awash in luxury. And, despite the fact that the article itself is laughably biased — one brief quote by an advocate of the program, sandwiched between three quotes by Republicans bloviating about government waste — it’s pretty easy to figure out that the program is not exactly a harbinger of socialism.

The state does not pay for the cars, but rather “... the car’s insurance, inspection, excise tax, title, registration, repairs and a AAA membership.” (The cars are supplied by non-profits.) Applicants have to show that they are either employed, or are actively looking for work. In order to get the cars, they have to prove that it is impossible for them to reach work using public transportation. Only families with children are eligible. And on and on.

You may have already surmised much of this, because you’re not an idiot. The same cannot be said for Fox Nation readers.

The comments that follow the headline are as racist, classist, and generally fucked up as one would expect. I feel gross re-posting samples, but it’s probably important to do so in order to get a true sense of the chilling vitriol and idiocy on display.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Suck It, Telecoms! Public Broadband Gets Reprieve in North Carolina
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on May 6, 2009 at 1:36 PM.

The North Carolina legislature just sent a bill to study committee (a.k.a shelved it at least until next year) that would have crippled municipal broadband projects in the state.

Here’s why that’s a really, really good (albeit temporary) thing: According to a recent study, America ranks 15th in the world in broadband access. This is partly because we have a very large population spread over a very large amount of space. But it is also because private companies don’t care about poor people and refuse to build broadband infrastructure in rural areas and many low-income city neighborhoods.

This is where municipal broadband plans come in. Local governments set up networks providing fast Internet access to underserved or totally ignored areas, for free or at significantly lower prices than would private providers.

But not if the telecoms can help it! ISPs, distressed by the prospect of actual competition in an otherwise monopolized industry, claim that municipal broadband has an unfair advantage over private broadband providers.

And one way to “level the playing between between the public and private sectors”, as a Time Warner Cable spokesperson ridiculously put it, is to lobby for deeply unpopular legislation that would effectively kill local government broadband projects.

The North Carolina bill, backed by Time Warner Cable and Embarq, an offshoot of Sprint, would have placed such onerous restrictions on municipal networks as to effectively make them unworkable.

Among other things, the bill would have:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »