PEEK

Buzz, perspectives, insight and news from AlterNet

Lieberman Pledges To Filibuster Healthcare Bill, Says Public Option Is "Unnecessary"
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 9, 2009 at 5:00 AM.

On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) about the House's historic passage of health care legislation last night. Lieberman said that as a "matter of conscience," he will join a Republican filibuster if a public option -- which has supposedly been put forward "by people who really want the government to take over all of health insurance" -- is also included in the bill that goes before the Senate:

LIEBERMAN: A public option plan is unnecessary. It has been put forward, I'm convinced, by people who really want the government to take over all of health insurance. They’ve got a right to do that; I think that would be wrong.

But worse than that, we have a problem even greater than the health insurance problems, and that is a debt -- $12 trillion today, projected to be $21 trillion in 10 years.

WALLACE: So at this point, I take it, you’re a "no" vote in the Senate?

LIEBERMAN: If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote because I believe debt can break America and send us into a recession that's worse than the one we’re fighting our way out of today. I don’t want to do that to our children and grandchildren.

Watch it:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Going Extreme: Demint Says Recruiting Electable Moderates "Doesn't Make Any Sense"
Posted by Jed Lewison, Daily Kos on November 8, 2009 at 6:26 AM.

More GOP civil war:

[NRSC Chairman John] Cornyn has gambled much on finding and promoting centrists able to win Senate seats in swing states and even some Democratic redoubts. And he’s decided to do so even though those candidates in at least four states — California, Florida, Kentucky and Connecticut — must first compete in and win expensive and potentially divisive primaries, mainly against more socially and fiscally conservative candidates.

...

"He’s trying to find candidates who can win. I’m trying to find people who can help me change the Senate," said Jim DeMint of South Carolina, a leader of the conservative bloc. "To think we can grow the party by picking people who are more liberal and don’t share our core values doesn’t make any sense."

As kos said earlier this week about the urge to purge amongst teabaggers:

Maybe they've stumbled upon a brilliant "addition by subtraction" political formula that allows them to win more races by kicking everyone out of their party.  But I still like our approach better. And in the end, we have the majorities to prove it worked.

Maybe they will. But so far, the only stumbling they've done has been over the first Democratic victory in NY-23 since the Civil War.

House of Representatives Passes Health-Care Reform Bill in Historic Vote
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on November 7, 2009 at 8:32 PM.

In an historic vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, a health-care reform bill containing a public health-insurance plan passed the chamber by a vote of 220-215. One Republican, Joseph Cao of Louisiana, voted with the Democrats, while 39 Democrats, including Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich, voted against H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

Both of the Democrats who won special elections last week, Bill Owens of New York's 23rd district, and John Garamendi of California's 10th voted for the bill.

As the time allotted for voting drew to a close, Democrats, shouting in unison, counted down the final seconds like it was New Year's Eve. Speaker Nancy Pelosi smiled broadly as she pounded the gavel and announced the result.

At a meeting with reporters following the bill's passage, Pelosi called up Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., son of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the upper chamber's long-time champion of health-care reform. "My dad was a senator," Kennedy said, "but tonight his spirit was in the House."

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., also played an historically symbolic role in the vote, gaveling the start of the proceedings.  Like his father before him, who was also a congressman, Dingell has introduced a health-care reform bill every year of his 54-year career in the House, and gaveled to order the 1964 proceedings for the passage of Medicare.

The bill passed in the House includes a public health-insurance plan that is one of a number of plans -- the rest offered by private and non-profit insurers -- that consumers will be able to purchase on an insurance exchange, which has been described as a sort of shopping mall of insurance policies. Lower-income citizens will be eligible for federally-financed subsidies of premiums. All Americans will be required to carry a minimum level of health insurance or face a tax penalty. Individuals earning more than $500,000 annually, and couples who earn more than $1 million per year, will face an additional tax to help finance the health-care plan.

Included in the legislation are protections against exclusion from coverage for pre-existing conditions and a prohibition on rescissions that have seen people suddenly dropped from coverage because they failed to disclose a minor condition such as acne. Women will be protected from elimination of coverage for gender-specific conditions. Young adults will be able to remain on the parents' policies until their 27th birthdays, and several discriminatory practices against LGBT people will be prohibited.

(For more on what's in the bill and likely battles to arise in a conference committee, see 5 Key Fights We Face Against the Insurance Industry by AlterNet's Joshua Holland.)

It was a week of wrangling, arm-twisting and conservaDem-whispering for House leaders as they sought to put together the 218 votes necessary to pass the bill. Originally scheduled for Friday, the vote was put off for a day as House Whip James Clyburn and Pelosi's whip team worked members of the Democratic caucus to bring more on board. President Barack Obama consequently delayed a planned Friday visit to Capitol Hill for a meeting with Democrats about the bill, instead making the trek today in a bid to sway any stragglers.

Much of the slow-down came at the hands of Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who insisted that the bill was not strong enough in preventing the use of federal funds for abortion procedures, since the bill would permit a woman who bought private health insurance -- with her own money -- through a federally-administered insurance exchange to purchase a policy that covered abortion. With the backing of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Stupak and Joe Pitts, R-Penn., held up the bill, looking for a deal on language that would appease the church. (Both Stupak and Pitts belong to the secretive Capitol Hill religious group known as The Family.)

As of Friday night, Pelosi thought she had worked out a language compromise with the pro- and anti-choice forces, but before daybreak, the deal had fallen apart "because they can't count," Stupak said of Pelosi's negotiators during a press conference after the House vote.

Unable to deliver the compromise she thought she had forged, Pelosi allowed Stupak to bring his concerns to the floor in the form of an amendment, which passed with the votes of 64 Democrats. (More about the amendment from AlterNet here and RH Reality Check here.)

Part of Pelosi's calculus in allowing the Stupak amendment seems to be the unlikelihood that it will survive in the conference committee that will reconcile the House bill with whatever the Senate eventually passes and calls health-care reform. Certainly House Minority Leader John Boehner seemed to think so, as he made a point, during the general debate on the larger health-care bill of asking each of the committee chairmen who together crafted the Affordable Health Care Act whether they would commit to preserving the amendment when the bill is finalized in conference committee.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Anti-Woman Amendment to Health Care Passes House
Posted by Adele Stan on November 7, 2009 at 7:47 PM.

After a spirited debate on the floor of the House of Representatives, the anti-choice amendment to the Democrats' health-care reform bill offered by Representatives Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and Joe Pitts, R-Penn., passed by a vote of 240-194, with one member, Rep. John Shaddegg, R-Ariz., voting "present." Both Stupak and Pitts are members of the secretive Capitol Hill religious group known as The Family.

The House will vote shortly on the Pelosi health-care reform bill, with the amendment attached. House leaders agreed to let Stupak offer the amendment after conservative Democrats balked at voting for a health-care bill that did not pass muster with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, despite the bill's provision barring public funds from being used to pay for abortions. In order to get to the 218 votes required to pass health-care reform, House leaders felt the need to provide cover for Democrats from conservative districts.

 MORE ABOUT THE STUPAK AMENDMENT HERE

House Will Take Up-or-Down Vote on Stupak Amendment, Threatening Women's Rights
Posted by RH Reality Check, RH Reality Check on November 7, 2009 at 5:00 PM.

This post is from Jodi Jacobson's blog at RH Reality Check.

House Democratic leaders will allow an up-or-down vote on the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which seeks to block even private insurance plans from funding abortion care.

In other words, this amendment, if passed and included in a final health reform bill, would block you from getting insurance to cover legal procedures in the United States of America, with premiums paid with your personal funds. Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Women's Law Center and other groups are calling for immediate action against the amendment, and you can click here to find your representative and tell them to vote no on Stupak.

The amendment, named for Representatives Bart Stupak, D-Mich, and Joe Pitts, R-Penn.  Stupak is a so-called "Democrat for Life;" Pitts has been a dogged supporter of failed abstinence-only policies, domestically and internationally, and was among those who succeeded in adding language forbidding the provision of contraceptive supplies for HIV-positive women in US global AIDS funding.

The agreement to vote on the Stupak-Pitts amendment came after 1:00 am this morning when an effort to adopt compromise language crafted by Rep. Brad Ellsworth apparently was rejected by Stupak and his supporters.  We reported on the Ellsworth Amendment here.  Rejection of the Ellsworth Amendment makes clear the agenda of Stupak's amendment is to ban abortion care in private insurance plans, because Ellsworth provided numerous protections against the use of federal funds for abortions other than those for rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother, for all of which the law now allows federal funding.

The Hill reports that:

Liberals on the committee threatened to vote against the final healthcare bill if it included Stupak's language, warning that it would be a return to the days of back-alley abortions.

"I forsee a return to the dark ages," Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., told The Hill. "I'm 73, I've seen these dark things, they use these coat hangers and die."

"I used to think that life was black or white, but the older I get the most gray it becomes," liberal Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., told the panelists of the House Rules committee as they debated whether to allow the amendment. "I find this amendment very, very uncomfortable."

Having successfully made birth control "too controversial for health reform," Stupak, working with other "Dems for Life," the now unabashedly ultra-right Republican party and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops threatened to block passage of the health reform bill unless he got his way on the vote. His efforts are backed up by a massive organizing effort undertaken by the Catholic Bishops to mobilize ultra-conservative Catholics throughout the country. More than 85 percent of Catholics in the United States use birth control, and Catholic women have abortions at the same rate as women in the general population.

Women's rights advocates, including the speaker of the House and a majority of the Democratic caucus, support a provision in the health-care bill that would subsidize abortions for poor women who can't afford them, in keeping with current law.

"Rep. Stupak’s proposal to codify the Hyde amendment in health-care reform would force women who want comprehensive reproductive health-care coverage to purchase a separate, single-service rider," said Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In the statement, Richards explains:

Such an "abortion rider," whereby abortion care could only be covered by a single-service plan in the exchange, is discriminatory and illogical. Women do not plan to have unintended pregnancies or medically complicated pregnancies that require ending the pregnancy. In fact, about half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, and abortion is not something that women plan to insure against. As a result, an "abortion rider" policy is unworkable. Women would not choose to purchase it, and would subsequently be unable to obtain the care they need. Proposing a separate ‘abortion rider’ represents exactly the type of government interference in the health care marketplace that conservatives purport to vehemently oppose.

For these and other reasons, "Planned Parenthood strongly opposes the Stupak-Pitts amendment which would result in women losing health benefits they have today," said Richards in a statement released early this morning. The statement continues:

This amendment would violate the spirit of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for all, by [instead] creating a two-tiered system that would punish women, particularly those with low and modest incomes. Women won't stand for legislation that takes away their current benefits and leaves them worse off after health care reform than they are today.

While Rep. Stupak claims that his amendment simply applies the Hyde amendment to health reform, nothing could be farther from the truth

In fact, "the Stupak-Pitts amendment would result in a new restriction on women's access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market," continued Richards, "undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that covers abortion, even if they pay for most of the premium with their own money."

On Friday, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said passing Stupak's legislation could jeopardize passage of the bill, because abortion-rights supporters were likely to vote against a bill that includes it.

BACKGROUND on STUPAK-PITTS AMENDMENT:

The Stupak-Pitts amendment would:

• Prohibit individuals who receive the affordability tax credits from purchasing a private insurance plan that covers abortion, despite the fact that a majority of health insurance plans currently cover abortion.
• Result in a de facto ban on private insurance companies providing abortion coverage in the health insurance exchange, since the vast majority of participants would receive affordability tax credits.
• Prohibit the public option from providing abortion care, despite the fact that it would be funded through private premium dollars.

The current compromise in the bill, the Capps Amendment, already strikes the right balance between pro-choice and anti-choice interests.

It stipulates that health plans cannot be mandated to cover abortion, but they can choose to.

• If a plan chooses to cover abortion, the compromise stipulates that no federal funds can go towards abortion, consistent with current federal policy.
• It ensures state laws regarding abortion coverage are not pre-empted, so if states want to pass further restrictions on abortion coverage, they can.  This a significant win for anti-choice organizations.
• Protects conscience rights of health care providers and facilities.

The following is a list of editorials in major newspapers that have opposed Stupak-Pitts and similar proposals:

An editorial in USA Today (11/2/09): “[The Stupak amendment] goes too far. It would mark a broad new expansion in the effort to restrict access to abortion. Nearly 90% of private health insurance policies now offer abortion coverage, and almost half of women with private insurance have it. But women covered under the new system would have to find supplemental insurance or pay out of pocket for an unanticipated procedure that can cost from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars, depending on complexity. For anyone unable to afford it, this would amount to a de facto ban.”

An editorial in the New York Times said (10/1/09):
“Conservative critics of pending reform bills want to prohibit the use of tax subsidies to buy any health insurance policy that covers abortion. Some want to require women to buy an extra insurance “rider” if they want abortion coverage, an unworkable approach given that almost no one expects to need an abortion, few women would buy the rider and, therefore, few insurance companies would even offer it.”

An editorial in the LA Times said (11/6/09):
“The real goal of abortion opponents isn't to maintain the status quo. It's to extend federal prohibitions into private pocketbooks. By restricting coverage offered through the exchange, they hope to make abortion coverage so unattractive that insurers eventually stop offering it in the market for individual and small-group policies.”

An editorial in The St. Petersburg Times said (11/5/09):
"Contrary to the claims of Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who has been leading the antiabortion effort, the Capps amendment would not expand federal funding for abortion. Instead it would establish some basic principles to reflect the current health insurance landscape in which nearly 90 percent of private plans offer abortion coverage."

Video: Tancredo Storms Off MSNBC Set, "Insulted" by Markos Moulitsas
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on November 7, 2009 at 3:24 PM.

SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO

In a raucus Friday-night segment on MSNBC's The Ed Show, Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos, and former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo had at each other over Thursday's Capitol Hill rally against President Obama and the Democrats' health-care bill.

After a spirited back-and-forth over the offensive signs -- like the one snapped by Think Progress' Lee Fang that labeled as "National Socialist Heath Care" a photograph of a pile of corpses from the Dachau concentration camp, or the one captured by AlterNet that asked "KEN-YA TRUST OBAMA" -- and rhetoric from the Capitol steps, the topic came of the medical system administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. After Tancredo characterized the Democratic health care bill as "socialism", guest host David Shuster asked, "What about the V.A.? That's single payer."

Tancredo replied that veterans complain about problems with their V.A. care all the time, and saying that they'd rather have vouchers to use to pay for private health care. Moulitsas began to laugh, and Tancredo said, "Talk to the veterans; they talked to me, and that's what they said."

"Tom, I'm a veteran," Moutitsas replied. "I did not get a deferment because I was too depressed to fight in the war I supported in Vietnam."

Tancredo was an ardent supporter of the Vietnam War, but when his student deferments ran out, he failed his physical, he said, when he told recruiters he had been treated for depression, according to the Denver Post.

"That's a cheap, rotten, stupid thing to say," Tancredo charged. With that, he demanded an apology from Moulitsas, saying he wasn't going sit there and let " you try to insult me that way." When Moultisas refused to apologize, Tancredo pulled out his earpiece and left the set. Guest host David Shuster, who opened the show with a passionate commentary about the rally and, especially, the Dachau sign, invited Tancredo to return to the show.

VIDEO AFTER THE JUMP

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Ugly Politics of Mass Killings
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on November 7, 2009 at 2:13 PM.

FUNNY THING ABOUT RIGHT WINGERS

So far, I haven't heard anyone on the right saying that the authorities shouldn't charge Malik Nidal Hassan with a hate crime because doing so would be a totalitarian, Orwellian criminalization of a thoughtcrime. But surely they'll want to make that point firmly and decisively in the days to come ... right?

****

And I'm confused. Right-wingers (NewsBusters in particular) have told us for years that the "liberal media" doesn't like to acknowledge certain demographic information about certain suspects in horrible crimes ... but right now CNN is prominently highlighting a convenience-store surveillance video showing Hasan in a traditional Middle Eastern robe and skullcap (the story is headlined "Fort Hood Suspect Seemed 'Cool, Calm, Religious'"), while the front pages of Talking Points Memo and the Huffington Post prominently feature stories that claim Nidal shouted "Allahu akbar!" before shooting (a claim made by Fort Hood's commanding officer in an interview on the allegedly arch-liberal NBC). How can this be? Where's the liberal cover-up? And if there's no cover-up, gosh, why isn't NewsBusters heaping these news outlets with praise?

(The same right-wingers, of course, went to great pains to make the case that James von Brunn, the man charged with shooting up the Holocaust Museum, was a liberal. But our side, naturally, is the guilty side.)

Palin Getting Paranoid? Alaska Quit-Bull Bans Laptops, Cell-Phones During Speech
Posted by Staff, AlterNet on November 7, 2009 at 11:05 AM.

CNN:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is set to deliver remarks at a Wisconsin Right to Life event Friday evening, one of the few speeches the former Republican presidential nominee will have given since she resigned the governorship last summer.

But Palin appears to be doing her best to keep a low profile on this trip: no press will be allowed into the Milwaukee auditorium where she will speak and those who have paid the $30 admittance fee are unable to carry in cell phones, cameras, laptops, or recording devices of any kind.

Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate told the Wisconsin Radio Network he finds all these restrictions "bizarre."

"You know, for someone who claims to be a rogue and isn't afraid of what other people think it really is sort of hypocritical to not let the media, the press cover your event."

Pat Boone Wants to Rid the White House of "Vermin"
Posted by David Neiwert, Orcinus on November 7, 2009 at 9:32 AM.

Well, we've known for some time that Pat Boone has gone wingnutty, but his latest column for the wingnutty WorldNetDaily is one of the most vile pieces of eliminationist rhetoric to come down the pike in awhile:

In time, it seems to happen to all older houses, no matter how well tended they may be.

All manner of parasites, vermin, roaches, rats, worms and termites find their way into the building. Long before they're detected, they infiltrate the walls, the floors, the roofs – and then chew their way into the structure, the supporting beams and the very foundation of the house itself. Silently, surreptitiously, whole communities of invaders make places for themselves, hidden but thriving, totally unknown by the homeowner.

Then, in time, tell-tale signs are seen. Little droppings, discolored trails, proliferating piles of residue appear in corners, on tabletops, little hanging sacs from ceilings – alarming evidence that the grand old dwelling has been invaded. Decidedly unwelcome creatures have made this place their home, and by their very existence will eventually destroy the house and bring it to ruin.

What can be done, when you learn that your house has already been invaded?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

If Tea-Baggers Are Such Populists, Why not Vent Fury Over Flu Shots Going to Wall Street While Kids Go Without?
Posted by Jill C., Brilliant at Breakfast on November 7, 2009 at 4:12 AM.

Instead of going to Washington and mindlessly parroting what right-wing talk show hosts tell them, much of which is flat-out wrong, perhaps the teabaggers who marched on Washington would be better served directing their outrage at this:

Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked Health and Human Service (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to investigate why the Center for Disease Control (CDC) approved the distribution of the H1NI vaccine to Wall Street firms at a time when the vaccine is unavailable to most Americans.

 

Recent news reports indicate 13 companies, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Time Warner, have been cleared to receive the vaccine.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

(VIDEO) More Torture by Taser: Cops Zap Man Offering No Resistance
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on November 7, 2009 at 12:00 AM.

Police officers commonly say that tasers are needed to get people under control for their own and everyone else's safety. And they insist they they don't use it as a form of punishment.

PETA Teams Up With Glenn Beck to Bash Al Gore
Posted by Tara Lohan, AlterNet on November 6, 2009 at 5:39 PM.

I know it's easy to get jealous when someone's got an Oscar, a Nobel, and some pretty big job titles on their resume, but really, the Gore bashing has got to end.

The New York Times took a swipe at Al Gore and his new book this week and now Glenn Beck and PETA's Ingrid Newkirk are teaming up. In some ways it is a perfect match between two people who seem to thrive on generating controversy.

Beck chastised Gore for not giving up meat eating altogether (even though he's admitted to cutting back a lot) and told him it was time for soy milk and tofurkey. Then he invited Newkirk on the show to tag team even though Beck admitted that he doesn't agree with a thing PETA says. Although he did give PETA and the NRA a shout out for not catering to special interests (huh?), so I guess Newkirk should feel good about that.

I know that PETA's main task seems to be to get people really pissed off, but I still think it's a shame to see Newkirk sinking so low as to cozy up to Glenn Beck. The truth is though, what they're talking about is actually a tough issue. There's a lot of really good evidence that eating meat -- at least the way we mostly do it in factory farms -- is bad for the planet. If you've ever seen a factory farm (or smelled one) that would probably seem like a no-brainer.

But there's also some good evidence pointing out that growing soy -- at least the way we do it but slashing rainforests and piling on the pesticides -- is actually bad for ecosystems, water, climate and the whole shebang. And some of that soy we area eating (actually in the US 87 percent of it is genetically modified), some of it is being used for biofuel and some of it is being fed to livestock. But mostly all of it is an environmental disaster.

Umbra Fisk from Grist breaks down a lot of the research and writes:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Climate Change: The Grown-Ups Are Back In Charge
Posted by Raquel Brown, The Media Consortium on November 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM.

Senate Democrats in the Environment and Public Works Committee finally squelched Republican boycotts and passed a version of the climate bill Wednesday morning. Last week, Republican senators refused to show up to committee hearings in an attempt to stall the bill. Brian Beutler of Talking Points Memo notes that EPW has now set “the stage for other panels to amend the legislation.”

To no one’s surprise, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., immediately complained about the legislation on Fox News. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., was the lone Democrat that did not vote, which Inhofe interpreted as a sign that the bill is “dead.”

Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., was much more upbeat and argued that the Republican boycott actually marred their credibility. “The absence of the Republicans during the Environmental Protection Agency’s presentation was a clear message that their criticism of the EPA analysis was not a substantive one,” Boxer said. “We are pleased that despite the Republican boycott, we have been able to move the bill.”

Inhofe also condemned Boxer for passing the bill through the committee unconventionally. Aaron Wiener writes for The Washington Independent that “Without a quorum that included at least two Republicans, the committee was unable to open formal debate on amendments to the bill. But passage requires just a simple majority, and Chairman Boxer and the Democratic leadership chose to forgo amendments in order to move the legislation quickly, given that the end of the GOP boycott was nowhere in sight.”  Luckily, now that the bill is moving on to other committees, Inhofe and his Republican EPW colleagues will no longer have much of a say on the bill’s final outcome.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Right-Wing "News" Site Falsely Claims Fort Hood Shooter "Advised Obama Transition"
Posted by Staff, Media Matters for America on November 6, 2009 at 4:03 PM.

WorldNetDaily falsely claimed that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan "advised Obama transition" in the headline of an article by Jerome Corsi highlighting his listing as a "participant" in a report for the Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) at George Washington University's Presidential Transition Task Force. However, Corsi himself acknowledges that there is no evidence that "the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition" -- indeed, the Task Force was initiated in April 2008. Moreover, while Hasan was listed as one of approximately 300 "Task Force Event Participants" in the report's appendix, HSPI has reportedly said he was not a "member" of the Task Force, and was listed because he RSVP'd for several of the group's open events.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

On the Lookout for Attempts to Indoctrinate Our Schoolchildren? Try the American Coal Industry!
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 6, 2009 at 2:57 PM.

Friends of Coal (FOC) is a front group created by the West Virginia Coal Association. Its mission is to “inform and educate West Virginia citizens about the coal industry” and “provide a united voice” for the industry. To make dirty coal seem appealing, FOC has sponsored or initiated license plates, football games, basketball practices, plane jumps, fishing events, and scholarships.

FOC is now selling coal to children. ThinkProgress obtained the “Let’s Learn About Coal” coloring book, which asks children to unscramble statements about the “advantages” of coal, such as “Than coal other cheaper is fuels” (”Coal is cheaper than other fuels”). Kids also learn that coal is “important” and “provides jobs for lots of people!”:

The FOC Ladies Auxiliary has been handing the coloring book out to children around West Virginia as part of a “Coal in the Classroom” campaign.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »