PEEK

Buzz, perspectives, insight and news from AlterNet

GOP Leaders Flex Their Hypocrisy Muscles, Start Bawling Over Harry Reid's "Slavery" Comment
Posted by Eclectablog, Daily Kos on December 8, 2009 at 8:36 AM.

Oh, the faux shock. Oh, the feigned outrage. Republicans and other conservatives have themselves all adither over Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid's comments comparing opponents of health reform to those who opposed the abolition of slavery.

"It's playing the race card!" exclaimed Michelle Malkin!

"It's outrageous!!!," yelled Rush Limbaugh!

"He played 'that race card, that slavery card, that civil rights card'," shouted Michael Steele.

Funny, isn't it? Whenever a Republican makes some blatantly racist comment, they immediately hide behind the mantra that "you can't say anything about black people or they accuse you of playing the race card." Then, when Reid says something mentioning slavery, they accuse HIM of playing "that race card, that slavery card, that civil rights card".

Hypocrites.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Eric Cantor on How to Create More Jobs: Umm...Create More Jobs!
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on December 8, 2009 at 7:25 AM.

ERIC CANTOR, POST TURTLE.... House Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) visited the conservative Heritage Foundation last week to unveil what he called "a no-cost jobs plan." Andrew Leonard summarized the pitch: "Cut regulations. Freeze spending. Cut taxes. No new taxes. That's the plan."

It was, of course, the Bush/Cheney agenda -- which helped get us in this mess in the first place -- warmed over.

A week later, Cantor appeared at the Economist's World in 2010 conference. The frequently-confused GOP leader said his party has plenty of important "big ideas" and policy proposals. The Economist's Daniel Franklin asked Cantor to identify the Republicans' big idea on jobs. Pat Garofalo reports that Cantor couldn't think of anything specific.

FRANKLIN: What is the big idea? "Jobs" is not an idea.

CANTOR: The big idea is to get, to get, to produce an environment where we can have job creation again.

I almost feel bad for the guy. Cantor was elected to Congress before he was able to learn anything about public policy, and was put in the GOP leadership before he could speak intelligently about any issue.

Eric Cantor as a congressional leader is a classic example of a post turtle -- you know he didn't get up there by himself; he obviously doesn't belong up there; he can't get anything done while he's there; and you just want to help the poor, dumb thing down.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

New Report Probes Suspicious Guantanamo Suicides
Posted by Staff, AlterNet on December 8, 2009 at 5:00 AM.

Over at TalkLeft, Jeralyn reports:

Seton Hall University School of Law's Center for Policy & Research has released a new report on the Guantanamo suicides. You can read the full report, Death in Camp Delta, here (pdf). From the press release:

[T]his report highlights the derelictions of duty by officials of multiple defense and intelligence agencies who allowed three detainees to die and elected not to conduct a proper investigation into the cause of the deaths.

[More...]

The three detainees were each reported to have been found hanging in his separate cell shortly after midnight on June 10, 2006. According to the government’s own autopsies, each detainee had been hanging unobserved for a minimum of two hours. The deaths went unnoticed despite the constant supervision of five guards who were responsible for only 28 inmates in a lit cell block monitored by video cameras. According to Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), each detainee should have been observed a minimum of once every 10 minutes by the guards. Despite clear violations of the SOP, no guards were ever disciplined.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Real Reason Obama Is Escalating In Afghanistan
Posted by Christian Parenti, The Nation on December 8, 2009 at 4:30 AM.

The real goals of the Afghanistan escalation are domestic and electoral. Like Lyndon Johnson, who escalated in Vietnam, Obama lives in mortal fear of being called a wimp by Republicans.

To cover his flank and look tough in the next U.S. election, Obama is expanding the war in Afghanistan. To look strong in front of swing voters, he will sacrifice the lives of hundreds of U.S. soldiers, allow many more to be horribly maimed, waste a minimum of $30 billion in public money and in the process kill many thousands of Afghan civilians.

It is political theater, nothing else. What are the other possible explanations for Obama's escalation? And why has he pledged to start drawing down the new deployment after only a year of fighting?

Is it to get the job done? To rebuild Afghanistan? To kill Osama bin Laden and crush Al Qaeda? No, all those goals are nearly impossible. And Al Qaeda is too small and internationally defused to destroy.

Some say the Afghanistan war and the escalation are about building a pipeline to export gas from Central Asia. Nonsense -- only a maniac would invest large sums of money in building a pipeline there. In the late 1990s the Argentine firm Bridas and the U.S. firm Unocal jockeyed for the right to build such a project. But that dream, always tentative, has evaporated. It will be many decades, at best, before Afghanistan is safe enough to host a new, foreign-owned gas pipeline.

Others say the Afghanistan war is about establishing US military bases to menace China, Russia and Iran. Indeed, because of its occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. now has bases on either side of Iran and small bases in Central Asia. But these do not require this escalation.

The real purpose of these 30,000 soldiers is to make Obama look tough as he heads toward the next U.S. presidential election.

As a landlocked, underdeveloped, fragmented buffer state with few resources, Afghanistan has long served as a means to get at other issues. Consider the history of how the United States has used Afghanistan.

First, during the cold war Jimmy Carter and then Ronald Reagan used the country as the Soviet "bear trap." Later, George W. Bush used it to trampoline into Iraq. The Bush administration discussed regime change in Iraq at one of its first cabinet meetings. Among other things, the administration wanted direct economic control, and indirect geostrategic control, over Iraq's vast oil wealth. That has been partially accomplished, as witnessed by the recent Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell deals there.

The only credible way into Iraq was via Afghanistan. On September 15, 2001, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz actually suggested that the United States skip an invasion of Afghanistan and go directly to Iraq. But that would have made coalition-building impossible. After all, Al Qaeda was in the Taliban's Afghanistan.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Sex Workers Offer Freebies for Climate Change Delegates in Copenhagen
Posted by Tara Lohan, AlterNet on December 7, 2009 at 5:30 PM.

Finally, a sexy story about climate change. As the big talks have finally kicked off, here's one of the lighter stories I've read about what's happening over there.

This is from AFP:

Prostitutes of a Danish sex workers association will offer their services for free to delegates of the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, an association official told AFP Saturday.

Susanne Moeller said the move was meant to protest an anti-prostitution initiative undertaken by Copenhagen city hall.

The city, host of the December 7-18 UN climate summit, distributed postcards in Copenhagen's hotels that said "Be sustainable: Don't buy sex." It also sent letters to hotel managers inviting them to take measures to avoid prostitutes meeting clients in their establishments.

This is a bit odd considering that sex work in Denmark is legal. And surely, if you're involved in the difficult work of trying to save the planet from doom, you may want to engage in adult activities to relieve some stress, right?

Apparently, sex workers there agree and are fighting back against this discrimination. Here's more about their plan:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Nelson's Stupak-like Amendment Expected to Fail
Posted by Daniela Perdomo, AlterNet on December 7, 2009 at 4:21 PM.

Ben Nelson (D-NE) is moving forward with his attempt to include anti-abortion language in the Senate health care bill, and his amendment could be voted on as early as today.

The full text of the Nelson amendment confirms that it includes much of the same language as the one penned by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-NE) and included in the final House health care bill.

The key piece in both the Nelson and Stupak amendments is that absolutely no funds appropriated by health care reform can be used for abortion services. This would directly affect all women covered by the proposed government insurance plan, but as I wrote a couple weeks ago, we have good reason to believe that this effect would spillover to women covered by private insurance plans. If the Stupak/Nelson language makes it into the final health care bill, industry-wide abortion coverage could very well be phased out in the longer-term, endangering access to safe abortion services for all who can't afford to pay out of pocket.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Michael Tomasky v. Michael Moore: Whose Afghanistan View is More Imperialist?
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on December 7, 2009 at 3:00 PM.

As I've said before, are no good solutions for the mess that is Afghanistan. But there are some that are less bad than others.  That's why I offer qualified, tentative support for the U.S. military's surge in Afghanistan. The U.S. has done a lot to make that mess, going back to the CIA's role in creating the radical madrassahs -- the religious schools -- that gave birth to the militarized religious extremism one finds in Afghanistan today.

In his open letter to President Obama last week, filmmaker Michael Moore all but accused the president of imperialist designs in his plan to add an additional 30,000 troops to the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. When The Guardian's Michael Tomasky took issue with that characterization, Lindsay Beyerstein blogged (in a Majikthise post picked up by AlterNet), that Tomasky had it all wrong, and accused him of sneering at the presumably earnest Moore. (Well, Tomasky did accuse Moore of producing a gas-filled missive.)

Before I go further, allow me some full disclosure: Tomasky is a friend and my former bossman from the days when I was a columnist and blogger for The American Prospect. Beyerstein is a friend and colleague from my stint at The Media Consortium. Michael Moore is an acquaintance with whom I interviewed for a job some 20 or so years ago.  Don't really know him, but I loved Roger and Me.

Now that that's out of the way, I'm throwing in with Tomasky.

First, I think that the knee-jerk, anti-Afghanistan-war reaction of many on the left is no less imperialistic -- perhaps even more so -- than the case for staying in. I mean, really, how progressive is it to mess with the internal politics -- to the point of arming various factions the better to vanquish one's own enemy -- of an impoverished nation for 30 years, and then leave it broken and abandoned for the second time in three decades?

When progressives make the case that American dollars would be better put to use feeding Americans than helping Afghanistan create a nation out of the wreckage the U.S. helped to create, aren't we just saying that, despite the fact that we suck up more of the world's resources than we deserve, we're better and different than the Afghans? That they somehow deserved their fate? And now that our leaders have so screwed up the global economy that we're feeling it at home, we don't want to spend the money to fix what we broke?

Anti-war progressives are acting as if the U.S. had no history in Afghanistan prior to the 2001 invasion. In his open letter, Moore invokes the disastrous end met by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan as a parallel to the U.S.'s present involvement. He leaves out the part where the end met by the USSR came at the point of Stinger missiles provided by the U.S. to the religious warriors who formed the Soviet Union's opposition, and the U.S. abandonment of Afghanistan after the Soviet defeat.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Right-Wing Billionaire Funding Swift Boat Campaign Against Global Warming Science
Posted by Lee Fang, Think Progress on December 7, 2009 at 2:04 PM.

Right-wing billionaire David Koch, who along with his brother Charles owns the oil and gas empire Koch Industries, constantly presents himself as a champion of science. Next year, a wing of the Smithsonian will be named after him because of his generous donations. Indeed, in accepting Koch’s donations, the Smithsonian Human Origins Program director Rick Potts attempted to whitewash Koch’s philanthropist history:

POTTS: What we find in David Koch is a person who’s committed to doing things for the American public that has no relationship to politics

Koch apparently relishes this perception that his money buys. In an interview earlier this year, Koch pretended that he opposes organizations which politicize and distort science:

Q: What role do you think politics should play in educating the public about evolution?

KOCH: That’s an interesting question. I think politicians should really stay out of it and allow scientists to present the facts and discoveries. I hate to see it politicized.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Shorter Ross Douthat: Europe Wasn't Racist Enough, So Now It Should Worry About Brown Hordes
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on December 7, 2009 at 1:00 PM.

Shorter Ross Douthat: Europe wasn't racist enough, and so now they should be worried about the brown hordes. After arguing that European nations should have done more to restrict Muslim immigration, he concludes that while the end of the West is not near, there is still much to be fearful of:

This is cold comfort, though, if you have to live under the shadow of violence. Just ask the Swiss, who spent last week worrying about the possibility that the minaret vote might make them a target for Islamist terrorism.

They're right to worry. And all of Europe has to worry as well, thanks to the folly of its leaders -- now, and for many years to come.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Thomas Friedman Can't Stop Comparing Afghanistan to a "Special Needs Baby"
Posted by Liliana Segura, AlterNet on December 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM.

If you haven't heard -- and that's a big "if," considering it's everywhere -- New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has come up with a neat new way to understand the situation in Afghanistan. As Friedman metaphors go, it's sure to be a classic, a true stand-out even alongside his most mangled, ridiculous stabs at using figurative language to describe foreign policy. (Consider the time he wrote, about Iraq, “It’s OK to throw out your steering wheel, as long as you remember you’re driving without one.")

Friedman, anyway, is very proud of it. So proud, in fact, he has rolled it out at least twice in the past week.

"I tried to put this in a broader strategic context," he told Chris Matthews on "Hardball" on December 3rd. And where did that lead him?

Chris, as a country, we're like two out-of-work parents who just adopted a special-needs baby.

... Yikes.

So, maybe it a poor choice of words. Maybe after the segment, someone took Friedman aside and whispered that comparing whole countries to disabled infants is just a wee bit offensive -- especially when it comes from a supposed foreign policy expert from the country currently occupying it, a man whose ideas are so Important and Influential, he recently played a round of golf with the president of said occupying country.

Then again, maybe not.

Appearing on the Sunday news programs, Friedman again rolled out his Afghanistan-as-special-needs-baby metaphor, telling CNN's Fareed Zakaria:

I feel like we're like an unemployed couple who just went out and decided to adopt a special needs baby. You know, I mean, that's really kind of what we're doing. And that's like, whoa, you know. That terrifies me.

Yes, Friedman apparently gave it some thought after his "Hardball" episode and decided his metaphor is just right, it IS "kind of what we're doing."

Later, appearing on "Meet the Press" with David Gregory alongside another much-respected journalist, the Bush-chronicling Bob Woodward, Friedman gave the metaphor a rest, instead engaging in a little bit wordplay about the 2011 so-called withdrawal date.

MR. GREGORY:  Does a withdrawal date give the enemy an advantage?  Your analysis on what you've heard the answer on that.

MR. WOODWARD:  But I think, I mean, it's pretty clear that's a non-withdrawal withdrawal date.  Other words, they were talking about...

MR. GREGORY:  A non-denial denial.

MR. WOODWARD:  A non-denial denial.

MR. FRIEDMAN:  It's a known unknown.

MR. WOODWARD:  It, it's a starting point.

MR. GREGORY:  Yeah.

Two Pulitzer Prize winners at work here, folks. Be amazed.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Now for the Moment We've All Been Waiting For ... Copenhagen Talks Officially Begin
Posted by Brian Merchant, TreeHugger on December 7, 2009 at 10:35 AM.

And now, the moment we've all been waiting for--after months of anticipation, speculation, and debating, the global climate talks have officially begun in Copenhagen. TreeHugger is on the ground there, and will be bringing you breaking updates as news unfolds there. But for now, here's a quick primer on what's to be expected at COP15.

As you likely know, the intention of COP15 (the 15th Conference of the Parties) is to construct a framework for a global agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The original goal was to create a legally binding successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, but difficulties in negotiations have rendered that option infeasible. Now, the representatives from 180 nations around the world will instead work on trying to find a viable way forward.

One of the biggest hurdles has been the chasm between rich and developing countries--developing nations want aid and strong carbon reduction targets, and rich countries want them to agree to their own reduction targets before they do so.

But some positive news from the biggest developing nations--China, India, and Brazil--have encouraged the proceedings. Each has pledged to reduce carbon emissions on some level, and Obama has put forward an emissions reduction target based on the climate bill that passed the House of Representatives last summer. At 17% below 2005 levels, it's hardly what the international community was looking for--but it's progress nonetheless. Most importantly, hope seems to be in the air--real progress can be made in the coming days.

To get a better grasp of what's going on at COP15, here's some highly recommended reading:

Getting Up to Speed on COP15
If you've only got a few minutes, read COP15 : What's at Stake in Under 5 Minutes.

To get a sense of the urgency behind the proceedings, see COP15 : What It Means If We Fail to Prevent Climate Change

Paul Krugman's column An Affordable Truth is a well-reasoned call to climate action.

This Guardian editorial ran in 56 newspapers in 20 languages around the world, prodding world leaders to act. It's well worth a read.

Climate Progress's Copenhagen 101 is a useful primer and refresher as well.

And here's how you can help: 7 Best Ways to Help the World Fight Climate Change at COP15

Finally, watch live video of the events at the COP15 website. Gear up, it's going to be an eventful couple weeks.

Uganda's "Kill the Gays" Bill Tied To Rick Warren Mentor
Posted by Bruce Wilson, AlterNet on December 7, 2009 at 8:30 AM.

Critics have called the Anti Homosexuality Bill due to come before "Purpose Driven" Uganda's parliament in early 2010 a "kill the gays bill." As detailed in a new report from a religious right watchdog group, networks tied [1, 2,3] to Rick Warren's mentor and doctoral dissertation advisor have played a major role in organizing and inspiring Ugandan legislators who have spearheaded the legislation, which would mandate the death penalty for homosexual acts.

Homosexuality is already legally a crime in Uganda that can lead to lifetime prison sentences, but the new bill would require the death penalty for something termed "aggravated homosexuality" and might even lead to the execution of HIV positive Ugandan citizens. Rick Warren has refused to denounce the new bill.

As described in the report, Rick Warren's Dissertation Advisor Leads Network Promoting Uganda Anti-Gay Bill, both Rick Warren and C. Peter Wagner have called on their followers to take dominion over the globe, and Rick Warren's efforts in Uganda closely parallel those of his academic mentor Peter Wagner. Mainstream media has glossed over Rick Warren's political extremism but, as shown in a video at the end of this post, in April 2005, before thousands of his church members assembled at California's Anaheim Angels sport stadium, Rick Warren described a "stealth" program for global Christian dominion and encouraged his supporters to embrace the level of dedication shown by followers of Hitler, Lenin, and Mao. [see here for a partial transcript of Warren's April 17, 2005 speech at California's Anaheim Angels Stadium]

In March 2008 Rick Warren designated Uganda as the world's second officially "Purpose Driven" nation. The other is Rwanda. Rick Warren's doctoral thesis adviser C. Peter Wagner leads globally influential religious networks that include, as a prominent "prophet," Founder of TheCall Lou Engle - whose organization played a substantial role in passing California's anti-gay marriage Proposition Eight.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Hey Dems, That Senate Bill You Just Blocked Isn't Something to Celebrate
Posted by John Nichols, TheNation.com on December 7, 2009 at 7:45 AM.

Senate Democrats are celebrating the fact that, in their rush to come up with a scheme to pay for health-care reform, they have blocked an effort to preserve payments to home health agencies that provide nursing care and therapy to homebound Medicare beneficiaries.

Dumb move.

Medicare is one of the most popular, and well-run, health care programs in the world.

It may not be as efficient as it should be.

But this public program is dramatically better run than private insurance firms. And it produces far better results for Americans.

Perhaps most significantly, the Americans for whom Medicare produces results for those older Americans who remain the steadiest voters in off-year elections.

Of course, Saturday's attempt by Republican senators to restore about $42 billion in funding to Medicare's home health-care programs was cynical.

The Grand Old Party has a long history of wanting to slash rather than expand Medicare.

But the Democratic "strategy" of paying for health-care reform by nickle-and-diming Medicare is a fool's errand.

There is no question that Medicare programs can and should be improved. And, yes, efficiencies can be achieved -- especially if profiteering by the private-sector recipients of Medicare money is controlled. Senate Finance Committee chair Max Baucus, D-Montana, may even be right when he says of the assault on home health benefits that: "We are getting the waste out."

But, somehow, that just not have the same ring as the declaration by Senator Mike Johanns, R-Nebraska, that: "The cuts will hurt real people."

Np matter which side is right about the details of these particular cuts, a plan to pay for health-care reform by squeezing Medicare makes no sense when there are so, so, so many better places -- such as the bloated Department of Defense budget or allocated-but-as-yet-unused funds for "rescuing" financial-service industry speculators -- to find money to pay for expanding access to health care.

To begin the health-care debate in the Senate with Democrats celebrating their successful defense of Medicare cuts is madness. What next? Reform education by slashing day-care funding? Address the mortgage crisis by bailing out big banks? (Oops.)

After the GOP amendment failed -- having gained just 41 votes from Republicans and four centrist Democrats -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, tried Saturday to put things in the best light, saying, "The fact is that our bill will, in short, save lives, save money, and save Medicare," Reid said. "It will make it possible for each and every American to afford to live a healthy life. We can't afford not to do this."

But that the GOP television ads in next year's tightest Senate races -- including Reid's reelection race in Nevada -- will talk about Democrats cutting Medicare.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Glenn Beck's Holiday Film is a Box Office Flop
Posted by Space Cowboy, Shakesville on December 7, 2009 at 6:55 AM.

At $20 per ticket, Glenn thought he could get all of his fans and 9/12'ers to buy him a new condo by rallying to the movie theaters to see the film adaptation (i.e. a stage performance with one actor) of his book The Christmas Sweater -- A Return To Redemption. It looks like most people have better things to spend their money on:

In New York, Beck sold 17 tickets. In Boston, another 17. And in Washington, D.C., the hotbed of political activism, his tearful film drew only 30. [...]

The viewing in Lynnwood, WA -- the closest one to Beck's Mount Vernon hometown -- sold out several hours before the show began. Ten miles south, 70 out of 415 seats had been snagged in Seattle, a better turnout than other cities.

Excuse me for a second while I laugh hysterically.

OK. I'm back.

In case anyone is curious what kind of performance art Glenn is capable of, here's a review excerpt:

The Christmas Sweater may seem to be the same kind of run-of-the-mill holiday tale of redemption and hope that we see every year about this time. But considering that the climax involves right-wing talk-show host Glenn Beck, in the guise of a 12 year old version of himself, crying on the stage floor in the fetal position while a large black woman sings hymns to him, I think it might leave viewers with a few more questions than the usual family fare. [...]

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama Advisers Backpedal on Afghanistan: "There Is No Timetable;" "We're Not Talking About an Exit Strategy"
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on December 7, 2009 at 5:45 AM.

In his Afghanistan policy address last week, President Obama said we would "begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011." In a series of in-depth profiles of the behind-the-scenes conversations that took place in the lead-up to this pronouncement, the Washington Post and New York Times report that the President wanted a strategy to get in and get out.

"The military was told to come up with a plan to send troops quickly and then begin bringing them home quickly," the Times writes. “He had asked for a plan to deploy and pull out troops quickly,” writes the Post. Looking at a bell curve that laid out the timetable for the deployment and withdrawal of U.S. troops, Obama reportedly told his advisers: "I want this pushed to the left." The Times writes, "wIn other words, the troops should be in sooner, then out sooner."

But as administration officials touted the President's Afghanistan strategy this morning on the Sunday political talk shows, they underscored that the U.S. troops may not be coming home in 2011:

Gen. David Petraeus: "There's no timeline, no ramp, nothing like that." [Fox News Sunday]

National Security Adviser James Jones: "It is not a cliff. It is a glide slope. And so certainly, the President has also said we are not leaving Afghanistan." [CNN State of the Union]

Defense Secretary Robert Gates: "Well, first of all, I don't consider this an exit strategy. And I try to avoid using that term. I think this is a transition." [ABC This Week]

Watch a compilation:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »