PEEK

Buzz, perspectives, insight and news from AlterNet

Goldman Execs Are Stocking Up on Firearms: Should We Be Afraid?
Posted by Matt Taibbi, True/Slant on December 1, 2009 at 7:23 AM.

Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) — “I just wrote my first reference for a gun permit,” said a friend, who told me of swearing to the good character of a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker who applied to the local police for a permit to buy a pistol. The banker had told this friend of mine that senior Goldman people have loaded up on firearms and are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a populist uprising against the bank.

via Arming Goldman With Pistols Against Public: Alice Schroeder – Bloomberg.com.

I’m reading this article on Goldman executives applying en masse for gun permits and I’m trying to decide exactly how funny it is on a scale of 1 to 10. Reader assistance here is definitely appreciated.

On the unfunny side: it’s never good when anyone buys guns, particularly not rich weenies with persecution complexes. Also, it might possibly be true that people have threatened Goldman bankers physically, which would really not be all that funny and would make me personally feel somewhat uncomfortable, although it would probably never be very high on the list of things I have to lose sleep over.

On the funny side, there are several things to consider. There’s the image of Goldman guys walking into Dean and DeLuca’s nervously grabbing at their holstered nines as they buy espresso and soy waffles. There’s the idea that some of these dorks might actually think that they’re going to forestall proletarian rebellion by keeping guns in their Hamptons beach houses. There’s even the impossible-to-resist image of a future accidental shooting of some innocent hot dog vendor on Park Avenue, followed by the inevitable p.r. response from Goldman in which the bank claims that the only thing its employees are guilty of is "being really good at shooting people."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Enjoyed the Health-Care Debate? We'll Keep Chasing Our Tails Until We Start Taking American Democracy Seriously
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on December 1, 2009 at 6:30 AM.

If you talk about campaign finance reform or the clean elections model, or decry how corrupt the relationship between lobbyists and lawmakers has become, people's eyes glaze over. It's boring.

When you point out that Americans would never for a second accept a choice of only two flavors of ice cream, and ask why in the world we can let these two not-terribly-responsive parties have a stranglehold on our government and call ourselves a democracy -- if you suggest we might consider a parliamentary system, so people who don't fit neatly into one of two "big tents" can be represented -- you obviously belong to the fringe.

Instant runoff voting to eliminate the 3rd-party "spoiler" problem? That's not a serious policy proposal. Restoring voting rights for felons who've served their debt to society? That's right up there with 'Free Mumia!' as a rallying cry for most mainstream progressives. And if you want to see people give you a funny look, as if you're not quite right in the head, tell them that it'd really take a Constitutional Amendment getting rid of the ridiculous notion of "corporate personhood" to establish a true democracy in the U.S.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Birther Ad Claims Obama Is British 'Usurper'
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on December 1, 2009 at 5:30 AM.

You probably thought the Birther nonsense couldn't get any weirder, dumber or more racially charged, right? Wrong.

From Think Progress:

This latest national edition of the Washington Times features a full-page ad that claims that President Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. The ad was purchased by the anti-Obama website ProtectOurLiberty.org. While the group has placed several birther ads in the Washington Times in recent months, the version that ran this morning contains far more inflammatory imagery — three monkeys, apparently intended to represent the U.S. Congress, courts, and the media:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Poll: Americans Consider Rush Limbaugh Nation's Most Influential Conservative
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on December 1, 2009 at 4:45 AM.

They must be so proud:

By a wide margin, Americans consider Rush Limbaugh the nation's most influential conservative voice.

Those are the results of a poll conducted by "60 Minutes" and Vanity Fair magazine and issued Sunday. The radio host was picked by 26 percent of those who responded, followed by Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck at 11 percent. Actual politicians -- former Vice President Dick Cheney and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin -- were the choice of 10 percent each.

It's true, they are the most influential conservative voices. But if anyone still thinks the Republicans are the party of ideas they probably need to think again.

The fight for dominance in this influential sphere is on, with all the above battling for supremacy. Here's the latest from Beck, via Think Progress:

In recent days, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has indicated that she may be open to a conservative presidential dream ticket in 2012: Palin-Beck (or Beck-Palin). "I can envision a couple of different combinations, if ever I were to be in a position to really even seriously consider running for anything in the future, and I'm not there yet," Palin told Newsmax. "But Glenn Beck I have great respect for. He's a hoot." Fox and Friends plugged the idea yesterday morning and asked Palin whether she would run with Beck. She kept the door open, saying, "I don't know. We'll see, we'll see."

