Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
Afro-Netizen
All Spin Zone
Altercation
Americablog
And, yes, I DO take it personally
Another Iranian Online
August J. Pollak
Baghdad Burning
Barry Lando
Bloggrrrlz Gallery
Blondesense
Bob Geiger
Body and Soul
Boing Boing
Booman Tribune
BOP News
Bush Watch
BUZZFLASH
Carpetbagger
Clean Air Blog
Cool Hunting
Corrente
CrooksandLiars
Cursor
Dahr Jamail
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
DC Media Girl
DemiOrator
Direland
Echidne of the Snakes
Elayne Riggs
Eschaton
Fact-esque
Falafel Sex, and Other Things Best Left Unsaid
Farai Chideya
Feminist Peace Network
Feministe
Feministing
Frameshop
Gristmill
Huffington Post
Hullabaloo
Informed Comment
James Wolcott
Jesus General
Lady Jayne's Blog
Liberal Oasis
Mad Kane
Mahablog
Majikthise
Media Girl
Media is a Plural
MediaCitizen
Metafilter
Michael Berube
MyDD
News Dissector
News For Real
Norbizness
Oliver Willis
Pacific Views
Pandagon
Political Animal
PopPolitics.com
PR Watch
Prometheus 6
Raed in the Middle
RH Reality Check
Robert Greenwald
Roger Ailes
Rox Populi
Sadly, No!
Seeing the Forest
Shakespeares Sister
Sirotablog
Sisyphus Shrugged
skippy the bush kangaroo
Slacktivist
SpeakSpeak
Stay Free!
Steve Gilliard
Talking Points Memo
TalkLeft
TBogg
Thatcoloredfellasweblog
The Bilerico Project
The Hutchinson Political Report
The Republic of T
The Revealer
The Sideshow
The Swift Report
Think Progress
This Modern World
TikvahGirl
Trish Wilson
War and Piece
Waveflux
What She Said!
Whiskey Bar
Working Families Vote 2008
PEEK
Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form
Who Is Wiser, Thomas Friedman or a Dead Crustacean?
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on December 2, 2009 at 8:13 AM.
I'm sure you either read it - sorry! -- or already heard about the latest by the New York Times' Thomas Friedman, AKA the "Mustache of Understanding":
Yes, after two decades in which U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny — in Bosnia, Darfur, Kuwait, Somalia, Lebanon, Kurdistan, post-earthquake Pakistan, post-tsunami Indonesia, Iraq and Afghanistan — a narrative that says America is dedicated to keeping Muslims down is thriving.
But you may have missed the Medium Boiled Lobster, writing on Fafblog:
Indeed, it remains America's solemn duty as the leader of the free world to bring freedom and security to the Afghan people by hunting down and eliminating the Afghan people... But we must also remember that the Afghans, menaced even though they are by the evil of the Afghans, are not blameless here. Have they sufficiently appreciated our efforts to kill them? No, they have not. Have they effectively and efficiently rebuilt their nation whenever we've had cause to blow it up? No, they have not. Have they become full and effective participants in the ongoing mission to kill them? No, they have not. It is long past time for the people of Afghanistan to step up their efforts to kill themselves, and not merely rely on American generosity to finish the job for them.
Both are qualified to be leading public intellectuals in the U.S., but the second author tastes better with drawn butter.
More GOP Hypocrisy on Health Care (Video)
Posted by Victor Zapanta, Think Progress on December 2, 2009 at 6:15 AM.
On the Senate floor yesterday, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made a request on behalf of Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) that senators proposing amendments to the health care bill place the text of their amendments online. Immediately following Reid’s request, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) took to the floor to object to the transparency proposal. Enzi’s argued that, although the bill appears to lead to greater transparency, “we can also see ways that this can limit the ability for the minority to offer amendments.” Watch it:
Lincoln “issued a statement chastising Republicans for blocking efforts at government transparency.” Just weeks ago, the Republican Party lined up to accuse Democrats of opposing greater transparency. In October, the RNC and the House Republican Conference churned out YouTube videos to attack Democrats for working “behind closed doors.” A week later, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) attacked Democrats, saying that “instead of listening to the American people, Democrats hid behind closed doors.” Similarly, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell recently complained that the health care bill was “drafted behind closed doors.”
DC Council Passes Marriage Equality, 11-2
Posted by Adam Bink, Open Left on December 2, 2009 at 5:00 AM.
This morning the DC Council passed legislation legalizing marriage equality. The vote was 11-2. The two against were former Mayor Marion Barry and Yvette Alexander. Neither vote was surprising, and both had been active in trying to weaken the bill or put it to a ballot vote. What is heartening is how many Councilmembers stood up for equality today, and stood firm in the face of the Washington Archdioecese's recent disingenuous blackmail threats to cut off charity services.
On the religious note, even better was that the lead sponsor, Chairman Mendelson, adopted a proposed amendment by GLAA, one of the local LGBT activist groups, and other supporting organizations. It would delete the words "same-sex" from the following bill text (bolding mine):
"a religious society, or a nonprofit organization which is operated, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, facilities, or goods for a purpose related to the solemnization or celebration of a same-sex marriage, or the promotion of same-sex marriage through religious programs, counseling, courses, or retreats, that is in violation of the religious society's beliefs."
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Beat the Pundits ... Here's the Afghanistan Speech, What Do You Think?
Posted by Staff, AlterNet on December 1, 2009 at 6:19 PM.
Remarks of President Barack Obama—As Prepared for Delivery
The Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan
United States Military Academy at West Point
December 1, 2009
Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan – the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here – at West Point – where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.
To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban – a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them – an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 – the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form
Corporate Grinch: GE Threatens to Kill Christmas Rather than Negotiate with Workers in Good Faith
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on December 1, 2009 at 4:27 PM.
So, it's a liberal War on Christmas, is it?
Press release:
NBC’s failure to bargain fairly with the union that represents nearly 3,000 of the network’s producers, writers and technicians has put the lighting of the world's most famous Christmas tree at serious risk. In an attempt to save the annual “Christmas in Rockefeller Center” special, the union launched a new website today – http://NBCStoleChristmas.com – that highlights the “Grinch” within NBC.
National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (NABET-CWA) Local 11 president Ed McEwan said the union is angry about stalled negotiations for a new contract. NABET-CWA’s prior contract expired in March, and there has been very little progress since talks began more than a year ago. In the meantime, management has grown increasingly hostile, ignoring the concerns of the union’s membership.
“We can’t let the Grinch at NBC steal another Christmas from thousands of honest working people,” said McEwan. “This charade must stop. Christmas is supposed to be a time of goodwill, but the network’s management is trying to hide behind their fancy lights while leaving their employees in the dark.”
Hoping that further contract negotiation dates can be set without a full strike during NBC’s Christmas tree lighting, the broadcast technicians are using online advertising and text messaging to promote their efforts. Updates on NABET-CWA’s campaign are available by texting “Grinch” to 228466 or by registering their cell phone numbers at the new website.
The union’s principal goal is to protect job security from the network’s attempts to dismantle how technical work is assigned, so that NBC’s employees who primarily perform those tasks are allowed in the bargaining unit.
In an earlier life, I used to do film and video production and post-production in New York. Union crews are good, fast, know their shit and cost a lot. We'd always work with them, and we'd build their highly skilled labor costs into the budget. We'd make money, the crew would make money, and our clients would not only get good product but, ultimately, whether they knew it or not, better value for their dollar than if we had paid peanuts to hire some monkeys.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Why Is Politico Coddling Dick Cheney Again?
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on December 1, 2009 at 3:45 PM.
CHENEY STENOGRAPHY.... By some accounts, White House aides aren't especially impressed with Politico. It's understandable.
Take this morning, for example, where the lead Politico story, kicking off coverage of President Obama's speech on the future of U.S. policy in Afghanistan, is a lengthy chat with the corrupt, incompetent clown who helped create the mess the president is trying to clean up.
On the eve of the unveiling of the nation's new Afghanistan policy, former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed President Barack Obama for projecting "weakness" to adversaries and warned that more workaday Afghans will side with the Taliban if they think the United States is heading for the exits. [...]
Cheney rejected any suggestion that Obama had to decide on a new strategy for Afghanistan because the one employed by the previous administration failed.
Cheney was asked if he thinks the Bush administration bears any responsibility for the disintegration of Afghanistan because of the attention and resources that were diverted to Iraq. "I basically don't," he replied without elaborating.
And in response, Politico didn't elaborate either. Sure, the piece does a fine job of publishing all of the various, baseless attacks against the White House trying to clean up Cheney's messes, but the article makes no meaningful effort to tell the reader why the depraved rhetoric falls somewhere between literally unbelievable and hopelessly insane.
During the interview, Cheney laced his concerns with a broader critique of Obama's foreign and national security policy, saying Obama's nuanced and at times cerebral approach projects "weakness" and that the president is looking "far more radical than I expected."
"Here's a guy without much experience, who campaigned against much of what we put in place ... and who now travels around the world apologizing," Cheney said. "I think our adversaries -- especially when that's preceded by a deep bow ... -- see that as a sign of weakness."
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Texas Toy Drives Check the Immigration Status of Families Before Handing Out Gifts
Posted by Ryan Watkins, Think Progress on December 1, 2009 at 2:27 PM.
Several charities in the Houston area are checking the immigration status of needy families before giving out toys this holiday season. The charities claim that given the jump in demand this year — over 30,000 children have registered with the Salvation Army’s Angel Tree program, an increase of over 20 percent from last year — they want to be “good stewards” and get the donations to people who are in the country legally. From the Houston Chronicle:
In a year when more families than ever have asked for help, several programs providing Christmas gifts for needy children require at least one member of the household to be a U.S. citizen. Others ask for proof of income or rely on churches and schools to suggest recipients.
The Salvation Army and a charity affiliated with the Houston Fire Department are among those that consider immigration status, asking for birth certificates or Social Security cards for the children. [...]
The Outreach Program requires parents to show photo identification and birth certificates or Social Security cards for the children. [The Outreach Program's Lorugene] Young said she makes an exception if parents can show they have applied for legal status or that a child is enrolled in school.
2011: Obama's Plan for Escalation and Withdrawal in Afghanistan
Posted by Meteor Blades, Daily Kos on December 1, 2009 at 1:59 PM.
In a background-only White House briefing – no names for publication - administration officials this afternoon provided some details on what Barack Obama, in his role as Commander in Chief, will say in his speech on Afghanistan in a few hours.
He will reaffirm his core goal as announced in March – to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" al Qaeda and prevent their return.
To carry out the policies the President has chosen, 30,000 more U.S. troops will be sent, adding to the 33,000 sent since March, and setting the full deployment at 98,000. By week’s end, NATO’s secretary-general is expected to announce a still-undecided troop increase from that organization. As there are 42,000 NATO troops already in place, the increase is likely to bring the full array of Western forces in Afghanistan close to 150,000.
The U.S. troops will be in place by summer 2010. It was pointed out that this is faster than any of the options the President was presented with by General Stanley McChrystal in his strategic assessment presented in late August.
These troops will focus on defeating al Qaeda and reversing the momentum of the Taliban, which has been steadily growing ever since the Bush administration moved resources to the Iraq war in 2003. They will seek to secure key areas in the southern portion of the country, train Afghan military forces and try to build a new partnership with the government.
The plan is to begin transferring authority for security to Afghan forces by July 2011. But it was made repeatedly clear that this is only the starting date for such a transfer. The speed of the transfer, and its completion date, will depend on progress on the ground. While some have said that three years is the goal, an administration official that no such number will be included in the speech. After July 2011, how fast the process runs will be the President's call.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Why Do Mainstream Media Suck Up to Pastor Rick Warren?
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on December 1, 2009 at 1:27 PM.
One of the most maddening things about covering the religious right as a progressive journalist is watching the mainstream media suck up to the leading figures of the religious right, as if, because they are self-declared men of God, they are somehow beyond reproach. Nowhere was this phenomenon more on display than this weekend's edition of NBC's Meet the Press, in host David Gregory's interview of Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, and author of the Purpose-Driven Life.
The premise for the interview was not anything newsworthy that Warren had done, but rather the True Meaning of Thanksgiving, which Warren was happy to illustrate with examples of his own generosity. Warren even compared himself, with no challenge from the host, to King Solomon. And MTP producers gave Warren a full half of the program, without any balance offered by a liberal religious figure.
In fact the one newsworthy thing Warren has done recently -- lend tacit support to a proposal for the criminalization of homosexuality in Uganda -- never came up in Gregory's interview. This controversy has been around for a while. At Religion Dispatches, Sarah Posner reported it on November 3, and the think tank Political Reseach Associates issued an October 29 press release calling on Warren to denounce the draconian law, which would include the death penalty for HIV-infected people who have sex of any kind, and would "authorize...life imprisonment for gay sex," according to Posner, who called Warren for comment on the law. What she got back was a statement from Warren saying he took no position on the Uganda law, which would also criminalize organizing for LGBT rights.
The closest Gregory came to this issue was to ask Warren if his AIDS-mitigation work had altered his views of gay people:
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
GA Jail Goes Pink to Deter Repeat Offenders
Posted by Tara Lohan, AlterNet on December 1, 2009 at 12:45 PM.
This may be one of the most asinine things I've heard yet, but the sheriff of Georgia's Ben Hill County jail has decided to make everything in the jail pink:
Pure Pepto Bismol Pink will cover every wall inside the jail.
"We are also going to have pink shower shoes, pink wash clothes, pink towels, pink sheets and pink blankets," said jail administrator Martin Hough.
If you're wondering why:
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form
Someone Is Finally Taking Our Busty Bikini-Clad Barista Crisis Seriously
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on December 1, 2009 at 12:25 PM.
Like most straight dudes, I simply hate breasts on attractive young women.
So this comes as quite a relief to me:
Laws aimed at shielding the public from X-rated behavior by employees and customers at drive-through espresso stands are scheduled for a possible vote at a Snohomish County Council hearing this week.
A licensing ordinance would brand businesses adult entertainment if baristas bare too much flesh. The county also is considering a tougher version of its criminal law on lewd conduct. The new rules would apply to all businesses, not just the ones peddling cups of Joe.
[Hat-tip to Oliver Willis, who often offers sober dispatches from the hot-chick newsbeat.]
It's interesting how our perspectives shape the way we read a story like this one. I approached it with the assumption that it was going to be about just the usual 'won't somebody please think of the children!' conservative hypocrisy about sexual morality.
But then I realized that only one of the two measures described in the story really fits that description, and I actually have no truck with the other.
This first one, expanding the definition of "lewd behavior" in the criminal code, seems superfluous (there are already laws against indecent exposure). And if it's not an abridgment of citizens' 1st Amendment rights, it at least provides a slippery-slope in that direction:
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form
Protesters Drown Out Hate-Mongering Arizona Sheriff With Pro-Immigration Version of "Bohemian Rhapsody"
Posted by Byard Duncan, AlterNet on December 1, 2009 at 11:14 AM.
The racist follies and unabashed media whoredom of Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio have been thoroughly documented (see here and here), and are certainly no joke. The man has been the target of more than 2,700 civil rights complaints and has neglected around 40,000 felony warrants so as to better “crack down” on illegal immigration. Just last February, he paraded a group of shackled people through Phoenix in order to promote his reality TV program.
Clearly a bad dude. The type of super-villain, it so happens, who deserves to be drowned out by a pro-immigrant take on Bohemian Rhapsody, sung by around 100 protesters at an ASU event. Via the Phoenix New Times:
The following are some of the lyrics sung by about a half-dozen warblers, lyrics that ultimately caused both the esteemed journalists and Arpaio to rise from their seats and call it a day. Play the Queen song in your head as you read:
Is this legitimate? Is this atrocity? Caught up in politics. No sense of reality. Open your eyes. Look down to the south and see...The border stops brown folks, they cannot cross the line. But its easy come, easy go, for the rich, n' their cargo. Anyway the migrants flow, doesn't really matter to me..To me...
Now jump to the big finish, double-time:
So you think you can jail me and spit in my eye. So you think you can hate me and leave me to die. Oh Arpeeo-cant do this to me Arpeeo. Just gotta get out-just gotta get out of Tent City. Media only matters, Anyone can see. Attention only matters. Ego only matters to he...
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Positioning for Re-Election, Many Dems Have Begun Criticizing Obama's Afghan Escalation
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on December 1, 2009 at 10:00 AM.
Even before President Obama formally announces his plan to surge more than 30,000 additional U.S. troops into Afghanistan, Democrats who want to win elections are campaigning against it.
The next big election for Democrats is the Massachusetts primary organized to fill the U.S. Senate seat of the late U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy.
The leading candidates in next Tuesday's primary are scrambling to appeal to the party's base voters in a state that gave overwhelming support to Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election.
But the candidates are not presenting themselves as enthusiastic backers of the president's military adventuring abroad.
In fact, they are doing the opposite.
Congressman Mike Capuano, who has attracted the support of anti-war activists in groups such as Progressive Democrats of America, is up on television with a commercial that trumpets his anti-war stance.
In it, the congressman recalls his vote against authorizing the war in Iraq and then says: "Now there's a call for more troops in Afghanistan, but the questions remain: What's our mission? How do we define success? And what's our exit strategy? Without the right answers to those questions, I will never vote to send more of our sons and daughters to war. Never!"
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Harlem Gospel Choir Pulls Out of Glenn Beck Event
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on December 1, 2009 at 8:40 AM.
The renowned Harlem Gospel Choir was scheduled to perform the opening act for the simulcast film of Glenn Beck’s novel “The Christmas Sweater — A Return to Redemption,” which premiers Thursday in theaters nationwide. But the choir has pulled out of the event, citing financial reasons. However, the New York Daily News reports that the likely motivation for the choir’s decision has more to do with Beck’s hateful statements:
James Rucker, executive director of Color for Change — which has helped persuade more than 80 advertisers to ditch Beck’s show — said the group did an about-face after he called the choir.
“We wanted to make sure they understood who Beck was,” Rucker said. “We believe their mission is about spreading the Gospel and and promoting harmony, and we thought Beck was the antithesis of that.” […]
Rucker sent the choir excerpts from some of Beck’s shows, including one where he said President Obama “has a deep-seated hatred for white people.”
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form
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 »