PEEK

Buzz, perspectives, insight and news from AlterNet

Idaho Republican Blake Hall Fired for Throwing Used Condoms on the Lawn of a Woman He Was Stalking
Posted by Steven D., Booman Tribune on November 10, 2009 at 4:25 PM.

This story about prominent Idaho political figure and Republican National Committee member Blake Hall and his conviction for stalking his former girlfriend is pretty disturbing, nonetheless, especially from the "ewww!" factor alone:

Blake Hall, a leading figure in Idaho and national politics for 25 years, was fired Monday as a deputy prosecuting attorney in eastern Idaho and has resigned from the Republican National Committee. [...]

Idaho Falls police reported that witnesses said Hall disposed of used condoms on the lawn of the woman's house. Nineteen condoms were turned over to police, collected on 10 different dates, according to a police report. Both Hall and his lawyer acknowledged the condoms belonged to him, according to a police report. [...]

"I was so tired of being victimized," the woman said. "It is unimaginable that a 56-year-old would be so deviant."

Well, at least he didn't try to choke her to death. And it's clear from his behavior he hasn't been seduced by the Gay Side, so far as we know. In Republican Political circles I guess that makes him a stand up guy. Which is why, even though he has to serve a six month 15 day jail term, resign from the RNC, and was fired from one of the government jobs he held, he still gets to keep his second government job as a civil attorney for Fremont County, Idaho:

But Hall, 56, will keep his $31,000-a-year job as the civil attorney in nearby Fremont County, according to Prosecutor Joette Lookabaugh, a Republican who hired Hall in January.

Lookabaugh said she told Hall he would keep his job "unless or until his ability to do an outstanding job for Fremont County citizens is compromised." [...]

"I understand that political figures are held to a higher standard," she said. "What is disturbing is the fact that often people who have devoted their lives to public service are not given the same benefits, or are treated more harshly, than the public at large. There seems to be a certain amount of political glee in striking down the well-known for any real or perceived foible."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Fox Mogul Rupert Murdoch Echoes Glenn Beck, Calls Obama a Racist
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM.

MURDOCH FANS THE FLAMES.... It seemed, for a while, like the political world was prepared to move beyond the animosity between Fox News and the White House. Presidential aides seemed to cut back on noticing the Republican network's partisan efforts, and Fox News returned to more routine, everyday bashing of Democrats.

Indeed, just 13 days ago, we learned that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs met personally with Fox News SVP Michael Clemente. There was talk of a "truce." It was time to move on.

Or so we thought. just four days after the reported "truce," Chris Wallace gave Rush Limbaugh a half-hour of airtime on "Fox News Sunday," which the right-wing radio host used to make one ridiculous attack against the president after another. There was no obvious reason for the interview.

And just a few days after Wallace's love-fest with Limbaugh, Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch told Sky News Australia that Glenn Beck's infamous anti-Obama tirade -- Beck called the president a "racist" with "a deep-seated hatred for white people or white culture" -- was accurate.

SKY NEWS: The Glenn Beck, who you mentioned, has called Barack Obama a racist and he helped organize a protest against him. Others on Fox have likened him to Stalin. Is that defensible?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Shooting at Portland Office Park; 2 Dead, 2 Wounded
Posted by AlterNet Staff, AlterNet on November 10, 2009 at 1:59 PM.

Police confirm that two people have been killed and two wounded in a suburban Portland drug-testing facility. KATU.com reports:

KATU reporter Kerry Tomlinson is on the scene of the shooting in Tualatin at the intersection of Martinazzi and Warm Springs and has learned that Tualatin Police have confirmed that there are two deceased victims, one male and one female.

Tualatin Police have also confirmed two injured victims who were transported to Emanual Hospital.

The shooting was reported to take place at 7575 SW Mohawk, near the Martinazzi intersection.

One victim was shot, who was in a white lab coat who may have worked at a blood clinic, described a man coming in with two guns and she said the shooting began and she began running.

The woman was shot in the leg and it is believed she did not suffer life-threatening injuries.

Police have information that the area is safe and the suspect is no longer at large.

Could the Stupak Amendment Get the Boot in The Senate?
Posted by mcjoan, Daily Kos on November 10, 2009 at 1:31 PM.

Sen. Barbara Boxer said today in an interview with HuffPo's Sam Stein and Ryan Grim that efforts to add Stupak's Coathanger amendment in the Senate would very likely fail.

"If someone wants to offer this very radical amendment, which would really tear apart [a decades-long] compromise, then I think at that point they would need to have 60 votes to do it," Boxer said. "And I believe in our Senate we can hold it."

"It is a much more pro-choice Senate than it has been in a long time," she added. "And it is much more pro-choice than the House."

Boxer's reading of the political landscape might seem like the hopeful spin of an abortion-rights defender. But it was seconded by a far less pro-choice lawmaker, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)

"It would have to be added," sad the Montana Democrat of an amendment that mirrored that offered Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) in the House. "I doubt it could pass."

The procedural aspect of that could, however, get a little dicey should Ben Nelson and Bob Casey actually try to introduce an amendment on the floor as they are threatening to do. Expect to read more from David on that aspect soon. The key thing seems to be to convince Nelson and Casey to forgo pushing this amendment, and that could be what Boxer is intending to do. Casey, when he's had time to think about it, might realize the potential of this effort in blowing up the overall healthcare reform bill entirely, and back off. Nelson might not give a crap if he blows it all up.

But there's one person that can exert some influence over Nelson, and that's Barack Obama, who stated very clearly yesterday that the Stupak Coathanger amendment goes too far in restricting women's access and in changing the "status quo" on federal funding for abortion. Perhaps a little direct pressure from the President on Nelson would dissuade him from pushing his own restrictive effort.

That statement from Obama, perhaps as well as some education from her fellow pro-choice colleages, seems to have swayed Claire McCaskill. Yesterday she stated that the Senate could live with Stupak, displaying a profound misunderstanding of how bad the amendment really is. So her tweet last night backtracking that statement was most welcome.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Woops! Bill O'Reilly Doesn't Remember What the Public Option Is Called, or That It's Pretty Popular (Video)
Posted by Ben Armbruster, Think Progress on November 10, 2009 at 12:14 PM.

Last night on Fox News, host Bill O’Reilly and analyst Brit Hume discussed the prospects for the Senate passing a health care reform bill. After struggling with the terminology for the “public option,” O’Reilly ultimately concluded that “all the polls say” that “the folks don’t want it.”

Hume, a regular Fox News misinformer, surprisingly corrected O’Reilly, noting that Americans actually support the public option:

O’REILLY: They call it, you know, the public sector. What is the –

HUME: Public option, you mean?

O’REILLY: Public option, whatever. The folks don’t want it. … But it looks to me like they have maybe 55 votes to pass it. And that means they could be filibustered and never come up for a vote.

HUME: That’s what it looks like right now. The public option, actually some polls show that the public option standing by itself is not at all unpopular, but it is kind of popular. But that depends on how the poll question is raised. … We don’t need to go into all that right now.

Watch it:

Those trying to derail reform with a public option try to claim that Americans don’t support it. “All the polls now indicate substantial opposition to this particular type of health care reform,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said last night on Fox. But Hume is right. Americans do support the public option, as recent polling shows:

– CNN/Opinion Research, Oct. 30 – Nov. 1: 55 percent support “creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies.”

– Ipsos/McClatchy, Oct. 30 – Nov. 1: 51 percent support the “creation of a public entity to directly compete with existing health insurance companies.”

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Call Joe Lieberman's Bluff: A Real Fort Hood Inquiry Would Likely Shut Him Up
Posted by John Nichols, TheNation.com on November 10, 2009 at 11:00 AM.

Following the horrific shootings at the Fort Hood army base in Texas, Connecticut Senator Lieberman pulled a thread from the right-wing blogosphere and called for a congressional inquiry into whether the incident was an act of "terrorism."

Not domestic terrorism, but full-blown terrorism that is comparable to what is seen in the most unstable of warzones.

"This was an attack on America troops," Lieberman chirped on Fox New Sunday. "You've got to see it as if 12 American troops were killed in Afghanistan."

But, wait, U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan are fighting a strategically-sophisticated and structurally-coordinated enemy that employs traditional military tactics and terrorist strategies such as suicide bombings in urban areas.

Is Lieberman serious about making a comparison between what happened at Fort Hood and what happens in Kabul?

Not really.

When he's pinned down, Lieberman makes the slightly more precise calim that the Army doctor who killed 13 people and wounded 29 at Fort Hood showed signs of being a "self-radicalized, homegrown terrorist."

Never mind that another way of saying "self-radicalized, homegrown terrorist" might be "completely isolated mental-health case."

Never might that, when he started running the "terrorist" line on Fox New Sunday, host Chris Wallace used a sound line of questioning to make it clear that the senator did not have "any evidence so far (from) what you and your staff have heard in briefings that.. he was exchanging communications either in this country or overseas with other Islamic radicals."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

President Obama Has Refused to Stand Up for Women, Plain and Simple
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on November 10, 2009 at 9:45 AM.

I can't put it any more plainly than that. And, no -- it's not hyperbole. I wish it were.

The White House on Monday signaled it would keep its distance in the increasingly vocal debate over whether health insurance reform should include language related to abortion.

When asked whether the president supported Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) amendment to prohibit the public insurance plan from covering abortion services, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dodged the question -- multiple times.

"Well, ask me that right before Christmas and the end of the New Year," Gibbs said during today's press briefing, noting the president still expected to sign a healthcare bill before the year's end.

The press secretary later clarified, "We will work on this and continue to seek consensus and common ground."

FUCK THAT.

There is no fucking "common ground" between people who believe in women's right to autonomy over their own bodies and people who believe that women's bodies are property of the government, or their doctors, or their husbands, or anyone else who gets a vote on whether they have to be pregnant even if they don't want to be.

Either you stand on the side of women's equality and independence or you don't.

It is fucking ludicrous that our DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT refuses to take a stand on this issue.

And this mealy-mouthed bullshit —"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill"—is contemptibly craven. I'm absolutely fucking livid that a man who had the audacity to claim to be a champion of women's right to choose would abandon women in this way. Not that I'm surprised. Of course I'm not surprised. I always knew this was bullshit. A lack of surprise makes me no less furious about the depth of his callous disregard for women.

That? Is also not hyperbole: "In case you are wondering about the real life effects of playing cheap politics with pregnancy, read this.

And this. ... All women will be losing coverage for necessary abortions when a wanted pregnancy goes wrong. It only has an exemption for the life of the mother, but not for her her health, nor for severe and fatal fetal abnormalities. Click those links for what that means in real life."Women's real lives—something our president evidently doesn't give a fuck about. Or might. Y'know, depending on which way the wind is blowingin December.

For the record: This isn't me hysterical. Nor overwrought. Nor upset. Nor reactionary. Nor irrational. Nor hypersensitive. Nor any other word one might use to dismiss a feminist in this moment.

This is me angry and brimming with contempt.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Korean Warships Exchange Fire on the SK/NK Border
Posted by Staff, AlterNet on November 10, 2009 at 8:29 AM.

From AFP:

A North Korean patrol boat was set ablaze after exchanging fire with South Korea's navy on Tuesday, Seoul officials said, as cross-border tensions rose a week before a scheduled US presidential visit.

The two sides blamed each other for the clash, the first for seven years near the disputed Yellow Sea border.

President Lee Myung-Bak called an emergency meeting of security ministers as his Prime Minister Chung Un-Chan accused the North of making a "direct attack" on a South Korean high-speed patrol craft.

"There was no damage on our side while a North Korean patrol boat engulfed in flame sailed back (across the border)," Chung told parliament.

He described the clash, which follows recent peace overtures from the North, as unplanned and urged people to stay calm.

Some analysts, however, said Pyongyang may be sending President Barack Obama a message, eight days before he arrives in South Korea as part of an Asian tour.

Defence Minister Kim Tae-Young told parliament the North's boat sailed more than 1.6 kilometres (one mile) south of the border and "I believe they clearly knew about the intrusion".

The Joint Chiefs of Staff said the South's boat sent several warning signals after the North's craft crossed the border, but the intruder held its course.

After the South fired warning shots, "the North's side opened fire, directly aiming at our ship. Then our ship responded by firing back, forcing the North Korean boat to return to the north," the statement said.

"There were no casualties on our side. We are on the lookout for any further provocations by the North," it said.

"We fired heavily on the North Korean vessel," an unidentified navy official told Yonhap news agency, adding the initial assessment was that it suffered considerable damage.

"We express our strong protest to North Korea and urge it to prevent a recurrence of such incidents," said Brigadier-General Lee Ki-Sik of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

He said the two sides exchanged fire for two minutes from a distance of about three kilometres. The North fired about 50 rounds, 15 of which hit the South Korean boat.

The border known as the Northern Limit Line (NLL) has always been a potential flashpoint and was the scene of bloody naval clashes in 1999 and 2002.

General Lee said the North breached the NLL 22 times this year. But this was the first time the South had to fire warning shots, because the patrol boat kept intruding despite five warning signals.

North Korea's military, however, told its South Korean counterpart to apologise for a "grave armed provocation" and said Seoul's ships had opened fire while its craft was north of the border.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

RNC Chairman Michael Steele: My Fellow Republicans Fear Me Because I'm Black
Posted by Steve Benen on November 10, 2009 at 7:16 AM.

STEELE SCARES WHITE REPUBLICANS.... It's been a couple of weeks since the RNC's Michael Steele said something foolish and had to walk it back, so I suppose we were due for another gem.

Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Michael Steele, who is known for making controversial statements, on Sunday said that white Republicans are afraid of him. [...]

The Republican chairman appeared on NewsOne's "Washington Watch" this weekend, a new Sunday political talk show aimed at a black audience. The host, Roland Martin, asked Steele how Republicans could reach out to black voters.

Roland Martin noted that he's long believed that white Republicans "have been scared of black folks."

Steele replied, "You're absolutely right. I mean I've been in the room and they've been scared of me."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

So the Stupak Amendment Sucks: Here's What You Can Do About It
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on November 10, 2009 at 6:00 AM.

Saturday night, by a five-vote margin, the House of Representatives passed health care reform legislation. It's an incredible victory -- Americans desperately need health care reform, and this bill is a step in the right direction. It means that millions of uninsured and under-insured people will be able to go to the doctor when they get sick, and will be able to get treatment when they need it. It means an end to gender-based insurance ratings; it means an end to listing pregnancy, c-section, rape and domestic violence as pre-existing conditions; it means maternity coverage. Those are fantastic victories.

But they came at a price -- and as usual, women paid. As Ann put it, It's pretty fucking cramped underneath this bus, what with 50% of Americans down here. The Stupak amendment to the health care bill, which blocks even private insurance companies from covering abortion services, passed -- with 64 Democrats supporting it. You can read their names here. Thirty-nine Democrats voted against health care reform. The majority of those Democrats also voted for the Stupak amendment.

That's right: There were 21 Democrats who voted to kill the health care bill, but who also voted for an anti-choice amendment to attach to that bill. If any Democrats need to be taken out in the next primary cycle -- besides Stupak -- it's these 21.

I'm happy that a health care bill passed in the house. But checking my email Saturday morning and getting word about the Stupak amendment felt like a gut-punch. Spending the afternoon listening to the floor debates, and then watching the votes tick in, was sickening. I don't envy Nancy Pelosi's position, and I don't actually fault her for putting the amendment up for a vote -- but I do fault the anti-choice Democrats who voted for it. I especially fault Rep. Stupak, who is a Democrat himself. It's one thing to be a pro-life Dem who supports lowering the abortion rate through contraception access and sexual health education (oh, and comprehensive health care reform), but who doesn't need to punish women. It's quite another to sponsor a bill that strips health care from women in the name of “pro-life” politics. Of course, Stupak and his co-sponsor, Joe Pitts, are no strangers to compromising women’s lives in the name of life:

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

Bravo, really guys.

Reproductive health care is health care. And thanks to spineless, misogynist Democrats, women are not going to get the care they need. Beyond that, this is just another example of a party reliant on women to win elections throwing women under the bus as soon as our needs become inconvenient. As Ann says:

[Liberal dudes will] be explaining that it's not a big deal because the Stupak amendment can be stripped out by the conference committee (which I very much hope it will, but am not holding my breath) and because there are potential loopholes (though I have yet to hear a convincing one).

On some level, I don't care about the nitty-gritty details of this amendment. This isn't just about how the money is allocated or what workarounds exist. This has me so incredibly infuriated because it further segregates abortion as something different, off the menu of regular health care. It is a huge backward step in the battle to convey -- not just politically, but to women in their everyday lives -- that reproductive health care is normal and necessary, and must be there if (or, more accurately, when) you need it.

This also sets apart women's rights from the Democratic/progressive/whatever agenda. As something expendable. But fundamental rights for women are not peripheral. They are core. And not just because of so-called "progressive" values. In a political sense, too: Seeing as how the Democratic party relies on women voters to win elections, you would think they would have come around to this no-brainer by now.

Yes, we got hosed.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bill O'Reilly Goes After Sesame Street: ‘We May Have To Ambush Oscar’
Posted by Ben Armbruster, Think Progress on November 10, 2009 at 4:30 AM.

During an episode of Sesame Street that was originally broadcast two years ago, a character tells Oscar the Grouch, who happens to be reporting for "GNN" (Grouchy News Network), that she is switching her news viewing loyalties to "Pox News," adding, "Now there is a trashy news show."

Right winger Andrew Breitbart's "Big Hollywood" blog took on the Sesame Street menace last week proclaiming: "Add one more soldier to the Left's war on Fox News: Oscar the Grouch":

If Mom and Dad watch cable news, it's better than 50/50 they watch "POX News." So what gives? PBS -- a network partially funded with my tax dollars -- has the right to tell my kids that their parents watch "trashy" news? The message is clear, I can't even sit my kids in front of "Sesame Street" without having to worry about the Left attempting to undermine my authority.

Thursday night on Fox News, host Bill O'Reilly picked up on Big Hollywood's rant and couldn't resist defending his network against the smear merchants at Sesame Street. "Say it ain't so. Sesame Street trashing Fox News!" O'Reilly complained. After airing the segment in question, O'Reilly said wryly, "We may have to ambush Oscar." Watch it:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush Disapproval Ratings Reach All Time High
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 10, 2008 at 4:37 PM.

In general, I don't report much on the George W. Bush's approval ratings, in part because they've become rather predictable. "He's very unpopular," I can hear you saying. "We get it."



But when the president reaches certain milestones in unpopularity, it's probably worth making note of it.

As President-elect Obama visits the White House, a new national poll suggests that the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the most unpopular president in the six decades since presidential approval ratings were first measured.

Seventy-six percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday disapprove of how George W. Bush is handling his job as President. That's an all-time high in CNN polling, or in Gallup polling dating back to World War II.

"No other president's disapproval rating has gone higher than 70 percent. Bush has managed to do that three times so far this year," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "That means that Bush is now more unpopular than Richard Nixon was when he resigned from office during Watergate with a 66 percent disapproval rating."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Environment Scores a Big Win as Bottled Water Sales Fall
Posted by Tara Lohan, AlterNet on November 10, 2008 at 4:30 PM.

Years of work by pressure groups and a growing awareness by the public has help expose the bottled water industry's true colors as sales this year show.

The Dallas Morning News reported:

Bottled water sales are expected to slow to a trickle this year, and producers are blaming everything from the parched economy to the kitchen sink.

"There's a free substitute called tap water, which doesn't exist for snacks," Indra Nooyi, chairman and chief executive of PepsiCo Inc., told analysts recently about slackening sales in liquid refreshment beverages, a broad category that includes sodas, juices, bottled water and ready-to-drink teas.

Sales volume for bottled water is expected to grow a scant 2.3 percent this year, said Gary Hemphill, managing director of Beverage Marketing Corp., a research firm in New York.

That would be the slowest growth rate since 1991 and about a fifth of the nearly 12 percent boost the industry had in 2002.

Calistoga's largest employer, the Calistoga Beverage Co., is slashing more than 75 percent of its work force because of sluggish sales of bottled water and a decision to shift production to plants in Southern California, the company said Friday.

This week, parent company Nestlé Waters gave layoff notices to 80 workers at the bottling plant on the east side of Calistoga, namesake for the iconic brand founded in 1924. On Monday, Calistoga Beverage will employ just 24 workers at its Napa Valley production facility.

The CIA Is Worried: Will Obama Actually Hold Them Accountable?
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on November 10, 2008 at 3:25 PM.

According to CQ, the CIA is worried that Obama won't "have their backs" when they do something wrong:

"I was with a group of intelligence officers today," Roger Cressey, a counterterrorism official in the Clinton White House, said on MSNBC Thursday night, "and I think the most important thing for the president to say is, 'We've got your back.' That 'we want you to take risks -- risks that conform with our law and our values as a country.'

"What the intelligence community is afraid of more than anything is the game of 'Gotcha,'" Cressey said. "Which is, if they make a mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, the White House doesn't support them, they're left out to dry, and Congress crushes them. And then you get into that risk-averse mentality, which we saw for awhile. So that is what they want. They want support, so they know that the president is going to be behind them. But also that he's going to lead them."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Did Palin Use GOP Funds to Buy Her Children Underwear?
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 10, 2008 at 2:02 PM.

After controversy erupted over Gov. Sarah Palin's (R-AK) largely unauthorized spending spree, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) announced that she would no longer be wearing the expensive clothing: "Those clothes, they are not my property. ... I'm not taking them with me."

Palin, however, did take some clothes with her. The Republican party is planning to dispatch a lawyer to Alaska to "inventory and retrieve the clothes still in her possession." According to Palin's father, Chuck Heath, the governor spent the weekend separating out the GOP-bought clothes, including underwear for her daughters:

Palin's father, Chuck Heath, said his daughter spent the day Saturday trying to figure out what belongs to the RNC.

"She was just frantically...trying to sort stuff out," Heath said. "That's the problem, you know, the kids lose underwear, and everything has to be accounted for.

"Nothing goes right back to normal," he said.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Welcome to Your New Home: The Obamas Visit the White House
Posted by Staff, Huffington Post on November 10, 2008 at 12:52 PM.

Watch video of the Obamas arriving at the White House for their meetings with the President and First Lady Laura Bush. Read more below from AP:

President-elect Obama and his wife, Michelle, have arrived at the White House for a visit, their first since Obama's landslide election victory.

President Bush and first lady Laura Bush were at the South Portico of the White House to greet the Obamas on a sunny fall day with moderate temperatures and colorful _ but fading _ autumn leaves.

Just a couple moments later, Bush and Obama were seen walking along the White House collonade to the Oval Office.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Voters Not Conned By Coal
Posted by Bruce Nilles, Sierra Club on November 10, 2008 at 12:49 PM.

This week's post was co-written by Mary Anne Hitt, the new deputy director of the National Coal Campaign.



Wow -- what an amazing and transformational time to be an American. Whether you have been voting for decades or you have just voted for the first time, the election of Barack Obama marks an incredible new chapter in the history of our nation, our planet, and our energy future.

In the midst of this renewed spirit of possibility and hope, it is worth noting that in the 11th hour of the Presidential election, as John McCain and Sarah Palin were making their last-ditch attempt to win swing states in America's heartland, they picked one final issue that they hoped would turn those states red. Of all the issues facing the nation -- the economy, health care, the war in Iraq -- which issue did the McCain campaign choose as its Hail Mary, its last hope to win the election?

Coal.

Did you notice something else?

It didn't work.

When the votes were counted, McCain lost critical coal-producing states he hoped to win over with his last-minute coal blitz -- Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia, to name a few.

The coal industry spent millions this election season, sponsoring the debates and the conventions and blanketing the nation with so-called "clean coal" ads. But I imagine it didn't fool you, and if the election of Barack Obama taught us anything, it's that the American people are ready for honesty and integrity, not spin from well-funded industries. While we heard a lot about clean coal during the election, you know the facts:

- Coal is not clean
- Coal is not cheap
- Coal is not a replacement for oil
- Coal is not abundant

In local elections coal also took a beating, because citizens understand the economic benefits offered by clean energy and demanded that America move beyond coal. 

Here are just two examples:  In Missouri, a state with a long history of coal burning, voters by a margin of 2:1 passed a statewide initiative requiring the state's utilities to turn away from coal and meet 15 percent of their energy needs with clean energy. With its strong manufacturing base and great potential for clean energy, Missouri is now racing to catch up with other Midwest states, such as Minnesota and Iowa, to be a part of this clean energy revolution.   

In Sevier County, Utah, voters overwhelmingly approved an initiative that gives local residents the right to reject zoning for dirty coal plants.  This is likely the end of a long battle over plans to build a new coal plant in that county.

Clearly, the next four years presents us with an incredible, historic opportunity. We can halt the runaway global warming, restore clean air across America, and swiftly end mountaintop removal mining, by moving America beyond coal.  This is a challenge that America is ready to face with creativity and ingenuity, and we will need the help of each and every one of you to ensure we create a truly independent, clean energy future for our nation and our planet. Please join us and sign up here to support the Sierra Club's campaign to move America beyond coal.

How San Francisco's Archbishop Worked Hard to Pass Prop. 8
Posted by Teddy Partridge, Firedoglake on November 10, 2008 at 12:03 PM.

The role of the Archbishop of San Francisco in the Prop 8 battle became clearer today: it was he who engaged the Mormon Leadership on Prop 8.

Months before the first ads would run on Proposition 8, San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer reached out to a group he knew well, Mormons.

Niederauer had made critical inroads into improving Catholic-Mormon relations while he was Bishop of Salt Lake City for 11 years. And now he asked them for help on Prop. 8, the ballot measure that sought to ban same-sex marriages in California.

The June letter from Niederauer drew in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and proved to be a critical move in building a multi-religious coalition -- the backbone of the fundraising, organizing and voting support for the successful ballot measure. By bringing together Mormons and Catholics, Niederauer would align the two most powerful religious institutions in the Prop. 8 battle.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Dean to Depart DNC a Hero
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 10, 2008 at 11:03 AM.

I very clearly remember the reaction from the political establishment when former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was chosen to head the Democratic National Committee. Most responded with two words, "Uh oh."



Four years and two very successful campaign cycles later, Dean's achievements as chairman are unquestioned, and the benefits of his innovative 50-state strategy are self-evident. We learned today that Dean is departing the DNC, but he'll leave as something of a hero. Sam Stein reports:

After four years at the helm of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean is preparing to relinquish his chairmanship.

Dean, who has been serving in the post since 2005, has said in the past that he would serve only one term, though his successful work with the Obama campaign had led some Democrats to wonder whether he would stay on into the next administration. This won't be the case, officials at the DNC confirm. He will serve as chair until his term ends in January. The party will settle on a new head when it hosts a meeting during the week of Obama's inauguration.

In sheer political terms, the choice really wasn't Dean's to make. Indeed, any decision on who will serve as the next DNC chair will come with directives from Obama and his aides.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Extremely Unpopular President to Meet With Popular President-Elect
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 10, 2008 at 10:02 AM.

Today, President-elect Barack Obama is scheduled to meet with President Bush at the White House. The New York Times notes that the visit will be both "historic" and "perhaps awkward," since Obama consistently criticized Bush on the campaign trail. A new Gallup analysis also finds that the meeting will be "a remarkable contrast between one of the least popular two-term presidents in modern times at the close of his administration, and one of the most popular candidates to win the presidency":

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Palin's Own Cheerleaders Have Kicked Her in the Teeth On the Way Out
Posted by Liza Sabater, Culture Kitchen on November 10, 2008 at 8:42 AM.

For feminists and progressives it's really easy to criticize Sarah Palin. She has a horrid record of defending reproductive rights for women. She sees nothing wrong with abusing her power as governor of Alaska. She has a record of taking gifts and expensive favors from lobbyists and political allies.


What's worse : It's no secret she was not chosen for her knowledge of national domestic or foreign policy and politics. The woman was not vetted properly because she was not crowned the GOPs beauty queen for her knowledge or experience. She was chosen for being a good looking Christian Nationalist that would "turn on" the theocratic faction of the GOPs "base". And it doesn't hurt she actively sold herself to the neo-con hacks desperate to slap some lipstick on the ever ugly Republican Party pig.



Yet all those negatives were pushed aside by the GOP operatives, Bill Krystol included, who sold Sarah Palin as a viable Vice-President to John McCain. All those hacks squabbled over Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and McCain's own pick Joe Lieberman. They wouldn't have any of them.


After a less than 2 hour meeting, McCain and his campaign and party hacks chose her. No drama involved just a cold and calculated political decision. They had more experienced and better qualified women to go after the "Hillary Vote", yet they made her their political beauty queen as the last "Hail Mary" pass they had up their sleeve.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama Hires Progressive Liaison for Transition Team
Posted by Nico Pitney, Sam Stein, Huffington Post on November 10, 2008 at 8:27 AM.

Veteran Democratic official Mike Lux has been tapped by Barack Obama to serve as an adviser and progressive liaison during the transition period, the Huffington Post has learned.



Lux, who worked on the Clinton administration transition efforts in 1992, confirmed the hiring but, citing a need for clearance, declined to offer further information.



The staffing move provides the Obama team with an important outlet to the progressive community -- a constituency from which the president-elect currently enjoys great support but one that has a wide range of priorities and will be holding Obama most firmly to his campaign promises once he takes office.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

It Is No Secret: Obama Plans to Reverse Many of Bush's Policies
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on November 10, 2008 at 8:19 AM.

This is music to my ears. Please, Maude, let it be so:

Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.

...Obama himself has signaled, for example, that he intends to reverse Bush's controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson's.

...The new president is also expected to lift a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion, even in countries where the procedure is legal, said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he rescinded the Reagan-era regulation, known as the Mexico City policy, but Bush reimposed it.

"We have been communicating with his transition staff" almost daily, Richards said. "We expect to see a real change."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The (Very Very Strong) Case Against Joe Lieberman
Posted by Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake on November 10, 2008 at 7:12 AM.

(You can sign a letter to the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee asking them to relieve Joe Lieberman of his gavel here)


I realize it's often tough to objectively evaluate a friend and colleague, especially when you are members of the most exclusive club in the world.  When you see them all the time in the Senate cloakroom, laugh at their jokes, and nudge them to stay awake during Joe Biden's oratory you can lose sight of the knife in your back.


Case in point, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who now says, "Joe Lieberman is not some right-wing nutcase...Joe Lieberman is one of the most progressive people ever to come from the state of Connecticut."


Where to begin?  Well, let’s start in 2000, when Senator Joseph Lieberman, the Democratic candidate for vice president—in response to pressure from the Bush campaign and without checking with his own—conceded hundreds of fraudulent overseas ballots supposedly from military voters that cost Al Gore the election, the notorious "Thanksgiving Stuffing."



Let's skip lightly over Lieberman’s part in the culture wars, his sanctimonious rebuke of President Clinton on the floor of the Senate at the start of the impeachment charade, and his critical role as part of the so-called “Gang of 14” breaking Democratic resistance to putting Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court. Let’s jump straight to Lieberman’s December 6, 2005 speech where he rebuked his party:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama and Guantanamo: A Sign of Things to Come?
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 10, 2008 at 6:59 AM.

Members of Barack Obama's team have already indicated policies the new White House plans to tackle early on in 2009, but let's not overlook Obama's efforts to reverse the Guantanamo nightmare.

President-elect Obama's advisers are quietly crafting a proposal to ship dozens, if not hundreds, of imprisoned terrorism suspects to the United States to face criminal trials, a plan that would make good on his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison but could require creation of a controversial new system of justice.

During his campaign, Obama described Guantanamo as a "sad chapter in American history" and has said generally that the U.S. legal system is equipped to handle the detainees. But he has offered few details on what he planned to do once the facility is closed.

Under plans being put together in Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts.

A third group of detainees -- the ones whose cases are most entangled in highly classified information -- might have to go before a new court designed especially to handle sensitive national security cases, according to advisers and Democrats involved in the talks. Advisers participating directly in the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans aren't final.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama and Bush to Meet Today
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on November 10, 2008 at 4:28 AM.

President-elect Barack Obama and President George W. Bush will meet face-to-face today at 2 pm in the White House to discuss the upcoming transition. Atrios highlights a previous encounter between the two men:

"Obama!" Bush exclaimed, according to Obama's account of the meeting in his second memoir, "The Audacity of Hope." "Come here and meet Laura. Laura, you remember Obama. We saw him on TV during election night. Beautiful family. And that wife of yours -- that's one impressive lady."

The two men shook hands and then, according to Obama, Bush turned to an aide, "who squirted a big dollop of hand sanitizer in the president's hand."

Bush then offered some to Obama, who recalled: "Not wanting to seem unhygienic, I took a squirt."

LAPD Remodels Racial Profiling To Target Muslims
Posted by Tammy Johnson, RaceWire on November 10, 2007 at 7:02 AM.

This post, written by Tammy Johnson, originally appeared on RaceWire

They are coming for us. The Big Man up top says, "We need to go into the community and get to know people's names...We need to walk into homes, neighborhoods, places or worship and businesses." They call us a community at-risk and say that they need to moderate radicalization of our brothers, our sisters, uncle Cleaver and even cousin Mae. They are coming for us and we need to be ready.

I'm not crying Chicken Little here. It was all over the Los Angeles Times and New York Times this morning. The Los Angeles Police Department has created a mapping project to identify so-called "Islamic extremists" in area Muslim communities. As a result entire communities have been branded as "at-risk" and are being placed under surveillance. "We want to know where the Pakistanis, Iranians and Chechens are so we can reach out to them," says LA Deputy Chief Michael P. Downing.

Whether you call it a 21st century COINTELPRO or the next evolution of racial profiling, this is nothing short of government-sanctioned racism. We must speak up and say that it's wrong and demand that it stop immediately. Today it's the Los Angeles Muslim community. Tomorrow it will be Black and African college students protesting against the genocide in Darfur. And the next day it will be baggy-jean-and-white-shirt wearing Cambodian high schoolers tagged as gang members. They are coming for us right now and we have to do something.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Homeland Security Employee Wore "Blackface" Costume At Work All Day
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein, Majikthise on November 10, 2007 at 7:00 AM.

This post, written by Lindsay Beyerstein, originally appeared on Majikthise

Not only did a DHS employee win a prize for a prison/blackface Halloween costume from Assistant Secretary Julie Myers, he also wore the costume to work all that day.

On Tuesday, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a member of the Homeland Security Committee, sent Myers a letter expressing her "dismay" over the incident at an ICE Halloween party and posing questions about it. Yesterday evening, McCaskill received Myers's three-page reply.

Myers wrote that the costume was "inappropriate" and "could leave a negative impression as to the respect that ICE has for those in our custody."

She noted that the man had not originally been a winner but was added so that "management" party-goers would not be the only employees recognized. [WaPo]

"He was dressed in this costume during his entire shift at work all day, which means that in the workplace there wasn't a manager that said, 'You need to change, you need to leave." [WaPo]

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush's Own Church Says "Get Out of Iraq Now"
Posted by Paddy , Brave New Films on November 10, 2007 at 6:32 AM.

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

Bush's bishops: Exit Iraq now

President Bush's church, long at odds with him on matters of public policy, called on the United States and its partners today to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq immediately.

The Bishops of the United Methodist Church approved a resolution calling on Bush, Congress and leaders of the other coalition partners to begin the "immediate safe and full withdrawal" of all troops, declare that there will be no permanent military bases in Iraq, increase support for veterans of all wars and initiate a reconstruction plan to address the humanitarian, social and educational needs of the Iraqi people.

(snip)

In issuing the call, the bishops said their position is based on the denomination's belief that "war is incompatible with the teachings and examples of Christ," and on the call of Jesus Christ for "his followers to be peacemakers."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Updated: Why Lieberman won't replace Rummy …
Posted by Joshua Holland on November 10, 2006 at 2:00 PM.

Like many others, when I realized what a tough confirmation Secretary of Defense nominee Robert Gates will -- or at least should -- have coming, I wondered if there wasn't an ulterior motive for the pick. And, also like many others, it occurred to me that if Gates' confirmation were killed, it would allow Bush to nominate Joe Lieberman, who might then take the job reluctantly, for the "good of the country" -- Joe's independent minded, you know, and always puts country ahead of party -- and that would give Connecticut's Republican governor Jodi Rell the opportunity to pick a replacement and swing the Senate to a 50-50 split with Darth Cheney representing the tie-breaking vote. The scenario has been a hot topic of speculation in so many of the Internet's tubes this week, including among our commenters.

But after thinking about it a bit, and discussing it behind the scenes with some of the other insightful writers around here, I think that's pretty darn unlikely for several reasons.

All of them boil down to the fact that while Holy Joe is a craven opportunist, a self-loathing Dem and a dedicated militarist, he's not stupid. He also has a big ego, and, like everyone in politics, wants as much power as possible.

The last two are why he'd never take the job -- or at least he'd need to be very stupid to do so. Consider:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

UPDATED: Post-Election Poll Round-up [VIDEO]
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 10, 2006 at 1:27 PM.

Campaign for America's Future's Bob Borosage, Pollster Stan Greenberg, and MoveOn's Eli Pariser reflect on the 2006 elections using, oh, I don't know, actual data to support their analysis that this election was won largely on exiting Iraq and economic populism -- or progressive ideas.

Unlike, say, the rest of the media, taking its cues from the right wing blogs and others, like Family Research Council's Tony Perkins (no, he's still in the closet), who claim that this it have been a Democratic landslide but it was a conservative victory. Watch the video, tell your friends.

UPDATE: Paul Waldman has an excellent piece on the subject in today's Boston Globe on how "Democrats did not win by moving to the center; they won because at the moment, they are the center":

Coming from media that never tire of telling us that America is a fundamentally conservative country, it isn't too surprising to hear. But it's just not true.

In fact, the Democratic freshman class of the 110th Congress includes a few conservatives, but overall it is made up of candidates who held traditional Democratic positions. While some races have yet to be decided, we know a few things about the new Democratic members. All of them support increasing the minimum wage, and all oppose privatizing Social Security. Nearly all support embryonic stem cell research. All except a few are pro choice. And all of these positions enjoy majority support.

Radio daze ...
Posted by Joshua Holland on November 10, 2006 at 11:31 AM.

I have some radio gigs this weekend, and I will certainly not be discussing America's Second Civil War (yes, history will record that the dueling Democratic strategists of North and South exchanged blistering fusillades of inside-baseball books in a withering battle of intellectual attrition).

I'll just stick to the minor stuff, like the occupation of Iraq.

On Saturday I'll be discussing that, Rummy and whatever else Chuck Mertz wants to chat about on This is Hell. If you're in Chicago, catch it on 89.3 fm at 12:10 central time (1:10 EST). Others can stream it here.

On Sunday, I'll also be talking about Iraq, this time with the legendary Blase Bonpane -- I used to listen to him religiously when I lived in L.A. -- on World Focus. In SoCal, catch it at 10 am Pacific time on KPFK: 90.7 fm in Los Angeles and 98.7 fm in Santa Barbara. Or stream it here.

Also on Sunday (for North Americans), I'll do my regular weekly gig on Breakfast with Peter Godfrey down in Adelaide Australia (don't ask me how that came about). If you're in Adelaide -- and I'm sure many readers are -- you can catch it Monday morning at 7:15 am on 101.5 fm. If you're in the states you can stream it here at 3:45 pm EST on Sunday. I'll speak, as always, with our own regular commenter, the insightful and enchanting Heroesall. Take that, Rupert Murdoch!

Should Bush Be Impeached?
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 10, 2006 at 10:53 AM.

Respond to this MSNBC poll, screenshot right, and discuss in comments.... Who knows, your comments may make it into an evolving story...

'[W]ithout any question, [Rumsfeld] has committed War Crimes' [VIDEO]
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 10, 2006 at 10:50 AM.

In this Democracy Now! interview (Video right), the Center For Constitutional Rights' Michael Ratner says of outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:

So this guy has committed -- without any question, this guy has committed war crimes, violations of the Geneva Conventions.

Well, I think the record is quite clear. War crimes have been committed. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld combined to sponsor the memos by John Yoo and Jay Bybee and others to sanction torture. CIA officials have committed war crimes. DOD officials have committed war crimes. If you look at the three decisions of the Supreme Court -- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Rasul v. Bush -- clearly laws have been broken, serious laws have been broken.

Rumsfeld: bozo or war criminal? [VIDEO]
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 10, 2006 at 8:35 AM.

Is it proper to laugh at a man whose boneheaded leadership may have cost the lives of so many Americans, Iraqis and others? Absolutely.

In some cultures, Marshall Macluhan once pointed out, murderers aren't abhorred so much as they're pitied. Let's take our cues from whomever he was talking about and pity -- and laugh at -- this bozo (video right).

Video of the War Crimes suit in preparation against Rumsfeld are coming after noon. Check back here for the link. Watch that video HERE.

RNC Chairman... kaput
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 10, 2006 at 8:01 AM.

"He’s been on the gerbil wheel, as one of his close friends put it, for well in excess of six years now and he’s tired," said Ken Mehlman soon-to-be-former RNC Chairman, discussing his imminent unemployment.

Most public officials opt for the "spend time with the family," refrain, only Mehlman doesn't have one. If he is indeed gay, as Bill Maher said he was, just yesterday, and if the agenda and candidates he just finished gerbiling for are successful, then he won't ever have one. Not legally anyway.

Fortunately for him, perhaps, he ended up not being all that successful as his candidates took a historically unprecedented pounding on Tuesday.

60 Minutes correspondent Ed Bradley dies
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 10, 2006 at 7:59 AM.

Viewers and colleagues mourn veteran 60 Minutes correspondent Ed Bradley, who died of leukemia on Thursday at the age of 65. Bradley won 19 Emmy Awards during his 25 seasons with 60 Minutes.

Romenesko has a roundup of reactions to Bradley's passing.

[Boing Boing, Romenesko]

Rumsfeld's replacement Robert Gates
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 10, 2006 at 5:08 AM.

Aside from reading Josh Holland's excellent piece on Robert Gates, the man Bush has tapped to replace his 6-year "Brownie," Donald Rumsfeld, please go visit Robertgates.com and get the real scoop on this Iran-Contra figure... it's an eye-opener. (HT: Onnesha Roychoudhuri)

Senate Budget Breakdown
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 10, 2005 at 2:52 PM.

With Republican tax cut plans stalled in the Senate, The Nitpicker bestows a coveted award upon Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) for this trenchant observation:

"It is time to recognize a simple fact of life," Voinovich said. "Contrary to what some of my colleagues seem to believe, tax cuts do not pay for themselves."

Why Equal Marriage Matters
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 10, 2005 at 11:46 AM.

Last week, The Happy Feminist met with a client about a lawsuit. Like many clients facing such an ordeal, he brought his spouse along for support and advice.

As his lawyer, HF had to warn him that his partner of 15 years was not protected by marital privilege because their state doesn't recognize same-sex unions.

HF explained that married couples can't be forced to testify about their private communications, but that the client's partner could be forced to reveal anything he heard in the meeting. So, the client faced a terrible choice: shut out his life partner, or risk attorney-client privilege.

HF writes:

This is just one example of why I find it appalling that my fellow citizens would deny the privileges of civil unions to gay men and women. Life is hard. We should each be able to have one person of our choice upon whom we can rely without interference from the state, one person in whom we can confide indiscriminately, one person of our choice who can take time off (under federal and state leave acts) to nurse us when we are seriously ill, one person of our choice to be our partner through all the rough terrain we may encounter -- lawsuits, illnesses, poverty, and everything else.

Pat Robertson: God Split With Dover Over ID
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 10, 2005 at 10:06 AM.

On Today's 700 Club, Pat Robertson warned the citizens of Dover, PA that God might amend his omipresence policy to exclude Dover. According to Robertson, the voters of Dover burned Yaweh by striking Intelligent Design from the high school science curriculum:

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there.”

Judy Miller Gets The Boot
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 10, 2005 at 9:13 AM.

New York Times reporter Judy Miller has never been known as a retiring sort. However, yesterday, the paper announced that Miller had reached an agreement to end her 28-year career at the NYT.

Steve Gilliard seizes upon this passage from the Times article:

Ms. Miller originally demanded that she be able to write an essay for the paper's Op-Ed page challenging the allegations against her. The Times refused that demand - Gail Collins, editor of the editorial page, said, "We don't use the Op-Ed page for back and forth between one part of the paper and another" - but agreed to let her write the letter.

Bush Linked To Abramoff Scandal?
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 10, 2005 at 5:57 AM.

The New York Times is reporting that lobbyist Jack Abramoff asked the leader of a West African nation for $9 million to arrange a meeting with George W. Bush:

The African leader, President Omar Bongo of Gabon, met with President Bush in the Oval Office on May 26, 2004, 10 months after Mr. Abramoff made the offer. There has been no evidence in the public record that Mr. Abramoff had any role in organizing the meeting or that he received any money or had a signed contract with Gabon.

Senator: Keep Terrorists Out Of U.S. Court
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 10, 2005 at 5:34 AM.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-S.C.) wants to bar detainees at Guantanamo from challenging their detentions in the American courts. Graham may attach this stipulation to a defense bill that the Senate is debating this week, meaning that the Senate could vote on the issue as early as today.

Jeralyn of TalkLeft reports that Graham's bill would prevent detainees from challenging any of the following in U.S. courts:

• The legality of their detentions
• The propriety of returning detainees to their home countries
  
• Adequacy of medical care at Guantanamo
• Quality of the food
• Speed of mail delivery
  
• Allotment of exercise time and other conditions of confinement

Grad Students Strike At NYU
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 10, 2005 at 5:06 AM.

NYU graduate students went on strike yesterday to defend their professional rights as teachers and research assistants. The strikers are demanding that the University recognize their union and negotiate a new contract in good faith.

In July 2004, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that graduate students are not employees and therefore not entitled to unionize. Jill explains the legal situation in more detail at Feministe.

As Scott Lemieux says, the logic behind the NLRB's decision is flimsy. Claiming that grad students aren't workers because they're students is like saying that professional sports aren't sports because they're also businesses.

Logical or not, the NLRB ruling means that NYU's graduate students are facing a tough fight to get their union recognized. Nathan Newman sums up the situation:

When the government says you have no rights under the law, that doesn't mean workers can't fight out on their own. Bush's National Labor Relations Board stripped graduate student employees of their rights under labor law, but NYU grad students are still fighting, going out on strike to demand the University recognize their union as the collective bargaining agent for the student workers.

It's worth remembering that there were unions long before the Wagner Act, and the rightwingers can grind the law into useless dust, but that can't stop people determined to fight on their own.