But just a few hours later on his radio show, Beck shot down the idea, saying he was "absolutely" ruling out a Palin-Beck ticket. He explained that if he had the number two job, Palin would always be "yapping" like they were in "the kitchen":

BECK: I don't think things are hoots. I don't. I don't think it's a hoot. I would never use the word hoot, and I respectfully ask that every time my name is brought up she would stop using the word "hoot." [...]

No, no I'm just saying -- Beck-Palin, I’ll consider. But Palin-Beck -- can you imagine, can you imagine what an administration with the two of us would be like? What? Come on! She'd be yapping or something, and I'd say, "I'm sorry, why am I hearing your voice? I'm not in the kitchen."

These people are so confused.

White House Uninvited-Visitors-Gate: They Just Don't Make Contrived Scandals Like They Used to
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 30, 2009 at 5:30 PM.

What story could better encapsulate our culture: a couple of loser reality-TV wannabes get into a White House event without an invite, the corporate media offer breathless coverage of the non-event for 3 news cycles, and right-wing bloggers and talk-radio jabberers say the whole thing only proves that Obama's the anti-Christ.

Let's play Sanity Versus Madness. And let's take the latter first. As is often the case, I go to intrepid wingnuttologist Roy Edroso for help plumbing the depths of online "conservatism," this time via his excellent Village Voice column:

While the legacy media chronicled the Salahis' attempts to wring money out of their now-famous stunt and get on a reality show, and Mrs. Salahi's cheerleader fantasies, the more adventuresome rightbloggers pursued a new angle: Obama's "five year relationship" with the Salahis.

By this, they meant that Obama had been photographed with the Salahis at an MTV Rock The Vote event in 2005, which proves they have the sort of close relationship with the President enjoyed by everyone who has ever been photographed with him. (Also in attendance at the event: John McCain and the Black-Eyed Peas. The conspiracy is more vast than you can imagine!)

But that has never been the sort of thing that stops rightbloggers. "They actually knew Obama five years ago," said Right Truth. "BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AND TAREQ SALAHI GO WAY BACK," said Reliapundit. "So-called 'party crashers' of Obama's dinner have known Obama for years," said Jacksonian Lawyer's Blog, etc.

[...]

Eventually, as is customary with these guys, speculation grew darker.

"As far as I'm concerned, this 'incident' fits right in with the plans of the Muslim Brotherhood.," said JewPI. "Yes, I think it's a conspiracy, and not only that. It's a conspiracy decades in the making of which Americans are dangerously unaware."

"That Settles It... Obama Is In Fact A Jihadist," said Snooper's Take Our Country Back. "Remember. Obama is in fact a Jihadi scum bag."

"With Barack Obama, it's always about the radicalism," bold-faced Gateway Pundit. "Always."

Now hold all that crazy up against this hard little nugget of sanity, courtesy of John Cole:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Not One More Tax Dollar For the Banks
Posted by Dean Baker, Comment Is Free on November 30, 2009 at 4:30 PM.

The big talk in Washington these days is "helping homeowners." Unfortunately, what passes for help to homeowners in the capitol might look more like handing out money to banks anywhere else.

The basic story is fairly simple. Tens of millions of U.S. homeowners are now underwater: they owe more on their mortgage than the market value of their home. The reason is that they bought homes at bubble-inflated prices earlier in the decade. Economists and other policy wonks insisted that housing was a great buy, even as house prices got ever more out-of-line with economic fundamentals.

Needless to say, the Wall Street crew was eager to cash in on the mania, peddling deceptive mortgages and reselling mortgage-backed securities all over the world. These deceptive mortgages have now "reset" to higher interest rates, leaving many people unable to afford their mortgage payments. However, even at lower interest rates, homeowners who purchased houses at bubble-inflated prices would find themselves paying far more for their homes than they would to rent a comparable house.

As a result, these homeowners are effectively throwing money away every time they make their monthly mortgage repayment. They would be much better off renting the same house and putting the savings in a retirement account or some other form of investment.

The gaps between mortgage payments and rent can often be quite large. A study that we put out at the Center for Economic and Policy Research calculated a family that purchased a small home in Los Angeles near the peak of the bubble could save $1,640 a month by renting rather than owning. This comes to almost $20,000 a year. In Phoenix a family who purchased a home near the peak of the bubble could save $420 a month or $5,000 a year. In Miami the savings would be $1,940 a month, more than $23,000 a year.

These homeowners also have no reasonable prospect of ever getting equity in their homes. In many cases they are 20% or 30% underwater, possibly owing $100,000 more than the current value of their house. Many of the people who never saw the housing bubble are arguing that house prices will return to their bubble peaks. No doubt, these people also expect a resurgence of the internet stocks of the late 1990s.

In reality, there continues to be an enormous over-supply of housing as reflected by the record vacancy rate. This huge over-supply is causing nominal rents to actually decline for the first time ever. Once the homebuyers' tax credit and other extraordinary subsidies end, house prices will resume falling to bring supply and demand into balance.

In this context, it is extremely unlikely that the vast majority of underwater homeowners will ever accumulate a penny in equity. Keeping them in their homes as owners means wasting thousands of dollars a year on excess housing costs only to be forced to arrange a short sale or face a foreclosure at some future point in time.

So, who benefits from "helping homeowners" in this story? Naturally the big beneficiaries are the banks. If the government pays for a mortgage modification where the homeowner is still paying more for the mortgage than they would for rent, then the bank gets a big gift from the government, but the homeowner is still coming out behind.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Despicable: Right-Wing Group Selling Homophobic "Barney Frank Fruitcake"
Posted by Stephanie Mencimer, Mother Jones Online on November 30, 2009 at 3:00 PM.

Ah, 'tis the season for right-wing nuttiness. Black Friday has unleashed a barrage of racist and homophobic political offerings available to stuff this year's stockings. Today's selections:

The Barney Frank Fruitcake: Offered by a Leesburg, Va.-based conservative group called the Public Advocate of the United States, the fruitcake is a booze-free confection topped with a color photo of the gay congressman. Pubilc Advocate offers the cake in exchange for donations of more than $50. "We accept Speaker Pelosi and the current liberal domination but when lawlessness is rampant we must oppose it, and this Fruitcake distribution represents our marking of another season of protesting a sorrowful spirit of immorality in Washington," says PA president Eugene Delgaudio.

Obozo's America: A board game based on the idea that a socialist clown has become president of the United States, subtitled, "Why bother working for a living?" The low-down:

Get your initial $1,000 cash grant at the First of the Month, then maneuver along Obozo’s Welfare Promenade. Get cash for your out-of-wedlock children. Draw from a stack of Welfare Benefit Cards. Get extra cash from Saturday Night crimes: Gambling, Armed Robbery, Drugs, and Prostitution. Play the lottery and the horses. Get your live-in a job on the Government Cakewalk. Experience the Jail Jaunt. Avoid landing on one of those dreaded “Get a Job” blocks forcing you onto the Working Person’s Rut (Somebody has to pay for Obozo’s Welfare Promenade). 50 Welfare Benefit Cards. 50 Working Person’s Burden Cards. Lots of funny money.

The deluxe version available for just $37.90, plus tax and shipping.

EMAIL PRINT 5 COMMENTS PERMALINK

Video: AlterNet's Adele Stan Talks Health Care on C-SPAN
Posted by AlterNet Staff, AlterNet on November 30, 2009 at 2:20 PM.

In a wide-ranging conversation on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, AlterNet's Adele Stan faced off with conservative blogger James Joyner about health care, the economy, Afghanistan and Dick Cheney's presidential aspirations.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH

Naomi Klein: Why Rich Countries Should Pay Reparations To Poor Countries For The Climate Crisis
Posted by Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! on November 30, 2009 at 1:40 PM.

AMY GOODMAN: We turn to the best-selling author of The Shock Doctrine. Yes, independent journalist Naomi Klein joining us from Toronto, Canada to talk about the latest shocks to the economy and with the climate summit in Copenhagen just two weeks away, the coming together of a global movement for climate justice. She is just out with the 10th anniversary edition of her first book, the international bestseller No Logo. And her latest articles include "Climate Rage," for Rolling Stone Magazine, and "Copenhagen, Seattle Grows Up," for The Nation. Naomi Klein, Welcome to Democracy Now! Let’s begin with the issue of climate change and as you put it, climate rage. Tell us what is happening.

NAOMI KLEIN: That piece in Rolling Stone is looking at a growing demand for the repayment of climate debt. This is really a relatively new framing for the climate crisis and is becoming predominantly from the developing world, led by the government of Bolivia and other Latin American governments, and it has been joined by the coalition of least developed countries which are primarily in Africa. And essentially what they're saying is that the climate crisis as we know was created in the industrialized world. There is a direct correlation between industrialization (what we call development) and carbon emissions. In fact, 75 percent of the historical carbon emissions have been produced by only 20 percent of the world's population. Then we have this cruel geographical irony, which is that the effects of climate change our felt overwhelmingly in the developing world, and the parts of the world that are least responsible for creating the crisis. According to the World Bank, 75-80 of the effects of climate change are being felt in the developing world. So, you have this inverse relationship between cause and effect.

It is in this context that we see a growing movement from the developing countries that really are on the front lines of climate change, saying that the rich world that created the climate crisis owes them a debt, owes them a tangible reparations for the creation of this crisis. And those reparations should be paid in three forms. First through deep emissions cuts in the developed world, in the rich world. At least 40 percent below 1990 levels- this is a figure we have heard a lot. In addition to this, they are saying the rich world, the G-8 countries, the industrialized countries, should pay for the costs, the huge costs, that poor countries face in adapting to climate change. In addition to that, they’re also saying that they would like to leapfrog over the dirty energies, the fossil fuels that are fueling the climate crisis. But they point out that this is expensive and more expensive to shift to cleaner green technology than it is to develop with cheap, dirty fuels, which is the way we did in the rich world. So, they are saying we will change, but we don’t think we should have to pay this additional cost because of our problem that is not of our creation. Essentially the climate debt arguments is the “polluter pays” argument, which is a familiar argument to people in the United States, its a basic principle of jurisprudence. Another way of putting this is “you broke it, you bought it”.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk specifically about the countries that are raising these concerns and saying we shouldn’t have to pay. For example in Africa.

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, the African Union, the coalition of African states, have been very clear that their primary demand out of Copenhagen are these deep emissions cuts and serious funding for adaptation to climate change. In eastern Africa right now, you have massive, you have serious droughts affecting millions of people. That is just one example of the kind of costs that are being incurred because of climate change already. So, we’re not talking about projecting into the future, some hypothetical future, we are talking about right now.

The main push, as I said, is actually coming from Bolivia. And Bolivia has an extraordinary climate negotiator, who I quote in the Rolling Stone piece, named Angelica Navarro, who I first met in Geneva. She was actually Bolivia’s ambassador to the World Trade Organization. She’s very clear, very tough, multilingual. It takes a lot of strength to stand up to the sort of pressure that a small country like Bolivia faces, whether at the World Trade Organization or now in the climate negotiations. And Angelica Navarro is really up to the task and she has been giving these really inspiring speeches, at summits in the lead up to Copenhagen. And has really been an galvanizing force for other developing countries.

But also, you know she is taking a demand that is coming from groups like the third World Network, Focus on the Global South, Jubilee South, coalitions of NGOs and climate justice groups, that have been making these demands on the outside of summits. But, what is interesting now is that these demands have entered inside the summit, they are at the negotiating table. And of course there is extraordinary resistance from the United States, and the European Union, Canada, Australia, to the idea that they shouldn’t just be giving money to the developing world to adapt to climate change, to deal with climate change, out of the goodness of our hearts, out of a sense of charity, but actually out of a legal obligation. This is a frightening concept as you can imagine.

AMY GOODMAN: Naomi Klein –

NAOMI KLEIN: The case for this is very strong, just to add.

AMY GOODMAN: Last week, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon rejected widespread predictions that the summit in Copenhagen would be a failure.

BAN KI-MOON: Reading the latest news reports, however, you might think Copenhagen is destined to be a disappointment. That is wrong. To the contrary, we can, and I believe we can and we will reach a deal in Copenhagen that sets the stage for a binding treaty as soon as possible.

AMY GOODMAN: Your response to what Ban Ki-Moon is saying?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, the problem is the definition of success in Copenhagen has been lowered and lowered. A few months ago the definition of success in Copenhagen was countries agreeing to lower emissions, to levels that climate scientists were demanding. And the science is very clear that we really do need cuts of 40 percent below 1990 levels. The other definition of success was rich countries coming to the table with levels of funding for the developing world that once again meet the actual need. And we know what those types of figures are. The World Bank for instance has estimated the cost faced by developing countries to simply adapt to a changing climate dealing with droughts, dealing with increased flooding, is $100 billion a year. The cost of leapfrogging over those dirty energies, as I was saying earlier, that’s $500 billion-$600 billion a year. That’s a figure from independent UN researchers. But now what we hearing from the UN is there hope for Copenhagen is that they can get developed countries, rich countries, to agree to $10 billion a year.

So Amy, they will turn around and say that is a success, but it is simply not a success. So, the definition of success is just been pushed lower and lower. And this is really a troubling issue, and it an issue that a lot of environmentalists, climate justice activists are going to have to confront. Because, with an issue like climate change, urgency matters, maintaining a sense of urgency in the face of this crisis really matters. So, there is a danger, a very real danger of creating an illusion of doing something about the problem in Copenhagen. You know, having Obama go make another terrific speech which he is very good at, claiming it is a breakthrough that the U.S. is talking about emission cuts of between, now they are saying 14-20 below 2005 levels, which is just absurd, it has nothing to do with the science. And then this $10 billion a year figure, which once again there such a huge gap between that figure, and the lowest possible figure that we’re hearing from the World Bank which is $100 billion.

So, we have to be very careful about what is called success, because if you turn around and say “It is a success to have U.S. commit to 14 percent cut from 2005 levels,” and a throwing a couple billion dollars a year out of the goodness of their hearts while still recognizing historical responsibility, then you lose some of this crucial urgency, in confronting this crisis. So, I think is very important for the climate justice movement not to allow politicians to pass off the failure as success.

AMY GOODMAN: Naomi Klein, the issue of President Obama going. He's going to be in the region, he's going to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. He also just recently was in Copenhagen. He was there to push for Chicago to get the Olympics. But, he has not said he is going, although 65 world leaders have. The top three carbon polluters, the U.S., China and India, have not said they will attend the meeting. Your response?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, you know John Kerry is publicly calling on Obama to go and I think now that that is happened, my assumption is Obama will go. I do not think Kerry would be saying this if it was not already pretty much decided that he will go. And I think this whole process of lowering the definition of success, so essentially failure can be passed off as success, is really, much of it is about creating conditions for Obama to go and claim that failure is success. So, frankly, I think he will go, but I do not think we should allow that to be a definition of success.

AMY GOODMAN: Now of course we will be there, “Democracy Now!” will be there in force, en masse, to cover what is happening for the two weeks. We will be covering what is happening at the summit and we will be covering what is happening in the streets. Naomi, it is the 10th anniversary of the Battle of Seattle, the protests in Seattle, Washington. I’m going to be there in a few days and there’s a lot of conversation about what that has meant. But, before we go to break and talk about this 10 years later, talks specifically about what is planned for Copenhagen in the streets.

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, the latest column I wrote for The Nation is about this line that you can draw from Seattle to Copenhagen. I call the column “Seattle Grows Up,” because I think we're also seeing an evolution of a movement that can to world attention on the streets of Seattle. I think there has been a profound deepening of the coalition between groups that are primarily focused on poverty, on development, on debt, and environmental groups that have traditionally been focused on environmental issues. We saw that in Seattle, the beginnings of that coalition, with the famous "Teamsters and Turtles" coalition. Now we are seeing something much deeper.

It is this idea of climate debt that is bringing together groups, like I was saying, Jubilee South, like Action Aid, groups that have been mostly focused on anti-poverty and development and are now are seeing climate change as the single greatest barrier to human development around the world, but also seen the call for climate reparation as an opportunity for, to quote Angelica Navarro, Bolivia's ambassador to the climate negotiations, who I was talking about earlier, when she talks about the need for the developing world- developed world to pay our climate debt, she says if this happened and we would have a Marshall Plan for planet earth, which is a very exciting prospect because it means you have the opportunity to tackle simultaneously two of humanities most intransigent challenges, most intransigent problems, climate debt on the one hand, and inequality on the other. So, the bringing together of these two forces. That is what's going to be really, really exciting in Copenhagen. And a lot of the people, a lot of networks that grew out of Seattle are going to be activated in Copenhagen and have only grown stronger in recent years.

AMY GOODMAN: When we will come back, we’ll talk about ten years after the Battle of Seattle protest overall, its also the 10th anniversary of the release of your book, No Logo, I want to talk about "world branding."

...

... But Naomi, before we talk more specifically about Seattle, what about the specific actions planned for the streets of Copenhagen at the Climate Summit?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, you know, it's going to be a maze, Copenhagen. It's the largest environmental gathering in history, larger, even, than the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. So there's going to be a lot happening all around the city.

But, here is where I think it's really different from Seattle: in Seattle, the World Trade Organization was really the enemy for the activists in the street, and the goal was to shut down the meeting, both from the outside and inside. And you had this interesting coalition of activists in the street with that message, that "No WTO" message. And then you had coalitions of developing countries inside, emboldened by these protests in the street, emboldened to stand up to the pressure from the European Union and the United States. And ultimately it was that sort of "pincer" that collapsed the meeting.

In Copenhagen, it's a different dynamic, because the fact is that the people in the streets overwhelmingly support the mission of the meeting in Copenhagen. And, so, they're not saying "no" to the idea of a climate summit. In fact, they're saying "yes," and they're revealing, highlighting that, in fact, it is the world leaders, particularly world leaders from the heavy-emitting countries, like the United States and Canada, who are the naysayers, who are the ones who are saying, "No, we don't actually want to tackle the climate crisis, we don't want to make the emissions cuts that are needed, that are required by science."

So, in a sense, it’s an inversion where it’s the activists who are saying, "Yes, we believe in this mission." And it's the politicians, really, who we need to reveal as being the ones who are actually saying, 'no,' even as they claim to be saying 'yes,' and even as they claim -- even as they sell failure as 'success.'"

So, it’s really tricky for activists in terms of figuring out how you interact with a summit like this. So, there's one day, for instance, the 18th -- December 18th, where activists are going to be kind of storming the conference center, nonviolently, but using civil disobedience. But their goal, they say, is not to shut down the meeting, but to open up the meeting and to have a forum inside the meeting to talk about real climate solutions, like leaving fossil fuels in the ground—dirty fossil fuels, particularly things like the Alberta tar sands -- talking about solutions like climate debt that we’ve been discussing, and exposing the fallacies of the claims that the market can solve the climate crisis.

Because, of course, that's what we’re going to be hearing a lot of in Copenhagen, market-based solutions: cap and trade, emission trading, carbon sinks, basically creating a huge market in pollution. And you have many of the same players that crashed the global economy, like Goldman Sachs, salivating over the idea of being able to have a speculative bubble over carbon.

So, that's the dynamic. It's not saying "no," not saying "shut down," but saying, "Open up. Let's talk about real solutions." And another example of this is that, actually, there will be an attempt to shut something down in Copenhagen, but that is focused on shutting down the port for a day -- Copenhagen's port -- to highlight the corporate side of this equation, the shipping industry and how emissions-heavy it is. And, so, not to shut down a meeting that actually the activists believe in, but to go after industry itself. So, there's going to be a lot of actions like that. A lot of thought and debate is going into how to craft actions that are really consistent with the goals of this movement.

AMY GOODMAN: And the delegates, the people who are involved in the climate talks, as opposed to the activists in the street -- something interesting that happened ten years ago with the Battle of Seattle that also turned things were those inside who were saying, "You are not listening to us." I mean, developing countries, for example, countries in Africa. What about those countries here, their role at the climate summit in Copenhagen?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, you know, it remains to be seen. As I said, some of the most interesting solutions are being put on the table by Latin American governments, like Bolivia, also Ecuador.

But what we just saw in Barcelona, which was, you know, the last major negotiating push before the meeting in Copenhagen, is that the coalition of African states walked out of the summit en masse. So, basically a form of civil disobedience within the summit, in protest of the very low commitments for emission cuts coming from the developed world, which was interesting that the African bloc walked out, not because there wasn’t enough money for them, not because there wasn’t enough aid for them to deal climate change, but because they don’t simply want aid, they want us in the rich world to change our way of life because they are facing the effects of that. They’re on the front lines of climate change.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Alberto Gonzales Inspires Students to "Dream Big" and Hope to Meet "the Next George W. Bush" One Day
Posted by Matt Corley, Think Progress on November 30, 2009 at 11:30 AM.

After months without finding work, former attorney general Alberto Gonzales landed a teaching job at Texas Tech University earlier this year, where he is now leading a political science class on the Executive Branch. When Gonzales' hiring was announced, Texas Tech chancellor Kent Hance said that the former Bush appointee would "help Texas Tech and ASU prepare our students for success and to be future leaders in the State of Texas and beyond." In an interview with the Daily Toreador, Gonzales gave an example of some of the inspirational wisdom he is providing to his students:

Gonzales said he wants to encourage Tech students to have high aspirations but to realize that success doesn't come overnight.

"Dream big but be patient," he said. "You never know when the next George W. Bush is going to come along and give you a once in a lifetime opportunity like he gave me, but you have to be patient."

Dubai May Finally Be Broke, But It's Been Morally Bankrupt All Along
Posted by Johann Hari, AlterNet on November 30, 2009 at 10:30 AM.

Dubai is finally financially bankrupt -- but it has been morally bankrupt all along. The idea that Dubai is an oasis of freedom on the Arabian peninsular is one of the great lies of our time. Yes, it has Starbucks and Dunkin' Donuts and the Gucci styles, but beneath these accouterments, there is a dictatorship built by slaves.

If you go there with your eyes open -- as I did earlier this year -- the truth is hidden in plain view. The tour books and the bragging Emiratis will tell you the city was built by Sheikh Mohammed, the country's hereditary ruler.

It is untrue. The people who really built the city can be seen in long chain-gangs by the side of the road, or toiling all day at the top of the tallest buildings in the world, in heat that Westerners are told not to stay in for more than 10 minutes. They were conned into coming, and trapped into staying.

In their home country – Bangladesh or the Philippines or India – these workers are told they can earn a fortune in Dubai if they pay a large upfront fee. When they arrive, their passports are taken from them, and they are told their wages are a tenth of the rate they were promised.

They end up working in extremely dangerous conditions for years, just to pay back their initial debt. They are ringed-off in filthy tent-cities outside Dubai, where they sleep in weeping heat, next to open sewage. They have no way to go home. And if they try to strike for better conditions, they are beaten by the police.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Rick Warren Refuses to Condemn Death Penalty for Homosexuals
Posted by Allison Kilkenny, True/Slant on November 30, 2009 at 9:30 AM.

I think I was too hard on Meet The Press the other day. Here I was, fussing that MTP rarely includes leftist voices on its panels when something much bigger was happening. Now I understand that the producers of the longest-running television show in worldwide broadcasting history can’t include leftist perspectives because they have to create a “safe space” for the views of people like pastor Rick Warren, who recently refused to condemn the idea of a death penalty for gays in Uganda.

In a recent interview with Newsweek, Warren refused to reject the ideas of Martin Ssempa, a Ugandan pastor who has come to his Saddleback Church multiple times, and whose stunts include burning condoms in the name of Jesus and endorsing state executions for homosexuals.

But Warren won’t go so far as to condemn the legislation itself. A request for a broader reaction to the proposed Ugandan anti-homosexual laws generated this response: “The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts endowed by God, our creator. However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations.”

Yes, one wouldn’t want to interfere with the political process of an autonomous nation. Meanwhile, Warren and his tax exempt church are fine with meddling with the political process in this country. The pastor was a key player in endorsing Prop 8, which amended California’s Constitution to say marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

But don’t take my word for it. Warren stated his support for Prop 8 in this video:

Let me just say this really clearly. We support Proposition 8. And if you believe what the bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues, I come out really clear…. We should not let 2% of the population determine — uh, to change the definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture, and every single religion for 5,000 years.

Apparently, this was taken out of context because Warren later panicked and tried to distance himself from the movement. He told Larry King that he “never once even gave an endorsement” of the proposition.

Let me just say this really clearly. We support Proposition 8.

Okay.

Warren has also compared homosexuality to incest, pedophilia, and bestiality, though this totally doesn’t mean he hates gay people, he explained to MSNBC’s Ann Curry:

I could give you a hundred gay friends. I have always treated them with respect. When they come and want to talk to me, I talk to them.

I talk to them, but I’m also cool with them being killed by the state. I can see why MTP didn’t want to let this gem slip through their fingers. Warren reiterated his refusal to condemn the crazy Ugandan pastor yesterday on his most recent MTP appearance, Newsweek reports:

“As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides.” Warren did say he believed that abortion was “a holocaust.” He knows as well as anyone that in a case of great wrong, taking sides is an important thing to do.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

George Will: Get Off My Lawn You Hippie Dope Fiends!
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 30, 2009 at 8:35 AM.

I'm not sure when George Will completed the transition from acerbic center-right pundit to crotchety old fart whinging about the kids these days, but there's actually something reassuring about the fact that even in a world as crazy as ours is today a bow-tied moral scold like George Will can still find the time to get worked up over states passing medical marijuana laws.

Inside the green neon sign, which is shaped like a marijuana leaf, is a red cross. The cross serves the fiction that most transactions in the store -- which is what it really is -- involve medicine.

The Justice Department recently announced that federal laws against marijuana would not be enforced for possession of marijuana that conforms to states' laws. In 2000, Colorado legalized medical marijuana.

George Will's mad about it. But he was for states' rights before he was against them, of course. When? Oh, way back in ... last week, when the issue was a state's God-given right to refuse to participate in federal health-care schemes. Anyway ...

Since Justice's decision, the average age of the 400 persons a day seeking "prescriptions" at Colorado's multiplying medical marijuana dispensaries has fallen precipitously. Many new customers are college students.

Oh. My. God. College students smoking pot! What next -- people marrying trees?!?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Inhofe Trashes Military Generals Who Advocate For Clean Energy Legislation
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on November 30, 2009 at 7:34 AM.

In testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, retired Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn articulated a national security argument for passing clean energy legislation. “Continued over reliance on fossil fuels, or small, incremental steps, simply will not create the kind of future security and prosperity that the American people and our great Nation deserve,” McGinn warned.

In an interview with the New York Times Magazine, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the ranking member of the Senate environment committee, argued that McGinn and other generals who are advocating for clean energy reform (like Wesley Clark, Stephen Cheney, Brent Scowcroft, etc) are simply doing so because they crave “the limelight”:

NYT: Senator Boxer is chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, on which you are the ranking Republican. She and her fellow Democrats have lately suggested that global warming could be a threat to national security by destabilizing developing countries.

INHOFE: That’s the most ludicrous thing. They looked around and they found, I think, five generals to testify before the committee. Well, that’s 5 generals out of 4,000 retired generals that say that. There are a lot of generals who don’t like to be out of the limelight. They’d like to get back in.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Conservative Hypocrisy: Food Stamps Are Hand-Outs to the Lazy ... Until I Need Them
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on November 30, 2009 at 6:30 AM.

This article on increasing rates of reliance on food stamps illustrates pretty clearly the right-wing mentality when it comes to social programs -- any sort of government aid is a hand-out to the lazy until I need it. Then it's still a hand-out to the lazy, just not for me.

While Mr. Dawson, the electrician, has kept his job, the drive to distant work sites has doubled his gas bill, food prices rose sharply last year and his health insurance premiums have soared. His monthly expenses have risen by about $400, and the elimination of overtime has cost him $200 a month. Food stamps help fill the gap.

Like many new beneficiaries here, Mr. Dawson argues that people often abuse the program and is quick to say he is different. While some people "choose not to get married, just so they can apply for benefits," he is a married, churchgoing man who works and owns his home. While "some people put piles of steaks in their carts," he will not use the government’s money for luxuries like coffee or soda. "To me, that's just morally wrong," he said.

He has noticed crowds of midnight shoppers once a month when benefits get renewed. While policy analysts, spotting similar crowds nationwide, have called them a sign of increased hunger, he sees idleness. "Generally, if you’re up at that hour and not working, what are you into?" he said.

I don't know, sir -- but since you're there too, why don’t you tell us?

Almost as precious is the suggestion that food stamps should come with work requirements, akin to cash welfare benefits:

"Some people like to camouflage this by calling it a nutrition program, but it's really not different from cash welfare," said Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, whose views have a following among conservatives on Capitol Hill. "Food stamps is quasi money."

Arguing that aid discourages work and marriage, Mr. Rector said food stamps should contain work requirements as strict as those placed on cash assistance. "The food stamp program is a fossil that repeats all the errors of the war on poverty," he said.

No word from Mr. Rector, though, on where those jobs are coming from.

Food stamps are increasingly utilized in large part because more Americans are unemployed or underemployed. Work requirements aren't particularly helpful if you live in rural Appalachia or suburban Detroit or the South Bronx and there just aren't jobs to be had.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »