PEEK

Buzz, perspectives, insight and news from AlterNet

Immigration: There's a Human Rights Crisis Within Our Borders
Posted by Jill Garvey, Imagine 2050 on November 2, 2009 at 4:47 PM.

Treatment of immigrant detainees tells of the shameless brokenness of America’s immigration system. Even the valiant efforts by some to lessen the suffering of families caught in the immigration web are stymied by the lack of rational immigration reform.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Cops Murder Drunk Trying to Avoid Tasering
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on November 2, 2009 at 3:17 PM.

A drunk man tries to get away from the tasering and so they shot him dead:

“We’re really concerned about a guy leaving the parking lot of Chuckwagon [Inn] on Evergreen Way — in a white Corvette, he’s extremely intoxicated,” Tribble told the dispatcher.

Several officers from the Everett Police Department soon arrived; among them were Troy Meade, an 11-year-veteran, and Officer Steven Klocker. Meade arrived at about 11:39 PM; Klocker reached the scene a little less than five minutes later.

At the time Officer Meade arrived, Meservey was hedged in by cars on either side of his Corvette, and cut off by a parking lot fence in front of him. Meade pulled up behind Meservey’s car, effectively boxing him in.

Joanne Hancock, who was smoking outside the Chuckwagon Inn when the police arrived, went inside to tell others concerned about Meservey that “They’ve got him!” The news prompted a small group of people to go outside to watch the arrest.

By the time Klocker arrived to provide “backup,” Meade had spent perhaps five minutes trying to convince Meservey to get out of the car. Klocker would later report that Meade’s tone and attitude toward the intoxicated man were “belligerent,” and that he “used language which made him [Klocker] uncomfortable because of the nearby civilians.”

“I don’t know why the f**k I am trying to save your dumb ass,” Meade snarled at Meservey, according to Klocker’s account.

Both Meade and Klocker withdrew their portable electro-shock torture devices (more commonly called Tasers). Meade, who was closest to the driver, shot Meservey with his Taser through the open driver’s side window, inflicting two separate strikes — one five seconds long, the other six seconds’ duration.

“Why in the f**k did you do that?” muttered the drunken man, who — predictably enough — didn’t want to stick around for any more abuse. He reached for his keys and started the car, but he had nowhere to go: It lurched over a concrete curb and ran into an unyielding chain-link fence.

Bear in mind, once again, that Meservey was entirely boxed in. It was possible, albeit with some difficulty, for Officer Meade to reach through the window and seize the car keys, rather than escalating the situation by using potentially deadly force.

But Meade’s pointless escalation didn’t stop with the two Taser strikes. After Meservey’s brief attempt to drive away, Meade — according to the official police account — took up a position near the left rear wheel of the Corvette, and pulled his gun. “Time to end this,” bellowed Meade, according to Klocker. “Enough is enough.” From a distance of six to seven feet, Meade fired eight shots into the car, murdering Meservey.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Packed Supreme Court Likely to Allow MORE Corporate Money in Politics
Posted by Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future on November 2, 2009 at 2:12 PM.

The Supreme Court may decide as soon as tomorrow on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case involving a corporate-funded anti-Hillary smear ad. It is likely the conservative-dominated activist court will overturn precedent and rule in favor of removing restrictions on corporate spending in elections, with terrible consequences. The 5-4 ruling will say that large companies injecting vast sums to sway election results is “free speech.” Imagine, vocal cords on a Cayman Islands post office box!

Common Cause has a report out, titled, Corporate Democracy: Potential fallout from a Supreme Court decision on Citizens United. "Lifting the ban on corporate political spending could unleash a flood of money into the political system and further diminish the public’s voice," the report says.

Really, imagine regular people trying to run for office while competing with the massive aggregated financial power of the biggest corporations. And imagine what will happen to anyone who dares to try to go up against their interests when they are able to openly spend any amount needed to get their way. I have come up with some examples of what to expect:

 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Rape Victim Confronts Vitter Over Vote for Impunity for Contractors
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 2, 2009 at 1:06 PM.

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones’ Halliburton/KBR co-workers gang-raped her while she was working in Baghdad. The company then detained her in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would be heard in private arbitration only.

Last month, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts if companies “restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” Although the amendment passed, 30 Republican senators voted against it.

One of the Republicans singled out for especially harsh criticism following the vote was Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), who has a track record of siding against women’s rights. The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that at a town hall meeting this past weekend, a constituent confronted Vitter about his vote. The woman, a rape victim, demanded that he explain why he opposed Franken’s amendment. Vitter refused to give her a straight answer:

WOMAN: It meant everything to me that I was able to put the person who attacked me [behind bars]. And what allowed me to do that was our judicial process. I showed up in court every day to make sure that happen

VITTER: And I’m absolutely supportive of any case like that being prosecuted criminally to the full extent of the law. [...]

WOMAN: But how can you support [a law] that tells a rape victim that she does not have the right to defend herself?

VITTER: Ma’am The language in question did not say that in any way shape or form.

WOMAN: But it is unconstitutional to have a law that says a woman does not have a right to defend herself.

Vitter then tried to deflect blame to the Obama administration, saying that it was also against the amendment. When the woman replied, “But I’m not asking Obama. I’m asking you,” Vitter retorted, “Do you think he’s in favor in rape?”

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

John Harwood Draws Delusional Equivalence Between Fox and Other Cable Nets
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on November 2, 2009 at 11:55 AM.

Writing for The New York Times, John Harwood concludes that everyone in cable news is partisan just like Fox, based on an utterly idiotic misreading of statistics:

...amid the Iraq war and President George W. Bush's re-election campaign, ... Fox News viewers had become 51 percent Republican and just 30.8 percent Democratic, while MSNBC viewers leaned Democratic by 41.7 percent to 40.4 percent. Viewers of CNN, Headline News, CNBC and Comedy Central grew slightly more Democratic.

By 2008-9, the network audiences tilted decisively, like Fox's. CNN viewers were more Democratic by 50.4 percent to 28.7 percent; MSNBC viewers were 53.6 percent to 27.3 percent Democratic; Headline News' 47.3 percent to 31.4 percent Democratic; CNBC's 46.9 percent to 32.5 percent Democratic; and Comedy Central's 47.1 to 28.8 percent Democratic.

Those ... trends track deepening partisan passions and decisions by cable news programmers to amplify strong opinions....

What's wrong with this analysis?

Let's say you're a hardcore alcoholic, of the beer-and-a-shot-and-hit-me-again-barkeep variety; you're fond of serious boozing and brawling. And let's say there are only two watering holes in town: an old-school saloon with a full supply of all the standard varieties of hooch and, across town, the All Girly Drink Cafe.

Which one are you going to go to -- all the time? And which one are you going to avoid -- all the time?

Well, John Harwood would interpret the lack of old-fashioned beer-and-a-shot drunks in the All Girly Drink Cafe as evidence that girly drinks don't contain alcohol.

Of course girly drinks contain alcohol -- just the same way CNN (home to Lou Dobbs) and MSNBC (home to Joe Scarborough) and Headline News (home to Glenn Beck until less than a year ago) and CNBC (epicenter of capitalism porn and site of the notorious Rick Santelli rant) contain conservatism.

But real conservatives want to go where they feel completely at home and can get what they want full strength. So they don't even bother with the other channels -- remember how abysmal Glenn Beck's ratings were at Headline News? -- because they'd rather go where everybody knows their name. In other words, viewership of the other channels isn't skewed Democrat because (MSNBC in prime time excepted) they're so damn liberal; it's skewed because Republicans won't watch these channels.

They're too busy puking in the toilet of the beer-and-a-shot bar that is Fox.

Civil War Today: Obama Highly Popular Everywhere Outside of Old South
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 2, 2009 at 10:31 AM.

I've spent far too much time in the South and been acquainted with far too many Southerners -- a number of liberal-minded folks among them -- to get into the stereo-typical South-bashing popular in some liberal quarters.

Yet, I must say, when I see results like these it does cause me to pause and wonder again why the North fought so hard to stay married to these people (I know -- we were an emerging power-couple and clung to the relationship for the money and influence):

BARACK OBAMA

	FAV	UNFAV	NO OPINION
ALL	56	36	8
NORTHEAST	84	5	11
SOUTH	28	67	5
MIDWEST	62	30	8
WEST	60	31	9
Rest of USA	68	23	9

The gap between opinions in the South and the rest of the country is nothing short of striking. According to the numbers in this poll question on Obama, it's greater than the divide that exists between whites and blacks or young voters and senior citizens.

Anyway, this comes via Oliver Willis, who adds:

President Obama is overwhelmingly popular in every region of the country except for the south. I am surely this is all entirely due to his economic policies and his radical social agenda and not any other thing at all, certainly not the color of his skin no way sir.

NY-23: GOP Rips Scozzafava ... Will She Switch Parties?
Posted by Kos , Daily Kos on November 2, 2009 at 10:29 AM.

I'll have more on this race later today, but one of the argument I made in my supposed "endorsement" of Republican Dede Scozzafava was the potential for her to switch parties and be a better Democrat than the pretend "Democrat" on our party's ballot line.

Ahem:

Two senior Democrats with ties to the White House praised Cuomo’s role in the operation, saying they were confident Scozzafava was on board after learning that she told Cuomo: "You're going to be the next governor of New York."

Also critical was Silver’s assurance, in a phone conversation with Scozzafava, that the state Assembly Democratic caucus would embrace her if she chose to switch parties, now viewed as a real possibility after her endorsement Sunday of Owens.

"Real possibility" indeed, given the vitriol Republicans are sending her way:

The reaction from the state party to the Scozzafava endorsement was swift and unsparing.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

400,000 People Landed on FBI's Terrorism 'Watch-List'?
Posted by Steven D., Booman Tribune on November 2, 2009 at 9:30 AM.

The FBI has a Terror Watch List of 400,000 names on it. Does that seem extreme to you? Because it seems absolutely insane to me.

Newly released FBI data offer evidence of the broad scope and complexity of the nation's terrorist watch list, documenting a daily flood of names nominated for inclusion to the controversial list.

During a 12-month period ended in March this year, for example, the U.S. intelligence community suggested on a daily basis that 1,600 people qualified for the list because they presented a "reasonable suspicion," according to data provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee by the FBI in September and made public last week. [...]

The ever-churning list is said to contain more than 400,000 unique names and over 1 million entries. The committee was told that over that same period, officials asked each day that 600 names be removed and 4,800 records be modified. Fewer than 5 percent of the people on the list are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. Nine percent of those on the terrorism list, the FBI said, are also on the government's "no fly" list.

I have to wonder if we are slowing turning our "security forces" into the equivalent of East Germany's notorious Stasi where everyone informs on everyone else and thee FBI keeps a record on everyone for any possible "anti-government" comment or association.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

McCain Adviser Who Attacked Dems' Health Reform Now Facing Insurance Nightmare
Posted by Igor Volsky, Think Progress on November 2, 2009 at 8:35 AM.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior policy adviser to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presidential campaign, “remains unemployed — and his COBRA health coverage is running out,” the Washington Post reports. “Irony of ironies, it gets worse. Holtz-Eakin, who is about to start shopping for insurance on the individual market, is 51. And he has one of those pesky ‘preexisting conditions’ that insurance companies often cite in denying coverage”:

Holtz-Eakin said he’s been paying about $1,000 a month to extend the private health insurance he received on McCain’s campaign through the government’s COBRA program, but that will expire in a few months. This is the first time in his life he has not had employer-provided health coverage. “I worry about where I go next in the way many Americans do,” he said.

During the campaign, Holtiz-Eakin fervently defended McCain’s proposal to shift more Americans out of their employer-sponsored coverage and into the individual health insurance market. “The key to real reform is to restore control over our health-care system to the patients themselves,” Holtz-Eakin said in August. “Instead of only getting it in the employer market, you would get it regardless of your source of insurance. And you get the same amount whether you’re rich or poor, $5,000 for every working family.”

Honduras Coup Regime: 'Break-Through Accord' Was Just a PR Ploy ... Zelaya Won't Return
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein, Majikthise on November 2, 2009 at 6:53 AM.

Yesterday [Ed: Friday], I expressed skepticism that the so-called breakthrough agreement to end coup-induced constitutional crisis in Honduras would actually bring deposed President Mel Zelaya back to power. 

An adviser to the leader of the coup regime basically admitted to Bloomberg that the prospect of a power-sharing government is just a public relations ploy.

Oct. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya won’t be restored to office under an accord that leaves the decision on his return to lawmakers, a vice-president of the Congress said.

“Zelaya won’t be restored,” Marcia Facusse de Villeda, an adviser to acting President Roberto Micheletti, said in a phone interview today, “But just by signing this agreement we already have the recognition of the international community for the elections.” [Bloomberg]

Via Greg Grandin in the Nation.

Will GOP Bigs Inch Left Next Year to Contain Tea-Party Revolt?
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on November 2, 2009 at 5:51 AM.

Following up on my last post: yes, obviously I agree to a great extent with Frank Rich, whose column today on the NY-23 congressional race describes the modern GOP as a "cult" in which moderates are pitilessly purged. But I don't really agree with this:

The right's embrace of [litmus-test wingnut Doug] Hoffman is a double-barreled suicide for the G.O.P.... It's still conceivable that the Democratic candidate could capture a seat the Republicans should own. But it's even better for Democrats if Hoffman wins. Punch-drunk with this triumph, the right will redouble its support of primary challengers to 2010 G.O.P. candidates they regard as impure....

The more rightists who win G.O.P. primaries, the greater the Democrats' prospects next year.

 

I lumped a lot of people together in my last post -- Michelle Malkin, Fox News -- but I think there are different strategies at work here. Malkin and some others (e.g., the Club for Growth) are going to stay pure in their wingnuttery long past 2010. But I think Fox and some others are going to pivot slightly to ther left after 2010. That's because 2010 and 2012 are going to be very different.

 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Great GOP Purge
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 2, 2009 at 5:00 AM.

THE GREAT PURGE.... In a district represented by a Republican lawmaker in every election since the Civil War, the national Republican Party not only endorsed the consensus choice of local GOP leaders in the special election in New York's 23rd, they also invested $1 million last month. Yesterday, on the verge of an embarrassing third-place defeat, she quit.

The right-wing inmates have decided it's their asylum now, and they're just getting started.

Republican Dede Scozzafava's decision Saturday to drop out of the New York special congressional election gave conservatives a big win, but may present a challenge for Republicans heading into next year's mid-term elections. [...]

The message from national and New York conservatives is unambiguous, though: This was an angry, energized base telling the national party that an anything-for-a-majority approach by GOP leaders is unacceptable. They are serious and deeply concerned about what's going on in Washington.

While the Empire State's unique ballot rules and a Republican candidate to the left of the GOP mainstream helped open the door for Hoffman's unlikely run, the national effect of this race may be to embolden more conservatives to take on party establishment-approved candidates who don't toe the ideological line.

And so the new phase of The Great Purge begins.

"I think it will empower tea party activists to look for moderate scalps in other districts," fretted one senior GOP strategist with national campaign experience. "The question is, Will we go through a period in the party where a great purge begins?" this strategist asked.

Hasn't it already? Scozzafava was a respected local Republican, with a record slightly to the right of most GOP state lawmakers in New York, but she was deemed insufficiently conservative. Sen. Arlen Specter was a Republican senator for nearly three decades, but he was deemed insufficiently conservative. Gov. Charlie Crist is supposed to be a rising GOP star from the nation's largest swing state, but his future is in doubt because he's been deemed insufficiently conservative. Eight House Republicans supported energy reform in July, and the base has targeted them for retribution. Newt Gingrich, for reasons I've never understood, is considered one of the GOP's great idea men. But the Tea Party/wingnut crowd has turned on him, too.

When Newt Gingrich is too moderate, and trying to pull the Republican Party closer to the American mainstream, it's safe to say there's something deeply wrong.

It's also safe to say the national Republican Party, which has suffered consecutive electoral failures and has seen its brand deteriorate further this year, has a problem for which there is no obvious solution.

Frank Rich reflected today on the right's Jacobins:

The right's embrace of Hoffman is a double-barreled suicide for the G.O.P. On Saturday, the battered Scozzafava suspended her campaign, further scrambling the race. It's still conceivable that the Democratic candidate could capture a seat the Republicans should own. But it's even better for Democrats if Hoffman wins. Punch-drunk with this triumph, the right will redouble its support of primary challengers to 2010 G.O.P. candidates they regard as impure. That's bad news for even a Republican as conservative as Kay Bailey Hutchison, whose primary opponent in the Texas governor's race, the incumbent Rick Perry, floated the possibility of secession at a teabagger rally in April and hastily endorsed Hoffman on Thursday.

The more rightists who win G.O.P. primaries, the greater the Democrats' prospects next year.... Though [Beck, Palin and their acolytes] constantly liken the president to various totalitarian dictators, it is they who are re-enacting Stalinism in full purge mode. They drove out Arlen Specter, and now want to "melt Snowe" (as the blog Red State put it). The same Republicans who once deplored Democrats for refusing to let an anti-abortion dissident, Gov. Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, speak at the 1992 Clinton convention now routinely banish any dissenters in their own camp.

 

 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

White House Visitors-Logs-Gate Sets Right-Wing KeyStone Cops Running
Posted by Roy Edroso, Alicublog on November 2, 2009 at 4:42 AM.

As you may have heard, the presentation of White House visitor logs for January-July led to some humorous gun-jumping by the usual gang of idiots.

The White House release is incomplete at this time, which I can't approve. (More names are expected later this year.) But I'm heartened that its content suggests the Administration knows how to drive its opposition nuts on purpose.

The White House went out of its way to alert readers that some names recorded in the logs were not those of the people you might think they are -- the visitors Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, for example, were not the famous preacher and radical, respectively.

Some nonetheless scream the news about Ayers and Wright without the explanation, Atlas Shrugs and Don Surber ("A vote for Obama was a vote for Ayers") prominent among them.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Why Don't We Have Universal Voter Registration?
Posted by dday, Hullabaloo on November 2, 2008 at 12:29 PM.

As the last of the lawsuits against ACORN gets laughed out of court, and as Republican Secretaries of State grumble about having to reinstate voters to the rolls, it's clear that, no matter what happens in the election, this insanity around voter registration and zombie lies about voter fraud has to stop. Exhibit A is the fact that John McCain's own head of his "Honest And Open Election Committee" can't name any evidence of voter fraud.

But Ronald Michaelson, a veteran election administrator and member of the McCain-Palin Honest and Open Election Committee, said in an interview that he could not name a single instance in which this had occurred.

“Do we have a documented instance of voting fraud that resulted from a phony registration form? No, I can’t cite one, chapter and verse,” he said [...]

Asked for specifics about the dangers of fake registration, Ben Porritt, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, provided links to 13 news clips and a 2003 Missouri state auditor’s report. Eleven of the cases did not involve registration fraud. Two recounted how felons appeared to have cast illegal votes under their own names. The lone example of a forged registration leading to an illegitimate vote comes from The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund, who in April 2006 wrote that a community organizer had improperly registered a noncitizen, and “someone eventually voted in [the noncitizen’s] name.”

Michaelson, who served for 27 years as executive director of the Illinois Board of Elections, said the sharp exchanges over registration fraud have undermined voters’ confidence in the electoral system.

“The fact that so many of these illegal registrations are being made public raises a perception in the minds of people,’’ he said. “That’s more of a general concern. You don’t want to perpetuate the idea that our election process is lacking integrity.”

Asked whether his own party was responsible for fostering that perception, Michaelson said, “Well, it doesn’t help. It has captured the attention of a lot of people.” Why do it, then? “Maybe it’s because there’s nothing else to talk about,” he said.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Poor Bush: 'There Is a Real Sadness There' in the White House
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on November 2, 2008 at 8:02 AM.

The Washington Post reports today that loyal Bushies are engaging in upbeat talk to mask "disappointment and frustration among many White House staffers," who see their boss as "a good and steadfast man who has gotten a bad rap":

"Everybody kind of wanted to spend the last 100-plus days doing some legacy things, and the financial crisis has thrown a wrench into that," said one prominent Republican who regularly talks with senior White House officials.


"You have a combination of no legacy stuff, a horrible economic mess and the likelihood that Obama is going to win," this person added. "There is a real sadness there."

About That Zogby Number That Was Freaking People Out
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on November 2, 2008 at 7:12 AM.

Here's an election memory, and correct me if I'm wrong: In 1988, on the Saturday before Election Day, my not-yet-wife and I stopped for a drink in the Village -- I think it was at the Lion's Head. Someone had left a copy of the New York Post on the bar, and inside was a story about a new poll showing that Michael Dukakis was gaining ground, and was in a statistical tie with George Bush.

Yes, I'm such a nerd that I still remember that.

I remember the pollster, too.

Zogby.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Who Are The Most Influential Progressives and Conservatives In America?
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on November 2, 2007 at 3:34 PM.

This post, written by Steve Benen, originally appeared on The Carpetbagger Report

It's obviously just a conversation piece, meant for water-cooler fodder, but it's Friday afternoon, and I kind of like mulling over pieces like these.

London's Telegraph has finished its lists of the most influential liberals and conservatives in the U.S. Some of the finalists are, well, odd.

First up, the libs. Bill Clinton is #1, which is a little unexpected, given the that Telegraph went out of its way to argue that the list is about the future. Still, the Big Dog is the dominant political figure of his time, and will probably remain among the planet's most influential people for many years to come, no matter who wins next year's election.

In the #2 slot is Al Gore, which also makes sense, given his rising stature and popularity. I've argued for years that Gore is the nation's leading liberal, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Among the presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton is #4, Barack Obama is #6, and John Edwards is #24 (though Elizabeth Edwards is #19, which doesn't make a lot of sense).

Clinton pollster Mark Penn seems way too high at #3; Evan Bayh is a fine senator, but there's no way in the world I'd consider him the tenth most influential liberal in the country; Arnold Schwarzenegger is a relatively competent governor, but he isn't a liberal, better yet the eighth most influential one; and I was pleasantly surprised to see the Center for American Progress' John Podesta get his due with the #11 slot.

As for bloggers, there were three libs to make the top 100: Markos Moulitsas Zuniga at #12, Arianna Huffington at #16, and Jerome Armstrong at #62. If it were my list, I'd have fit Josh Marshall, Atrios, and Matt Stoller in the mix somewhere.

And in terms of glaring errors, the Telegraph pegs Paul Krugman as only the 53rd most influential liberal in America, whereas I would have put him in the top 10, easily.

Then there are the conservatives.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Giuliani's Health Care Lies Come Back to Haunt Him
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 2, 2007 at 1:00 PM.

This post, written by Amanda Terkel, originally appeared on Think Progress

New Hampshire for Health Care, which "represents more than 60,000 residents who consider health care a top priority in the 2008 election," has called on Giuliani to pull down his misleading ad on prostate cancer statistics. In the ad, Giuliani claims that his "chance of surviving prostate cancer" was 82 percent in the United States, and just 44 percent "under socialized medicine" in England.

Giuliani's campaign confirmed that it took the statistics from a summer 2007 article entitled "The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care." The piece by David Gratzer appeared in the right-wing quarterly magazine City Journal, an arm of the conservative Manhattan Institute.

Gratzer told reporters that "he based his figures on a study by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit group that researches health care policy." But according to the Concord Monitor today, the Commonwealth Fund disputes Giuliani and Gratzer's use of its figures:

But the Commonwealth Fund said the figures didn't come from its reports. They can't accurately be calculated from the seven-year-old report Gratzer references, said Dr. Stephen Schoenbaum, executive vice president for programs at the Commonwealth Fund.

"The figures that they're working on (are) not correctly derived," he said. "They're also old numbers. The numbers are possibly changing."

The Commonwealth Fund report relied upon by Gratzer is from 2000, and contains a chart on prostate cancer "incidence and mortality rates":


(click for larger version)

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Kucinich to Force Cheney Impeachment House Vote Next Week
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on November 2, 2007 at 12:00 PM.

This post, written by John Nichols, originally appeared on The Nation

Broadcast media's gate-keeping "stars" have done just about everything in their power to keep the matter of presidential accountability off the radar of the American people. That was evident during the most recent Democratic presidential debate, when NBC anchors Brian Williams and Tim Russert meticulously avoided following up on Congressman Dennis Kucinich's three references to impeachment but somehow found time to grill the contenders on UFOs and what costume Barack Obama would be wearing on Halloween.

Pollsters are almost as bad. Rarely are questions about impeachment included in statewide or national surveys.

Despite the lack of media coverage, however, when citizens are asked what they think about holding members of the Bush administration to account, they respond with an enthusiasm far greater than that displayed for impeaching Richard Nixon at the height of the Watergate scandal. It is this reality -- as opposed to the state of denial fostered by so much of the media and the political class -- that Congressman Dennis Kucinich will act upon next week, when he offers a privileged resolution on the House floor to bring articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.

Kucinich will face an uphill fight in a chamber led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who continues to say that impeachment is "off the table."

The Ohio congressman and long-shot presidential contender may not be following the rules of engagement as dictated by major media and his party leaders. But when Kucinich raises the issue of impeachment, he will be speaking for a great mass of Americans who agree with his argument that, "Congress must hold the Vice President accountable."

How great?

A fresh poll conducted for Vermont's WCAX television station finds that citizens of that state enthusiastically believe that Congress beginning impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

Sixty-one percent of the Vermonters surveyed favor taking steps to impeach the president, while just 33% oppose doing so.

The numbers are even higher for impeaching Cheney. Sixty-four percent of Vermonters favor beginning the process of holding the vice president to account, where only 31 percent are opposed.

The greater level of support for impeaching Cheney parallels the few nationwide figures that have been ascertained. When the American Research Group conducted a national survey in early July of this year, it found that 54 percent of American adults wanted the House to begin impeachment proceedings against Cheney -- with 76 percent of Democrats, 51 percent of independents and a striking 17 percent of Republicans favoring the step.

Forty-six percent of Americans surveyed backed impeachment proceedings against Bush -- with support for impeachment at 69 percent among Democrats, 50 percent among independents and 13 percent among Republicans.

What is notable is that, when Time magazine surveyed Americans in the late spring of 1974, after the Watergate scandal had evolved into a full-scale crisis of confidence in Nixon's presidency, only 43 percent favored impeachment.

A media that actually had a sense of history, not to mention reality, would focus on the fact that Americans are more supportive of a congressional intervention to thwart Bush and Cheney's wrongdoing than they were of moves to hold Nixon to account just months before the former president resigned in disgrace.

Now, it falls to Kucinich to speak the reality that, "The momentum is building for impeachment. Millions of citizens across the nation are demanding Congress rein in the Vice President's abuse of power."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Mayoral Candidate Nabbed In Toe-Tapping Toilet Tryst
Posted by Paddy , Brave New Films on November 2, 2007 at 11:00 AM.

This post, written by Paddy, originally appeared on Cliff Schecter's Brave New Films Blog

Florida has to get it's two cents in since everyone has forgotten about Mark Foley-

DAYTONA BEACH -- A former Daytona Beach city commissioner and a local high school teacher arrested Thursday during a sex sting at a Volusia mall bathroom were released from the Volusia County Brach Jail today, authorities said.

Former commissioner and mayoral candidate Mike Shallow and David Behringer, an athletic trainer and teacher at Seabreeze High School, posted $1,000 bail today after midnight, a jail spokesman said.

(snip)

"Most everything that's occurring is nonverbal," said Sgt. Jeff Hoffman, supervisor of the criminal suppression team.

Offenders coughed or sneezed, tapped their feet, sometimes under the stall beside them, or made loud zipper noises to attract attention from others interested in engaging in sexual acts, Hoffman said.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Senate Passes SCHIP Again, Bush to Screw Over Sick Kids...Again
Posted by Joe Sudbay on November 2, 2007 at 7:04 AM.

This post, written by Joe Sudbay, originally appeared on AMERICABlog

They must be all excited at the Bush White House tonight. Bush gets to pull out his veto pen again. And, one more time, he gets to screw sick kids. The Senate passed the children's health insurance bill tonight:

The Senate passed a new bill Thursday expanding a popular children's health insurance program, despite the lingering threat of a veto from President Bush.

The bill -- which boosts the number of low-income children covered by the State Children's Health Insurance Program -- was recently passed by the House, but without the veto-proof margin it received in the Senate.

Bush vetoed the first SCHIP bill and is expected to veto this one.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

White House to Congress: Quit Asking Us About Torture
Posted by Ali Frick on November 2, 2007 at 5:53 AM.

This post, written by Ali Frick, originally appeared on Think Progress

During today's White House press briefing, Press Secretary Dana Perino brushed aside lawmakers' concerns about Michael Mukasey's views on torture, urging them to quickly confirm him as attorney general. "Once he is confirmed, then the Congress has the capabilty to ask him to come to Congress and to testify on all sorts of matters, including this one," she said.

But this technique -- confirm now, question later -- immediately raised red flags with reporters, who pointed out that if Mukasey becomes attorney general, the Bush administration would likely block him from answering questions in the future as well:

MS. PERINO: While they were saying is -- which Judge Mukasey has done, is to say, I will not be able to provide a legal opinion about any particular technique. He is not read into the programs. ... And once he is confirmed, then the Congress has the capability to ask him to come to Congress and to testify on all sorts of matters, including this one. [...]

Q: Dana, a follow up on that. The McCain-Graham letter, on the assumption that Judge Mukasey is confirmed and is read into the program, your policy is still not to talk about specific methods, so he is, if he is confirmed, not going to be in a position to speak about waterboarding as being legal or not.

Perino dodged the reporter's follow-up, replying that several lawmakers have "been briefed on the legal underpinnings and they have been briefed on the techniques. So Congress -- the appropriate members of Congress have all the information that they need about these programs. They are safe, they are effective, they are tough, and they are legal."

But in reality, the White House refuses to even define torture. In fact, key leaders in the House and Senate, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee John D. Rockefeller (D-WV), say they have never been fully briefed on the administration's interrogation policies.

The White House would prefer for Congress to confirm Mukasey now and question him later -- if at all. But the Bush administration's long history of secrecy suggests that, should Mukasey be confirmed, the Senate will be able to glean no more from this Attorney General than it could from the previous one.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Blackwater Sneaks Silencers Into Iraq
Posted by GottaLaff , Brave New Films on November 2, 2007 at 5:31 AM.

This post, written by GottaLaff, originally appeared on Cliff Schecter's Brave New Films Blog

Blackwater just gets sleazier and sleazier. It's a good thing they're representing us in Iraq. They really help our image:

Federal agents are investigating allegations that the Blackwater USA security firm illegally exported dozens of firearms sound suppressors -- commonly known as silencers -- to Iraq and other countries for use by company operatives, sources close to the investigation tell NBC News.

They apparently didn't get necessary export approval.

The sources said the investigation is part of a broader examination of potential firearms and export violations.

Now. Guess who's in charge of regulating exports of arms?

Coincidentally, the company's main responsibility in Iraq is protecting officials of the State Department, the agency that regulates exports of arms. The firm had more than $500 million in federal contracts in 2006.

So there we have it.

Blackwater sent the silencers overseas with its employees without getting the necessary export approval.

The penalty is up to 10 years in prison and fines up to $1 million per count.

But why would Blackwater need silencers? To win hearts and minds? Sure, that must be it.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Fox News' Hannity Is Afraid of Halloween for The Wrong Reasons
Posted by Steve Benen on November 2, 2007 at 5:29 AM.

This post, written by Steve Benen, originally appeared on The Carpetbagger Report

Last week, The Onion, which is a satirical publication, ran a very amusing editorial cartoon, mocking right-wing attitudes. The cartoon asked, "Halloween: What is it teaching our kids?" It depicted a kid trick-or-treating with a bag that read, "Something for Nothing," under the caption, "Everyone deserves hand-outs!"

Proving once again that today's right is practically impossible to satirize, Fox News' Sean Hannity actually made the same argument, on the air, in the hopes of labeling Halloween a "liberal holiday."

On the October 31 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity claimed that "Halloween is a liberal holiday" and "is teaching our kids to be liberals." Hannity explained that "we're teaching kids to knock on other people's doors and ask for a handout." Co-host Alan Colmes responded by asking if that meant that Christmas is a "liberal holiday." Colmes asserted that Halloween represents "the act of giving," and asked: "Isn't that a Christian thing, to give, to share with your community?" Hannity replied: "Not to teach your kids to beg for a handout."

In all sincerity, I thought Media Matters was kidding about this, until I watched the clip. Hannity, apparently in all seriousness, said we shouldn't teach "our children to beg for something for free." He concluded, "You're teaching your kids to beg for a handout."

In the broader cultural context, I think a sea-change of sorts may be underway. The caricature of late has been that of a politically-correct, liberal intellectual going around denigrating the things "regular people" enjoy. I wonder if Hannity is helping push the pendulum in the other direction -- all activities should be measured against a right-wing worldview. If they're perceived as politically heretical, they should be dismissed.

Hannity, in other words, seems anxious to push conservatism away from the mainstream. If we're lucky, he'll keep it up.

Just out of curiosity, I checked out Focus on the Family's take on Halloween, assuming that if any high-profile conservatives would hate the holiday, it'd be the Dobson crowd.

Here's the official Focus take on Halloween:

Whereas it can be argued that Christmas is a Christian holiday with Christian origins that has suffered the effects of growing secularism, Halloween can be traced to distinctly pagan sources. It is reasonable, then, that many believers would find some aspects of its celebration disturbing. I agree with them in that regard.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Will wingnut Steve Beren apologize for calling our troops bloodthirsty homicidal maniacs?
Posted by Joshua Holland on November 2, 2006 at 6:50 PM.

Steve Beren is a low-rent David Horowitz wannabe; he was an anti-war activist during the Vietnam war, he organized for the Socialist Workers' Party until 1990 and then he became a born again Christian in the mid-1990s and started moving rightward. The September 11 attacks then pushed him into the fringes of the eliminationist set, where he now enjoys life as a raving Islamophobic wingnut with no regard whatsoever for reality.

He's running as a Republican -- of course -- to represent Washington state's 7th Congressional District. Next Tuesday he'll be toasted by Jim McDermott, who's never won less than 70 percent of the vote in any of his nine previous House races. Next Wednesday, Beren will go back to his work for an Internet marketing firm and hopefully we won't be hearing anything more from him.

In the meantime, he appears to have worked a snippet from an article of mine, in which I quoted McDermott, into his latest stump speech.

Of the GOP's latest attempt to distract, he bloviates:

[John] Kerry's comments come as no surprise, but they do reflect an antagonism, arrogance, and elitism to those who protect our freedoms.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

UPDATED: Bush's Top Evangelical w/ Gay Prostitute?
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 2, 2006 at 2:51 PM.

UPDATE at bottom...

Video has been removed at request of the station... you can still watch it HERE.

A male prostitute says that he sold sex to the president of the National Association of Evangelicals for 3 years:

A gay man and admitted male escort claims he has had an ongoing sexual relationship with a well-known Evangelical pastor from Colorado Springs.

Mike Jones told '9 Wants to Know' Investigative Reporter Paula Woodward he has had a "sexual business" relationship with Pastor Ted Haggard for the past three years.

Haggard is the founder and senior leader of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. The church has 14,000 members.
[AMERICAblog]

Haggard was named one of America's 25 most influential evangelicals by Time Magazine. He directs the 30-million member National Association of Evangelicals, the largest evangelical association in America.

Haggard denies the allegations and speculates that these revelations have something to do with his support of an anti-gay marriage ballot iniative in Colorado.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Prominent Christian Republican is fed up:
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 2, 2006 at 2:11 PM.

There's not much I can add to this unmistakably clear letter from Frank Schaeffer, whose father was an associate of the Reagans, Bushes, and Falwells, on the eve of his repudiation of the Republican Party. The letter begins:

I'm a Christian, a writer, a military parent and a registered Republican.

On all those counts, I was disgusted by an e-mail I just received that's being circulated by campaign supporters of Republican George Allen, who's trying to retain his Senate seat in Virginia.

The message goes like this: "First, it was the Catholic priests, then it was Mark Foley, and now Jim Webb, whose sleazy novels discuss sex between very young teenagers. ... Hmmm, sounds like a perverted pedophile to me! Pass the word that we do not need any more pedophiles in office."

Schaeffer goes on to praise Democrat Jim Webb's service, novels, and the fact that his son is currently serving in the military, before declaring that:

[E]nough is enough. I've had it with Republican smears.

The Webb e-mail is the embodiment of the cynical Republican strategists, some of whom must know the difference between fiction and nonfiction. Was Agatha Christie a murderer because she wrote about murder?

According to the Allen camp's logic, God would be a pedophile, too. After all, we Christians believe God inspired the Bible. And God-the-author chose to include the "sleazy" story about Lot offering to send out his young virgin daughters to be raped by the men of Sodom.

The Bible has masturbation scenes, rape, pedophilia and God's favorite man – King David – warming himself with a young virgin in his old age. He's the same man God tells us committed murder after he indulged his peeping Tom fantasies.

Lucky for God-the-author that He's not running against George Allen.

Read the whole thing HERE.

Five-poll average: Dems could take the Senate
Posted by Joshua Holland on November 2, 2006 at 12:16 PM.

Noteworthy races from Pollster.com's five-poll average:

• PA: Casey (D) 51.4%--40.2% Santorum (R)
• OH: Brown (D) 52.6%--42.0% DeWine (R)
• RI: Whitehouse (D) 48.2%--40.2% Chafee (R)
• MT: Tester (D) 48.2%--45.0% Burns (R)
• VA: Webb (D) 47.0%--45.8% Allen (R)
• MO: McCaskill (D) 47.8%--46.8% Talent (R)
• TN: Corker (R) 49.2%--46.0% Ford (D)
• AZ: Kyl (R) 49.2%--41.0% Pederson (D)
• CT: Lieberman (CfL) 48.4%--38.8% Lamont (D)

If Menendez holds in New Jersey (Menendez (D) 48.2%--42.2% Kean (R)), than it's likely to come down to Missouri, Tennessee, Montana and Virginia. Webb has momentum and Allen has run one of the worst races imaginable. Same in Montana, where netroots candidate John Tester, an organic farmer, has been wiping the floor with one of the most corrupt guys in the Senate (he's had help from an admirably feisty local media). I expect Corker to beat Ford -- there are people who won't vote for a black man, period, and they don't necessarily tell pollsters the truth. McCaskill's running a good race, but it's a clear toss-up.

Lamont's been trailing Lieberman since the primaries, but there could quite a surprise in that race, because Joe's going to have a problem with his ground-game; the conservative church folks won't come out and work for him like they would a Republican, and the local party chairs and labor are working for Lamont. Plus, we'll see if Alan Schlesinger, the GOP candidate, really gets single-digits. He's been running a populist campaign and I expect he'll do better than he's been polling. He just went on the air a few days ago, and he's hitting immigration hard and attacking Lieberman from the right. And my mom's volunteering for Lamont, and I wouldn't underestimate her.

Counting Lieberman and Bernie Sanders as Dems, we're likely to see a 50/50 split, with Darth Cheney the tie-breaking vote, or a 51/49 Dem majority.

Robertson unhinged over new female Bishop [VIDEO]
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 2, 2006 at 11:21 AM.

Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) is terrified. The Episcopal Church has elected a new Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts-Schori, the first woman in over half a millennium of chief Bishops.

For its part, CBN can't even bring itself to use the Church's language, claiming that she'll be "installed" as the head of the Episcopal Church, as opposed to the way it appears on their website: "She was elected June 18 by her colleagues in the House of Bishops from among seven nominees. The House of Deputies confirmed her election the same day."

"Appalled is too weak a word to describe this thing," giggles Robertson.

Their problem, he says, is not that she's a woman, even though he does have a little woman problem, calling feminism a "socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." The problem, rather, is that she does not exclude gays from any services (including marriage) and because she believes that Jesus Christ is not the only path to God. Or, put another way, that 4-5 billion inhabitants of Earth still have a shot at heaven. Jefferts-Schori has said: "if we insist that we know the one way to God, we've put God in a very small box."

Here's the really interesting coincidence: Robertson uses a clunky flying analogy to critique Jefferts-Schori's acceptance of different paths to God. He says,

"I'm a pilot, I"m not a very good pilot, and i haven't flown a plane in a long time. But I wanna tell you something. When I'm coming in to land, there's like a 50-foot runway. And I'd better be on that runway're i'm gonna kill myself and the passengers with me.

You don't want all the ways to the control tower, you want one way; you want the main runway or if there's a side runway, you want that one.** But there is one way, the Bible says there's only one way to God; He is the Way, the Truth and the Life; no man comes to the Father but by Him.

He then goes on to claim that the Episcopalian Church has denied it's raison d'etre (French traitor!!)...

Well, Marion, er Pat, coincidence has it that the Episcopal Church's new Bishop is not only a liberal, pluralist woman, but she's also an accomplished scientist and pilot. And this pilot knows the way to a God that bestows love, as opposed to your terror, bigotry and division. A God that even loves you and your comically stupid metaphors.

**I can't bear to leave this be. Is he joking? I mean, is there some side runway to Jesus? Does Jesus know this?

Diebold demands that HBO cancel voting machine documentary [VIDEO]
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 2, 2006 at 11:03 AM.

Voting machine manufacturer Diebold, Inc. is demanding that HBO cancel its documentary on voting machines:

The program, "Hacking Democracy," is scheduled to debut Thursday, five days before the 2006 U.S. midterm elections. The film claims that Diebold voting machines aren't tamper-proof and can be manipulated to change voting results.

"Hacking Democracy" is "replete with material examples of inaccurate reporting," Diebold Election System President David Byrd said in a letter to HBO President and Chief Executive Chris Albrecht posted on Diebold's Web site. Short of pulling the film, Monday's letter asks for disclaimers to be aired and for HBO to post Diebold's response on its Web site. [Seattle PI]

HBO says it has no intention of cancelling the documentary, which is scheduled to premiere tonight.

[HT:whoshat of Daily Kos]

Cover up of soldier who committed suicide rather than torture detainees [AUDIO]
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 2, 2006 at 9:37 AM.

An Army investigation has determined that Army Spc. Alyssa Peterson committed suicide after refusing to participate in torture (click the "download" button to the right to hear the report):

10/31/06 (2006-10-31) Army specialist Alyssa Peterson was an Arabic speaking interrogator assigned to the prison at the Tal-afar airbase in far northwestern Iraq near the Syrian border. According to the Army's investigation into her death, obtained by a KNAU reporter through the Freedom of Information Act, Peterson objected to the interrogation techniques used on prisoners. She refused to participate after only two nights working in the unit known as the cage. Army spokespersons for her unit have refused to describe the interrogation techniques Alyssa objected to. They say all records of those techniques have now been destroyed.

Instead she was assigned to the base gate, where she monitored Iraqi guards. She was sent to suicide prevention training. But on the night of September 15th, 2003, Army investigators concluded she shot and killed herself with her service rifle. [KNAU]

Listen to the KNAU report using the buttons on the upper right...

[Erin in Flagstaff, Rox Populi]

What Republicans call 'spin' the rest of the world calls 'lies'
Posted by Bob Geiger on November 2, 2006 at 8:48 AM.

My young son and I were talking last week about the definition of a lie. As a nine-year-old, he's expanding his boundaries and testing the waters on how little he can get away with telling my wife and me without crossing the line into being a liar. This seems to me like a perfectly normal part of childhood development so, as we talked, I used an example from last winter, when we had a misunderstanding about whether or not his school had been closed in advance of a monster snowstorm.

He told me the night before that he heard from one of the teachers that, because of the magnitude of the expected storm, classes had been called off in advance for the next day. We found out later that night that this information was incorrect, that a preemptive snow-day had not been called and my little boy promptly apologized for "lying."

I asked at the time if he knew that a snow-day had really not been called and, when he replied that he really did believe his information was correct, I explained that he had simply been mistaken and that he had not lied. If he had found out at 6:00 PM that his information was wrong, I said to him, telling me at 7:00 PM that school had already been canceled would indeed have been a lie.

My little boy understands and acknowledges that obvious distinction -- Republicans do not.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Republican leader blames military for losing war
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 2, 2006 at 7:04 AM.

Yesterday, on CNN, House Majority Leader John Boehner blamed the US military for losing the war in Iraq:

House Majority Leader John Boehner: Wolf, I understand that, but let's not blame what's happening in Iraq on Rumsfeld.

Wolf Blitzer: But he's in charge of the military.

House Majority Leader John Boehner: But the fact is the generals on the ground are in charge and he works closely with them and the president. [CNN, 11/1/06]

Given an opportunity to take back that comment, Boehner elected instead to stay the course.

A Boehner spokesman later insisted that blaming the military for losing the war is not criticizing the military.


(AMERICAblog, Hotline)

I didn't NOT get the documents
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 2, 2005 at 2:11 PM.

It may have been 135 years between indictments of a sitting White House official but at this rate it may be significantly less time for the next one to be handed down.

With a little help from the Italian press, it's been revealed that Bush's National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley secretly met with the very Italian agent who, according to Judd Legum, "had been relentlessly pushing forged documents about Iraq’s nuclear ambitions for months."

Hadley's response to questioning?

"I told you, I have very little recollection of the meeting. And it was in the order of a courtesy call, getting to know a person who was going to be a colleague going forward. And you can tell that from the relative briefness of the meeting."

Notice, there's no "I did not receive the forged documents." Only: it was brief and so long ago. And you have no idea how many forgeries I receive in this job... (ThinkProgress)

--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).

Best protest sign
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 2, 2005 at 1:18 PM.

"WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE HIM A BLOW JOB SO WE CAN HAVE HIM IMPEACHED."

Before you think me -- or it -- merely prurient, I'd argue that this is actually a fairly savvy commentary on the state of our priorities. And it's funny. (BradBlog)

--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).

Does Alito ♥ sodomy?
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 2, 2005 at 11:34 AM.

A report prepared by an Alito-lead task force at Princeton way back in '71 "said that discrimination against gays in hiring 'should be forbidden,' and accused the CIA and the FBI of invading the privacy of citizens. 'We sense a great threat to privacy in modern America,'" he wrote.

John Aravosis writes: "being soft on sodomy, so to speak, is a big deal to the religious right - the very people this nomination is meant to mollify... In the religious right's mind, a defense of sodomy is a defense of gay marriage. That's why these Alito coming out against sodomy laws is such a big deal. And let's not even get into his support for legislation outlawing job discrimination against gays..." (AmericaBlog)

--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).

Fristrated
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 2, 2005 at 10:07 AM.

Whinging like a spoiled child, Senate Majority leader, video diagnoser, and beneficiary of extraordinarily savvy stock trustees, Bill Frist is quoted as saying: "Never have I been slapped in the face with such an affront to the leadership of this grand institution... It means from now on, for the next year and a half, I can't trust Senator Reid."

A helpful Swopa adds: "Those are awfully strong words, Sen. Frist. Perhaps you should have Sen. Reid put in a blind trust -- that way, you could keep an eye on him..." (Needlenose)

--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).

Malkin battle at Amazon
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 2, 2005 at 8:38 AM.

Michelle Malkin's new book "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild" is out, to the endless glee of bigots who rejoice in pointing out how racism is okay if brown people condone it.

But the real joy for me is that the hilarious public reviews of Malkin's book contradict the book's thesis perfectly. Liberals and progressives are actually learning to laugh at, and have fun with, the pathetic screeds of the right wing.

In Marshall McLuhan's Understanding Media he explains that certain cultures, rather than demonizing murder and murderers, actually feel sad for them; pity them for the state they must be in to commit such a distancing, cruel and selfish act. This is much more in the spirit of how the right wing should be treated (note: right wing does not equal murderers).

Some samples from Amazon:

"Perfect For a Relaxing Autumn Day on the Couch: Lie down on the couch and read up, dear Malkin fans. You'll love this new book!*

______

*No, seriously, stay inside, lie down, and for god's sake stay off the streets. It's for your own good that I advise you to stay away from complicated devices like automobiles, bicycles or any other devices with which your pre-simian hand-like meat mittens and walnut-sized brains could hurt yourselves--not to mention endanger the rest of us.

First-rate book by a first-rate journalist

One of the finest political analysts of her generation, Ms. Malkin has written a serious and scholarly dissertation on the state of affairs in today's polarized political climate. In addition, she has surprisingly included an unexpected chapter on her favorite seasonal holiday recipes. Brimming with festive pictures, Malkin delights us with scrumptious pumpkin casseroles, sinfully decadent chocolate mousses, and my favorite, a marble-swirled triple-layered English trifle soaked with sherry!

This excellent book is marred only by Malkin's unfortunate decision to include a disturbingly graphic description of a fungal sore on her left thigh in the third chapter. Why she chose to do this, I simply don't understand, as it relates to nothing else in the book.

Three cheers for Michelle Malkin, a poet and scholar of our time.

(Hat tip: TBogg)

--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).

Four questions (video)
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 2, 2005 at 7:02 AM.

The Democrats scored a victory.

The public was ordered out of the chamber, the lights were dimmed, and the doors were closed. Without a vote, the Democrats, led by the soft-spoken Harry Reid, demanded "on behalf of the America people that we understand why these investigations [questioning intelligence that led us to war] aren't being conducted." And just like that the senate went into closed session yesterday.

A gutsy move. And smart [VIDEO]. Just as Alito was threatening to steal the spotlight from the worse than watergate show, Reid grabbed the megaphone and trained it back on the administration's dirty laundry. And this morning, the Republican-controlled senate finally agreed to take a hard look at the intelligence used to sell the war.

David Sirota has some suggestions for what should be asked. Why is this night different from all other nights is not one of them.

QUESTION THAT NEEDS ANSWERING: Why did President Bush say in 2002 that “Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program" when two critical reports – an IAEA one from 1997 and a CIA one from 2001 – made clear that there was absolutely no evidence of that claim? And why in 2003, did both Condoleezza Rice ignore these intelligence documents and insist that Bush's nuclear claim was "absolutely supportable" when in fact it was not?

QUESTION THAT NEEDS ANSWERING: Why in his 2003 State of the Union address did President Bush claim that aluminum tubes Iraq purchased were for uranium enrichment, when the White House received intelligence in 2002 that such a claim was untrue? And why did Condoleezza Rice in July of 2003 claim that the intelligence community's "consensus view" was that the tubes were being used for nuclear weapons, when in fact a March 2003 IAEA report specifically said that wasn't true?

Find the other two [HERE]. (Huffington Post)

--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).

Bush cracking up?
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 2, 2005 at 6:01 AM.

"It’s worse than the days when Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s began setting in," said one GOP operative, referring to Bush's increasing temper tantrums. At least that's what Capitol Blue is reporting.

Asking: "Would it be irresponsible to link to a Capitol Blue story simply because it bolsters my belief system, even though Capitol Blue has been egregiously wrong in the past? Jonathan Schwarz answers his own question "It would be irresponsible not to." And I'm inclined to agree.

Some more goodies:

An uncivil war rages inside the walls of the West Wing of the White House, a bitter, acrimonious war driven by a failed agenda, destroyed credibility, dwindling public support and a President who lapses into Alzheimer-like periods of incoherent babbling...

Bush, whose obscenity-laced temper tantrums increase with each new setback and scandal, abruptly ended one Camp David meeting by telling everyone in the room to 'go fuck yourselves' before he stalked out of the room.

(Tiny Revolution)

--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).