PEEK

Buzz, perspectives, insight and news from AlterNet

Hypocrisy Watch: RNC Insurance Plan Has Covered Abortions for 18 Years
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 13, 2009 at 5:17 PM.

RNC SUBSIDIZES ABORTIONS FOR 18 YEARS -- AND COUNTING.... The debate over financing of abortions -- the basis for the offensive Stupak amendment -- is all about money being fungible. Amy Sullivan explained the problem nicely recently: "The problem, they say, is that if any insurance plan that covers abortion is allowed to participate in a public exchange, then premiums paid to that plan in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies help support that abortion coverage even if individual abortion procedures are paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid premium dollars."

But applying this argument can prove problematic. Focus on the Family, for example, one of the nation's largest religious right organizations and a fierce opponent of abortion rights, has health insurance for its employees through a company that covers "abortion services." The far-right outfit, by its own standards, indirectly subsidizes abortions.

Apparently, the Republican National Committee has the same problem. Politico reported yesterday afternoon that the RNC -- whose platform calls abortion "a fundamental assault on innocent human life" -- gets insurance through Cigna with a plan that covers elective abortion.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

What's Really So Frightening About Burger King's $1 Double Cheeseburgers
Posted by Tara Lohan, AlterNet on November 13, 2009 at 4:50 PM.

Ever time I see a Burger King commercial advertising their $1 double cheeseburgers I'm astounded. How the heck could that be possible? There is meat on there, right? Two patties? I mean it's likely pieces of thousands of feedlot cows and it has got other fillers in there. And usually some sort of chemical to try and kill the bacteria. And then there's the cheese -- maybe something resembling a dairy product, the bun (which has at over 30 ingredients, according the BK website -- I lost count), and of course a few wilted tomatoes or lettuce or pickles maybe? Hard to remember, last time I had a fast food burger I was 11.

And that's just the ingredients -- of course there is also the labor, the packaging, and the other associated costs.

So how could it be remotely possible to do all of that -- even at massive scale -- for a buck?

Well, it turns out you can't.

According to the AP, "The National Franchise Association, a group that represents more than 80 percent of Burger King's U.S. franchise owners, said the $1 promotion forces restaurant owners to sell the quarter-pound burger with at least a 10-cent loss."

So, I was right. Um, barely.

Here's more:

 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Goldman Sachs Report: Watered-Down Senate Health Bill a Windfall for Big Insurance
Posted by Igor Volsky, Think Progress on November 13, 2009 at 3:55 PM.

The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that Goldman Sachs (in the course of performing “God’s work“) did a report analyzing the impact of health reform on Cigna, Aetna, WellPoint, UnitedHealth and Humana. While Stein concludes that insurers would profit from undermining health care reform, the report also points out that a more “centrist” version of the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) legislation would lead to the highest “aggregate revenue growth” for the insurance industry:

Should lawmakers further water-down the SFC bill, the industry will stand to profit, the report implies, suggesting that the “bull” case scenario is a reform package that brings in millions of new government-subsidized customers without requiring the industry to pay any new taxes. Industry revenue would grow 6.9% from “more moderation of provisions in the current SFC plan or as a result of changes prior to the major implementation in 2013,” the report states. The report therefore suggests that the insurance industry may actually prefer watered-down reform over nothing. The Wonk Room has more. (Chart courtesy of FDL)

Politico Trivializes Rape by Gov Contractors, Spins Franken Amendment as Partisan Attack (Obsenity-Laden Rant Alert)
Posted by Thers, Whiskey Fire on November 13, 2009 at 2:53 PM.

Here is why I dislike the American Political Insider Press, and by "dislike," I mean, "want to toss into a vat of shark-infested sulfuric acid." It is because of this class of thing from The Politico.

When Al Franken ran for the Senate last year, the former “Saturday Night Live” star had to reassure skeptics that the fierce partisan attacks he lobbed at Republicans as an author and radio host wouldn’t define his style as a legislator. 

But because of one of his first pieces of legislation, Democrats now have their most brazen attack line of the emerging 2010 campaign season: that Republicans are insensitive to rape victims. 

The charge stems from a Franken-sponsored amendment that would prohibit the Department of Defense from contracting with companies that require employees to resolve workplace complaints — including complaints of sexual assault — through private arbitration rather than the courts. 

Only in the god-blighted shitworld of the horrible fuckassed American Political Insider Press is it possible to even fucking think for a motherfucking minute that it's Playing with Partisan Dynamite to argue that the American government should not negotiate expensive contracts with companies that shield rapists. What the fuck? What the motherfucking fuck?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Will the Senate Stand Against Anti-Choice Stupak Amendment?
Posted by Emily Douglas, The Nation on November 13, 2009 at 1:43 PM.

"That's the price of health-care reform." That's what plenty of oh-so-well-meaning pundits have told those of us making a fuss over the Stupak amendment, the late-night attachment to the House health-care reform bill that will leave virtually any woman accessing insurance through the health insurance exchange without abortion coverage. (Another argument that's cropped up is that the Stupak amendment won't actually affect abortion access for that many women, a claim that's based on faulty analysis of Guttmacher data on billing for abortion care, as Adam Sonfield explains.)

But both pro-choice and progressive health-care reform leaders and members of Congress have come out swinging against the amendment, some going as far as to make it clear they'll refuse to support reform if Congressional Democrats decide to pay for it with women's health-care. Calling the amendment a "middle-class abortion ban," Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said Wednesday that her organization would not support health-care reform with an amendment further limiting access to abortion. Meanwhile, Senators Barbara Mikulski and Diane Feinstein have begun strategizing how to keep Stupak off the Senate bill, the New York Times reports.

"Keeping Stupak off the Senate bill is our primary goal right now," Laurie Rubiner, PPFA vice-president, said, "and chances are very good for that."

"We're definitely hearing a lot of encouraging talk [about the Senate]," Donna Crane, public policy director at NARAL Pro-Choice America, adds. "The Senate thinks the House went too far."

Sen. Ben Nelson has grabbed headlines with the announcement that he won't support the Senate healthcare reform bill unless it, too, bans coverage of abortion for any plan financed in part by affordability credits, but advocates were doubtful that he could get the 60 votes necessary to have the bill considered.

"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," Sen. Barbara Boxer told the Huffington Post. "It is a much more pro-choice Senate than it has been in a long time, and it is much more pro-choice than the House."

"Ben Nelson is looking for any excuse to vote against health-care reform," Rubiner says. "It's abortion today, it was the public plan yesterday."

NARAL, though it is running a petition asking Sen. Harry Reid to keep Stupak-like language off the Senate bill, has not yet drawn a line in the sand. "We don't have an answer to that question," Crane told me when I asked whether NARAL would support a health-care reform bill with Stupak-like language attached. But the group's rhetoric is strong: in Politico, Nancy Keenan, NARAL president, said that "we are prepared to stop at nothing."

 

 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Limbaugh Calls Palin Memoir "One of Most Substantive Policy Books I've Read"
Posted by Liliana Segura, AlterNet on November 13, 2009 at 12:25 PM.

You know a public figure has captured the cultural imagination when, despite a severely half-baked political career, her memoir becomes a bestseller before it's even released -- and then, when it is released, there are not one, but two, parody books -- with the same title -- hitting shelves at the same time.

I'm talking, of course, about Sarah Palin, that tragicomic trick candle of politics, who never ever seems to go away, no matter how much we want her to (or secretly don't). Her new book, 413 pages long and flirtily titled Going Rogue, will be officially bestowed upon the world next week and reporters everywhere are already feverishly plucking out the best parts -- Palin's innermost thoughts on Katie Couric, for example.

Meanwhile, a number of enterprising lefties are promoting books of their own. And these are actually worth buying.

Going Rouge is the title of this book, to be released next week, on the same day at Going Rogue. A sort of best-of collection of commentary inspired by the former governor of Alaska, it cuts to the chase right on the cover ("An American Nightmare" is the subtitle). And why shouldn't it? By any sane standard, the prospect of Sarah Palin holding national office was -- and remains -- a frightening thought. Now, all the reasons why are packed into one convenient book.

To be clear, this book is no spoof: "Looking back, progressives and feminists did an admirable job in picking apart the GOP's first female vice presidential nominee," write co-editors Betsy Reed and Richard Kim of The Nation Magazine in the introduction. Featuring serious (and sometimes hilarious) articles by writers including Gloria Steinem, Katha Pollitt, Matt Taibbi, and Max Blumenthal -- not to mention our own lovable AlterNet staff -- it's a progressive pre-emptive strike we can totally get behind. (Remember, this is a woman who supports shooting wolves from helicopters.)

Moving on, Going Rouge is also the title of this book, which takes a whole different approach to deconstructing Sarah Palin. "That other book just has a bunch of words," co-author Michael Stinson recently told Buzzflash. "We got pictures!"

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Tea Partiers Mired in Bitter Internal Feud
Posted by Staff, AlterNet on November 13, 2009 at 11:59 AM.

Zachary Roth, at TPM:

The Tea Party movement is being ripped apart by bitter internal rancor, highlighted by a lawsuit against a former leader, vituperative name-calling, and charges of financial mismanagement and corruption.

Read the rest here.

9/11 Suspect to be Tried in NY... and Right-Wingers Got Grievances
Posted by Brad Reed, Sadly, No! on November 13, 2009 at 10:33 AM.

Via John Cole, here’s a Red State Action Alert:

Today Barack Obama is going to announce that the terrorist mastermind of September 11th, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be sent to New York City for a criminal trial in a civilian court.

In that trial, the terrorist will get all the rights afforded an American citizen in a criminal trial, including the right to a fair trial, the right to a taxpayer funded attorney, the right to review all the evidence against him, potentially including classified intelligence matters, the right to exclude evidence against him including, potentially, any confession obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques, etc.

So yes, the basic gist is that they’re outraged that we won’t be allowed to use evidence obtained through torture at Mohammed’s trial. This is standard wingnut fare. But wait! We’ve got more:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Video: The Victimization of Carrie Prejean? How a Sex Tape and a Softball Question From Larry King = Christian Persecution
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on November 13, 2009 at 9:37 AM.

SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO

The e-mail from the right-wing magazine, Human Events, bore this subject line: Liberal attacks on beautiful female conservative

The "beautiful female conservative" is Carrie Prejean, the Miss Universe pageant contestant who became famous by dint of her answer to a question posed to her by pageant judge Perez Hilton about same-sex marriage. And the attacks are presumably the distribution of a pornographic video featuring Prejean that surfaced earlier this week.

Now Prejean is hawking her book, Still Standing, at an inconveniently-timed moment: the pornographic video of Prejean surfaced just as the book was released, reportedly during her negotiations with pageant officials for the settlement of a counter-suit she filed against them after the pageant sued her for repayment of the cost of her breast implants.

It's all very Christian.

So Human Events is offering the Prejean book to you, free of cost, if only you'll take a trial subscription -- at no risk to you! -- of their anti-sex, anti-woman magazine. It's win-win for everybody. The bestseller list is gamed through the bulk buy of Still Standing by the magazine (progressive mags do this, too); Human Events gets new subscribers, and the Prejean-as-victim narrative is advanced.

Prejean herself has been the foremost saleswoman of the story of her martyrdom, but she may not be the best pitch-person for the job. On Wednesday's edition of CNN's Larry King Live, she proved her pitch to be less than perfect, when she called his softball question about the pageant settlement "inappropriate," removed her mic, but stayed in the guest chair. (Video at the end of this post.)

Carrie Prejean was just another beauty pageant contestant until, at the Miss Universe pageant, she was asked what she thought of same-sex marriage. Instead of giving a "world peace" answer, Prejean said she thought marriage was something that shold take place only between a man and a woman.

In the days that followed, Prejean was held up to ridicule for her statement, and another right-wing martyr was born. Proponents of same-sex marriage hardly helped their cause with the ferocity of their attacks. Some went after her family; Perez Hilton, the pageant judge who asked her the same-sex marriage question, called her a "dumb bitch" on his blog.

Prejean was lionized by the religious right, appearing as a keynoter at the Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit. There she recounted the attacks she endured after her pageant answer, but said she knew she had been chosen for that purpose. "As I saw my goals and aspirations flash by me, I knew God had a plan for me… God chose me for that moment," she told the audience of evangelical Christians. "He knew I was strong enough to get through all the junk that I have been through."

Since the surfacing of Prejean's sex video, she has cancelled appearances before conservative audiences, but that hasn't stopped Human Events from advancing the story of poor Carrie's victimization. After all, they still have that pile of books to get rid of.

VIDEO AFTER THE JUMP

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

No, It's not Elitist to Think the Tea-Baggers Are Idiots
Posted by Oliver Willis, Oliver Willis.com on November 13, 2009 at 8:39 AM.

A post over at the Seminal is taking “liberal elitism” to task for not taking the Tea Party people seriously, and that that will lead to the election of Sarah Palin and other such ilk.

To quote our vice president, malarkey.

While I have long argued that there is too much elitism on the left for my tastes, there’s a wide gulf between holding your nose in the air for no good reason and dumbing yourself down in order to appeal to the lowest common idiotic denominator. Suck is the case with the Tea Party group and their leaders like Palin.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

In Obama Era, Neo-Nazis Becoming More Visible
Posted by David Neiwert, Orcinus on November 13, 2009 at 7:41 AM.

James Verini at the Daily Beast notices something we've been tracking here at Orcinus too: Neo-Nazis and far-right extremists are not only recruiting more openly, they're being much more public in their full-on expressions of racism, nativism, and xenophobia. Unlike David Duke, these characters aren't even trying to hide it:

A year after President Obama's election, hate groups are feeling bolder than they have in over a decade, and their usually insular anger is beginning to spill into the public realm. This weekend, the National Socialist Movement, a neo-Nazi organization, held rallies in Arizona and Minnesota. Those demonstrations came on the heels of similar actions in Southern California, where epithet-spewing white supremacists were forced to disband by rock-throwing counter-protesters. The upsurge in visibility is more than anecdotal—law-enforcement officials are monitoring levels of agitation among extremist groups that they say are the highest since Timothy McVeigh’s deadly attack in Oklahoma City nearly 15 years ago.

The outcries of right-wing tea-partiers, death panellers, birthers, and the like are accompanied by increased activity all along the paranoid fringe.

“It’s sort of a beehive now,” says James Cavanaugh, a special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Cavanaugh was one of the agents at the standoff at David Koresh’s Waco, Texas, compound in 1993 (which McVeigh timed his terrorist act to commemorate, two years later, on April 19, 1995). Last October in Tennessee, Cavanaugh aided in the arrest of two white supremacists charged with plotting to assassinate Obama, and in 2007 he helped bring down members of the Alabama Free Militia, who were found with hundreds of hand- and rifle grenades and other explosives. The arrests had an unsettling familiarity. “We haven’t had that kind of activity since the 1990s,” Cavanaugh says.

“We believe there is a real resurgence,” adds Lieutenant David Hall, director of the Missouri Information Analysis Center, which tracks antigovernment extremist groups around the Midwest. “The atmosphere is ripe.”

That was obvious to anyone who was in downtown Phoenix, Arizona, this past weekend:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Cold-Hearted: Conservative Gov Blocks Same-Sex Partners from Making Funeral Arrangements for Loved Ones in RI
Posted by PZ Myers, Pharyngula on November 13, 2009 at 5:11 AM.

Sometimes I find it hard to believe how callous these conservative politicians can be. The governor of Rhode Island has just vetoed a bill that would have allowed a same-sex partner to make funeral arrangements for a dead partner. So imagine this: someone wracked with grief at the loss of someone to whom they had committed a substantial part of their life now gets to also be told that they are locked out of the responsibility of taking care of anything to do with the funeral ceremony. How degrading and insensitive; how vile and intrusive.

Shame on Governor Carcieri. It takes a real man to kick the heart-broken and bereaved at the moment of their deepest hurt, and Carcieri has arranged to do it over and over again for years to come.

Hawks in Congress Willing to Shell Out Trillions for War, but Won't Help Americans Get Decent Health-Care
Posted by Zaid Jilani, Think Progress on November 13, 2009 at 3:57 AM.

In recent days, heated policy discussions in Washington have largely focused on two topics: a possible escalation of the war in Afghanistan and health care legislation. Both a troop escalation and health care legislation carry significant price tags: roughly $100 billion and $80-$100 billion a year respectively. (It should be noted that health care reform, unlike a troop surge, would cut the deficit.)

In his New York Times column today [ed: Thursday], columnist Nicholas Kristof asks why hawks claim health reform is “fiscally irresponsible” while enthusiastically supporting a troop surge in Afghanistan, given the fact that fixing our broken health care system is, unlike a troop surge, essential to the health and well-being of Americans:

The health care legislation pays for itself, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the deployment in Afghanistan is unfinanced and will raise our budget deficits and undermine our long-term economic security.

So doesn’t it seem odd to hear hawks say that health reform is fiscally irresponsible, while in the next breath they cheer a larger deployment of troops in Afghanistan?

Meanwhile, lack of health insurance kills about 45,000 Americans a year, according to a Harvard study released in September. So which is the greater danger to our homeland security, the Taliban or our dysfunctional insurance system?

Indeed, hawkish legislators have lined up to both demand a costly surge in U.S. troops in Afghanistan while at the same time claiming that deficit-cutting health care legislation would simply be too expensive:

– Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has called for providing the “resources [needed]” for a “significant increase in U.S. forces” while warning that he is “really worried about what [health care reform] would do to the deficit.” [9/13/09, 10/26/09]

– Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has complained that passing health care legislation would “expand government spending even more,” while also boasting of his Republican caucus’s “broad support” for any troop increase in Afghanistan. [10/21/09, 10/11/09]

– Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) wrote a letter to President Obama stating that we “urgently need more resources” in Afghanistan, “including more combat troops,” while at the same time claiming that passing health care legislation would be tantamount to “generational theft” that would run up “unconscionable and unsustainable deficits.” [11/10/09, 8/27/09]

Kristof’s question bears answering. Why is it that hawkish lawmakers are so willing to spend such enormous resources in both lives and treasure on a troop surge in Afghanistan that is increasingly opposed by Americans and Afghans, but are so quick to bark at the price tag of health care legislation that could save the lives of the 45,000 Americans who die every year because they don’t have access to health care? As Glenn Greenwald notes, “Urging that more Americans be sent into endless war paid for with endless debt, while yawning and lazily waving away with boredom the hordes outside dying for lack of health care coverage, is one of the most repugnant images one can imagine.”

Proposition 8 and the Linguistic Fight Against Intolerance
Posted by Beau Friedlander, Air America on November 13, 2008 at 6:52 PM.

Last week Ralph Nader wondered aloud if President-elect Obama would be an "Uncle Tom" to corporations. The comment was met with outrage from progressives and conservatives alike, landing the one-time spoiler on Fox News to get a tongue lashing from an appalled Shepard Smith.

The reason: Ralph Nader didn't have the proper cultural visas to talk that way about an African American.

The Prop 8 debate has focused the thinking parts of America on the gay-straight divide, privileged language (the perils of "queer" speak in straight circles), and the garden-variety biases that helped pass Prop 8 last week.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Desperate Republicans See Georgia Senate Runoff as a 'Firewall' Against Progress
Posted by Blue Texan, Firedoglake on November 13, 2008 at 4:36 PM.

With races in Alaska and Minnesota not going well for them, the GOP is increasingly determined to hold on to Saxby Chambliss' seat.

U.S. Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, appeared with Chambliss at his Cobb County headquarters, a day before U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) comes to town to stump for the Moultrie lawmaker.

"Saxby and this race may well end up being the firewall against the 60-vote majority the Democrats are trying to achieve," Ensign told reporters on a conference call before a news conference by the two senators.

Ensign took a shot at Chambliss' opponent, Atlanta Democrat Jim Martin, when the Nevada lawmaker accused the incoming class of U.S. senators of being among the most liberal ever elected.

"Jim Martin would be another liberal voice to join that group in Washington, D.C.," Ensign said.

Just for the record, Jim Martin is a Vietnam veteran. Saxby Chambliss got 5 deferments during the Vietnam War because his knee had an owie. And just like during Vietnam, Saxby's having other people do the fighting for him in the runoff.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Washington Panics as the Economy Burns
Posted by Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post on November 13, 2008 at 2:41 PM.

So, $290 billion into his bailout plan, Hank Paulson is calling for a do-over. Now there is a confidence booster.



Providing "I-told-you-so" talking points to the what's-the-rush crowd, the Secretary of the Treasury announced yesterday that the government is no longer going to use any of the $700 billion Congress allocated to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to buy, well, Troubled Assets from financial institutions -- the original centerpiece of the plan.



Instead, Paulson is looking to fortify the financial industry by continuing to buy premium stock in banks (aka the Warren Buffett approach). Unfortunately, instead of sending Paulson a thank you note in the form of increased consumer lending, the banks are depositing the government checks and taking a wait and see approach. (Among the things they've seen: another $40 billion handed over to AIG.)



This is not to say that Paulson's midstream direction change is a bad thing -- indeed, the lip service he's now paying to putting the focus on consumers is encouraging -- but it shows just how uncertain official Washington is about how to keep the economy from imploding.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Rachel Maddow Talks Tough About Lieberman With Sen. Bayh
Posted by Ben Armbruster, Think Progress on November 13, 2008 at 1:33 PM.

Riding the wave of electoral victories on Nov. 4, some Senate Democrats began hinting that they might remove Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) from his post as Homeland Security Committee chairman in part because of ad hominem attacks he levied at Barack Obama during the presidential campaign in support of John McCain.

Last week, however, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) sang a more forgiving tune. "[W]e should have a spirit of forgiveness with regard to Joe Lieberman and reconcile and move forward," Bayh said, suggesting that Lieberman apologize and "let bygones be bygones." Last night on MSNBC, Bayh said Lieberman should be stripped of his chairmanship unless he offers a "sincere apology" for his "unacceptable" rhetoric during the campaign:

BAYH:[Y]ou got to, you know, expect an apology -- a sincere apology -- and you got to keep tell him, "Look, we're going to give you a chance here. But if you don`t do the right thing as chairman, if, you know, we see any continuation with this kind of behavior," well then at that point, you know, the game is up at that point.

MADDOW: And -- but the game would be up in the sense that he would get stripped of his leadership positions?

BAYH: The chairmanship. Yes.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Much Ado About Palin, Africa, and the Eisenstadt Hoax
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 13, 2008 at 12:25 PM.

This story is getting lots of attention today, but I'm not sure it says what many seem to think it says.

It was among the juicier post-election recriminations: Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.

Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. "Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks," Mr. Shuster said.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn't exist. His blog does, but it's a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow -- the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy -- is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months. MSNBC, which quickly corrected the mistake, has plenty of company in being taken in by an Eisenstadt hoax, including The New Republic and The Los Angeles Times.

The assumption seems to be that this shows that Palin was never actually accused about Africa being a continent, and that the whole story was just a hoax. But that's not what this article actually says.



An MSNBC report credited Martin Eisenstadt, who doesn't exist, as the original source of the Palin/Africa claim. The hoax, however, is the bogus source validating the story, not the Palin/Africa story itself.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Citizens Fight Back Against Hate After the Brutal Murder of Marcello Lucero
Posted by Lisa Votino-Tarrant, Long Island Wins on November 13, 2008 at 12:00 PM.

Last weekend, 7 teenage punks murdered Marcello Lucero, because they wanted to go get a "a mexican." It didn't matter who or what or where. It didn't matter that they ended an innocent man's life. It didn't matter that they were throwing their whole lives away. They were apparently consumed with hate and Marcello, an Ecuadorian immigrant, who was on his way to his friend's house to watch a movie, was what they decided to take their hate out on.

Marcello's Father passed away when he was a young boy and took over the role of the man of the house. He moved to the United States 16 years ago. His brother and sister live on Long Island and his mother and younger sister live in Ecuador.

I have spent my week in Patchogue at press conferences and small rallies in memory of Marcello. I have come to know many of the local community people and they are petrified to leave their house without a group of people. I also know that the Patchogue Librarian said she had many calls from her ESOL students saying they weren't coming to class, that they were to afraid to walk there.

And as if this tragedy isn't enough … there are two other hateful incidents this week in Suffolk County. Forty cars were vandalized in Mastic with racial slurs including threats against President-elect Barack Obama. In Islip Terrace, the KKK did an information drop, leaving their newsletter at peoples' doorsteps and mailboxes and also leaving the newsletter on car windshields at the train station.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

With One Phone Call, Bush Could Relieve the Economic Pain of Millions
Posted by Staff, Office of Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) on November 13, 2008 at 11:21 AM.

Editor's note: The following is a press release from the office of Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA).

"By making just one telephone call, the President could single-handedly jump start the U.S. economy and throw economic lifelines to millions of unemployed Americans," Rep. Jim McDermott, chairman of the Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, which oversees the nation's unemployment insurance system, said today. He made the comment following release of troubling new data that shows a surge in unemployment filings to levels not seen since the aftermath of 9/11.

Rep. McDermott explained that his legislation, H.R. 6867, to extend unemployment benefits passed the House in early October on a massive bi-partisan vote of 368-28, but the legislation stalled when Senate Republicans, after consultation with the President, would not permit the legislation to come to the floor for a vote. The bill would extend benefits a minimum of seven weeks in every state, but 13 weeks in states where the unemployment rate has averaged 6 percent or higher over three months.

"When 85 percent of the House of Representatives vote in favor of anything, which was the case with my bill to extend unemployment benefits, that is a dramatic expression of strong support across party lines, state lines, and unemployment lines," McDermott said. "The House demonstrated the will to act and the President can show the way by making one telephone call to the Senate Republican leader to support the immediate passage of legislation to extend UI benefits."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

El Coyote: An LA Restaurant Gets Negative Attention Because of Prop 8
Posted by Lisa Derrick, Firedoglake on November 13, 2008 at 10:21 AM.

About 70 people gathered at the legendary El Coyote Cafe in Los Angeles' Fairfax District Wednesday morning for a community sit down/brunch to hear Marjorie Christoffersen speak about why she gave $100 to Yes on 8 via the Mormon Church. Marjorie, a lifelong Mormon, is the niece of El Coyote's founder and daughter of the current owner. She receives a salary as a floor manager. El Coyote has 89 employees, many of whom are gay.

Despite the staff delivering chips, salsa and drinks to the waiting guests, tensions were high when Arnaldo Archila, a long time manager and bartender, spoke about Ms. Christofferson and her views:

We don’t share her views as the management. They don’t press us to do anything that we don’t want to do, and we never talk about politics or religion. I don’t understand why we got connected to something going on at the top.

Well, El Coyote is involved because 10% of what Marjorie makes from El Coyote goes to the Mormon Church as required  tithe, and that $100 she gave to Yes on 8 was in part money paid by gay clientele--and her income was used to strip their rights.


Then Marjorie herself spoke, shaking and barely able to stand, lieterally supported by her daughters who helped hold her upright as she read from a prepared statement. And it was sickening and saddening to see how her faith had leveraged her salvation and forced her to disconnect her love for her customers, and allowed her, despite that professed love, to deny them a civil right:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Convicted Senator Ted Stevens Now 814 Votes Behind in Alaska
Posted by Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet on November 13, 2008 at 9:30 AM.

Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican U.S. senator who recently was convicted of corruption, has lost his lead in Alaska's Senate race to his closest rival, Democrat Mark Begich, as of late Wednesday, according to an update released by the state's Division of Elections.

The results are continuing to trickle in because the state's Division of Elections is in the process of counting some 40,000 outstanding absentee and early votes. Until Wednesday's counting, Steven was ahead by more than 3,000 votes. In addition to the uncounted absentee and early votes, there are an additional 5,000 so-called "question" ballots that have to be verified before being counted.

The agency's report, showed Begich, who was losing after election night, now leading Stevens by 814 votes -- 132,196 to 131,382 -- with the state still to count roughly 40,000 more ballots over the next week.. There are three other minor party candidates in the race, as well as write-in votes.

Stevens has been convicted in federal court of political corruption charges, leading to much speculation about his political fate if he wins re-election. He is the Senate's longest-serving Republican.

Gore Not Interested in 'Climate Czar' Post
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 13, 2008 at 9:19 AM.

In recent weeks, there has been increased talk of possibly creating a White House "climate czar" position in the Obama administration, which would "oversee various government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department, to focus on tackling global warming and fostering clean energy to jump-start the flagging economy." While many of these reports have mentioned Al Gore as a possible candidate, the vice president has indicated that he isn't interested:

"Former Vice President Gore does not intend to seek or accept any formal position in government," Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said. "He feels very strong right now that the best thing for him to do is to build support for the bold changes that we have to make to solve the climate crisis."

Scary: The Far-Right's Crazy Attacks on Obama Are Just Getting Started
Posted by Bob Cesca, Huffington Post on November 13, 2008 at 8:20 AM.

This item has been promoted to the front page from AlterNet's blog section, PEEK.


For the last eight years, we've observed Karl Rove's non-reality based universe in which logic was entirely abandoned in lieu of whatever reality the administration invented in order to serve its ridiculous policies and to mask its glaring nincompoopery. Intellectually dishonest at best -- destructive and criminal at worst.



This didn't end on Election Day.



Since their thumpin' last week, the far-right has pushed the crazy to eleven and snapped the knob clean off -- an opening salvo of twisted hackery portending an insane four-to-eight years of attacks on the Obama administration. If the last seven days have been any indication, the far-right is shaping up to make the 1990s seem quaint -- even erudite by comparison. That which used to be your basic, off-the-shelf intellectual dishonesty has grown into, as Digby pointed out recently, full-on intellectual violence.



Intellectual violence. While not a new term, it perfectly defines what we're seeing now: accusations and smears that so severely confound logic they literally attack -- violate -- reality and the human intellect. It's like a berzerker dervish of argumentative elbows and fists indiscriminately flailing around, thwacking anything in its orbit, so much so that constructing a counterpoint is literally painful, "Why the hell am I trying to debunk this?! Ow! My head. Aw hell, I need a drink."



The "Impeach Obama" Facebook groups, for example. No, I'm not making that up. They're real and there's a constant variety of disgruntled far-right Republicans joining up every day. And, to our total lack of surprise, they're not ashamed in the slightest to post comments like this one:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Treasury Inspector General: The Bailout Is 'a Mess'
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 13, 2008 at 8:03 AM.

As of yesterday, it appeared that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is just making things up as he goes along, unsure how to implement his bailout strategy. It's a good thing Congress mandated all kinds of oversight on the Bush administration.



Or, on second thought....

In the six weeks since lawmakers approved the Treasury's massive bailout of financial firms, the government has poured money into the country's largest banks, recruited smaller banks into the program and repeatedly widened its scope to cover yet other types of businesses, from insurers to consumer lenders.

Along the way, the Bush administration has committed $290 billion of the $700 billion rescue package.

Yet for all this activity, no formal action has been taken to fill the independent oversight posts established by Congress when it approved the bailout to prevent corruption and government waste. Nor has the first monitoring report required by lawmakers been completed, though the initial deadline has passed.

"It's a mess," said Eric M. Thorson, the Treasury Department's inspector general, who has been working to oversee the bailout program until the newly created position of special inspector general is filled. "I don't think anyone understands right now how we're going to do proper oversight of this thing."

To be sure, Congress did add layers of oversight and scrutiny, "including a special inspector general to be nominated by the White House and a congressional oversight panel to be named by lawmakers themselves."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Is Obama Serious About Going After Bush Officials Involved in Torture?
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on November 13, 2008 at 7:46 AM.

Evidently, there's talk of Bush issuing a blanket pardon to anyone involved in his torture regime before he leaves office and Salon is also reporting that there are some plans afoot in the Obama camp to initiate a broad congressional inquiry into the whole interrogation program, which would be even more amazing.

As to the pardons, there is precedent for a president to pardon whole categories of people -- Carter did it for draft resisters and George Washington did it for those involved in the Whiskey Rebellion. The article discusses some moral distinctions, but it seems clear to me that Bush could do this and there would be nothing anyone could do about it.

In terms of the possible investigations, the article says:

A common view among those involved with the talks is that any early effort to prosecute Bush administration officials would likely devolve quickly into ugly and fruitless partisan warfare. Second is that even if Obama decided he had the appetite for it, prosecutions in this arena are problematic at best: A series of memos from the Bush Justice Department approved the harsh tactics, and Congress changed the War Crimes Act in 2006, making prosecutions of individuals involved in interrogations more difficult.

Instead, a commission empowered by Congress would have the authority to compel witnesses to testify and even to grant immunity in exchange for information. Should a particularly ugly picture emerge, the option of prosecutions would still theoretically be on the table later, however unlikely.

In Obama's camp, there is a sense among some that such a commission would essentially mean letting Bush get away with crimes. "People have called for criminal investigations," one person familiar with the talks told me this summer as plans got under way. On Wednesday, a person participating in the talks confirmed that some people involved in the planning felt strongly that the commission would amount to "bullshit" and that Bush officials should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

But few think prosecutions are realistic, given the formidable legal hurdles and the huge policy problems competing for Obama's attention. Among them is the complicated task of closing down the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, which Obama advisors say is a priority. Some observers outside the Obama camp are also questioning how much Democrats really want exposed with regard to interrogation, since top Democrats in Congress were briefed in secret on some of the harshest tactics used by the CIA and appear to have done little, or perhaps nothing, to stop them.

A congressional commission would be great. But at the risk of sounding cynical, the odds of that happening are about as good as Sarah W. Palin becoming a Supreme Court justice. We're now heavily into let bayhgones be bayhgones mode and I'd be shocked if this congress would do it. (Besides, Joe Lieberman might hold his breath until he turns blue and they can't let that happen.)

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Union-Busters Want GM to File for Bankruptcy
Posted by Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake on November 13, 2008 at 7:31 AM.

Let's call it what it is:

[N]ot everyone agrees that a Chapter 11 filing by G.M. would be the disaster that many fear. Some experts note that while bankruptcy would be painful, it may be preferable to a government bailout that may only delay, at considerable cost, the wrenching but necessary steps G.M. needs to take to become a stronger, leaner company.

Although G.M.'s labor contracts would be at risk of termination in a bankruptcy, setting up a potential confrontation with its unions, the company says its pension obligations are largely financed for its 479,000 retirees and their spouses.

This is about union busting, pure and simple.


No mention made about Rick Wagoner giving back the $2.2 million salary he pulled down in 2008 for driving GM into the ground.

Rachel Maddow Slams Palin's Attack on Bloggers (In Her Pajamas No Less)
Posted by Ali Frick, Think Progress on November 13, 2008 at 3:14 AM.

Two nights ago, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow showed a clip of Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) complaining about being criticized by "some blogger" sitting "in their parents' basement." Maddow -- who later said she saw herself as "a blogger on TV" -- did the show in her pajamas to show solidarity with bloggers. Watch it:

Conservatives love to blast bloggers. Defending Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Joe Scarborough mocked bloggers "just sitting there, eating Cheetos" in "their underwear," while Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) complained that bloggers add "vituperation toxicity" to the political debate.


Editor's Update: Here's what Jane Hamsher over at FireDogLake had to say about Palin's comments:

Uh, Sarah….You Sure You Want To Go There?


For the record:

Arianna Huffington graduated from Cambridge University with an M.A. in economics. At 21, she became president of the famed debating society, the Cambridge Union.  She is a bestselling author who ran for Governor of California.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Palin the Car Crash: Why Can't We Stop Watching?
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 13, 2008 at 3:02 AM.

Yesterday afternoon, Atrios noted, "Sarah Palin is still getting more press attention than Joe the Biden, and he's going to be Vice President and she's not." Soon after, CNN's Jack Cafferty added, "When's the last time a losing vice presidential candidate was still in the news a week after the election? Nobody seems interested in interviewing Joe Biden, or for that matter, John McCain. But we just don't seem to be able to get enough of Sarah Palin."



They're both right, of course. Palin was a ridiculous candidate on a failed ticket. Her candidacy was a national embarrassment, and insult to our political system. And yet, like a car crash, it's hard to turn away.



At first blush, it's hard to put one's finger on why, exactly. Maybe we haven't quite gotten out of "campaign mode." Or perhaps some are thinking ahead, keeping an eye on Palin with an expectation that she'll seek national office again fairly soon.



But I think it's more than that. Kevin noted this afternoon, "We've simply never seen someone so completely unmoored from the normal requirements of national office before." I not only think that's right, I also think we're still coming to terms with just how serious this fiasco really was.



Given this, Andrew Sullivan had a very compelling item explaining why Palin may be history, but "she is history that matter:"

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Neck and Neck: Senate Races Deadlocked
Posted by Staff, Huffington Post on November 13, 2008 at 2:49 AM.

UPDATED on November 13 at 1:29 AM EST:


The gap has now widened to 814 votes between Mark Begich and Ted Stevens in the Alaska Senate race:

Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, the titan of Alaska politics convicted of felony charges last month, fell behind by more than 800 votes Wednesday as the count resumed in his re-election bid.

Democrat Mark Begich, the two-term mayor of Anchorage, began the day down more than 3,200 votes but went up by 814 as officials resumed their counting of early and absentee ballots. The tally was 132,196 to 131,382.

Neither side was claiming victory or conceding defeat, with tens of thousands of outstanding ballots.

"I've always said that this would be a close race," Begich said in a statement. "I'm confident that Alaskans, like the rest of the country, want a new direction in Washington, and ultimately that will be reflected in the results."

Stevens' campaign did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

And those neck-and-neck Senate races get even closer.



The three Senate races that will determine whether the Democrats gain that coveted 60-seat majority are still deadlocked - by the slimmest of margins from 3 votes in Alaska to 200 votes in Minnesota and a tense runoff in Georgia.



In Minnesota, where the recount will stretch into mid-December, per the Associated Press:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

McCain Says Supporter's "Bitch" Query About Hillary Is "An Excellent Question"
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on November 13, 2007 at 3:00 PM.

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

Obviously, presidential candidates aren't responsible for comments made by their supporters. Candidates are, however, responsible for showing a little class. It's apparently something that John McCain has forgotten.

At a campaign event in South Carolina, a McCain backer stood up to ask the senator, "How do we beat the bitch?"

In response, McCain said, "We have our differences with our Democratic rivals, but I believe in treating people with respect. It's why I don't refer to women as 'bitches,' even when I disagree with them. I'm sure all of us believe we can debate the serious issues of the day without name-calling and degrading language."

No, no, I'm just kidding. He actually responded, "That's an excellent question."

Just this morning, the NYT's David Brooks wrote a gushing love-letter to McCain, praising him as an honorable man of character. If there wasn't so much evidence to the contrary, it might be persuasive.

For readers who can't watch clips online, here's a transcript:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Army Reiterates That Waterboarding Is Torture Since Mukasey Won't
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on November 13, 2007 at 2:00 PM.

This post, written by Satyam Khanna, originally appeared on Think Progress

On Nov. 9, the Senate voted to confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General, despite concerns about his consistent refusal to declare waterboarding torture.

The AP reports today that three days earlier, on Nov. 6, the Army issued a memo to "senior leaders" reiterating that the technique is prohibited by the Army. The memo was to be relayed to soldiers' families and employees in order to "eliminate any confusion that may have arisen as a result of recent public discourse on the subject":

The service issued a "strategic communication hot topic" alert to its senior leaders two days before the Senate confirmed Mukasey, asking them to make sure every soldier, family member and Army civilian employee understands the ban on waterboarding. Mukasey was sworn in Nov. 9.

"The U.S. Army strictly prohibits the use of waterboarding during intelligence investigations by any of its members. It is specifically prohibited by Field Manual 2-22.3 and is not a sanctioned interrogation technique in any training manual or any instructions to soldiers in the field," the statement says.

The Army Field Manual specifically prohibits "waterboarding" in intelligence interrogations, along with "mock executions," "using military working dogs," and "inducing hypothermia or heat injury." The CIA reportedly used waterboarding on three different prisoners before 2003.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Black Pastor Comes Out of the Closet, His Congregation Kicks Him Out of the Church
Posted by Pam Spaulding, Pam's House Blend on November 13, 2007 at 1:00 PM.

This post, written by Pam Spaulding, originally appeared on Pam's House Blend

Those daring to come out in the conservative black church know that the price they may pay is very high -- social rejection by a circle of people that has always been their support system, their community.

When pastors step forward, either by coming out of the closet, or moving to provide open support for the church's LGBT worshippers, the judgment can be swift and harsh. The Denver Post's Lisa Kennedy takes a look at the dilemma in a lengthy piece that is worth the click. It takes a focused look at the sad perspective of churches that want to remain in denial, willing to cast out beloved leaders if they are gay or gay-affirming.

It had been just a few minutes more than 238 days since Reynolds, on Oct. 29, 2006, had delivered his final sermon as senior pastor of Emmanuel Missionary Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, the church he was born into. His parents, Ledell and Mary, were founding members of the "E," as the faithful call their spiritual home. In 1992, he returned like a character from a Bible passage to become its minister.

The shared journey of pastor and flock came to an end when Reynolds revealed he was a "same-gender loving" man, a designation for gay and lesbian identity gaining favor among gay African-Americans.

..."We've chosen what we believe to be a biblical position," Pastor Cleveland Thompson said over the phone, explaining Emmanuel's decision not to speak about Reynolds.

As for the pastor himself, yes, he fell down. He wept. After he left EMBC, he was adrift. One year into his life as an openly gay man, the 46-year-old preacher would not claim yet to being found.

Kennedy spends a bit of time going over the travails of Ted Haggard and the media storm surrounding his mind-boggling outing, as well as that of Denver's Paul Barnes of Grace Chapel Church, which happened in the wake of Haggard's debacle. When "the fall" comes in the black church, the difference is that no one talks about it. If a pastor applies the tradition of civil rights advocacy for LGBTs, they are usually quietly shown the door, or there is an exodus from the congregation.

Conflicts over sexuality are on the rise. And - if Emmanuel can be held up as an example -preachers who wield the church's civil rights tradition on behalf of gay and lesbian people will be rebuffed by their members, if not sent packing.

But in contrast to the predominantly white churches, where the departures of gay clergy have been followed by everything from news conferences to extended homilies to the formation of restoration committees, black congregations are more likely to shed their gay preachers with a deafening silence.

...Those who do push the envelope receive a response as old as the Good Book: God's laws are unchanging; they must be obeyed, not debated.

But debate appears unavoidable. After wrestling to understand his son's coming out in relation to Scripture, the Rev. Dennis Meredith, minister at Atlanta's Tabernacle Baptist Church, challenged his congregation to become more accepting of gays and lesbians. Over the three years since, the church shed nearly 300 of its 1,100 members - and the financial pledges they brought.

The hypocrisy, of course, is rampant. There are plenty of gays and lesbians sitting in the pews, in the choir, directing the choir, for goodness sake. But in these churches, you're expected to sit there and listen to the homophobic bile spewing from the pulpit. Silence.

Read what happened to Rev. Reynolds when he came out to his congregation. It's painful -- and below the fold.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush Vetoes Health and Education Bill, Signs Huge Pentagon Funding Increase
Posted by Paddy , Brave New Films on November 13, 2007 at 12:00 PM.

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

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Tuesday vetoed a spending measure for health and education programs prized by congressional Democrats. He also signed a big increase in the Pentagon's non-war budget.

(snip)

More than any other spending bill, the $606 billion education and health measure defines the differences between Bush and majority Democrats. The House fell three votes short of winning a veto-proof margin as it sent the measure to Bush.

(snip)

The $471 billion defense budget gives the Pentagon a 9 percent, $40 billion budget increase. The measure only funds core department operations, omitting Bush's $196 billion request for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, except for an almost $12 billion infusion for new troop vehicles that are resistant to roadside bombs.

All on a day when the this is on the front of the Washington Post-

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Hidden Costs of Iraq, Afghanistan Total $1.5 Trillion
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on November 13, 2007 at 7:11 AM.

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

Any discussion of the cost of the wars in the Middle East have to start with the price paid by U.S. troops. Thousands of died, and tens of thousands have returned home with serious injuries.

But when considering "blood and treasure," there's also that latter part of the equation. Generally, the wars' price tag is determined by adding up all of the expenditures so far. Occasionally, we'll see estimates that include interest on the national debt, because the Bush administration has decided to put the wars on the national charge card.

But congressional Dems went one step further in offering a more comprehensive look at the financial costs of the wars.

The economic costs to the United States of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so far total approximately $1.5 trillion, according to a new study by congressional Democrats that estimates the conflicts' "hidden costs"- including higher oil prices, the expense of treating wounded veterans and interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars.

That amount is nearly double the $804 billion the White House has spent or requested to wage these wars through 2008, according to the Democratic staff of Congress's Joint Economic Committee. Its report, titled "The Hidden Costs of the Iraq War," estimates that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have thus far cost the average U.S. family of four more than $20,000.

"The full economic costs of the war to the American taxpayers and the overall U.S. economy go well beyond even the immense federal budget costs already reported," said the 21-page draft report, obtained yesterday by The Washington Post.

The report argues that war funding is diverting billions of dollars away from "productive investment" by American businesses in the United States. It also says that the conflicts are pulling reservists and National Guardsmen away from their jobs, resulting in economic disruptions for U.S. employers that the report estimates at $1 billion to $2 billion.

Whether our "investment" is paying off is a little less clear.

The WaPo noted that some funding experts agreed that there are hidden costs the nation generally doesn't consider, but added that some of these costs are hard to quantify.

For example, Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs (International) and a member of the National Security Council staff under Presidents Nixon, Ford and Carter, said, "The wars will cost a lot more than the appropriated sums, and it's certainly true our children will be paying for this for a long, long time. I'm very critical of the way they have financed the war, but I always hesitate to try to quantify any of these things, to make these numerical judgments."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

White House Claims The Dog Ate Its Emails
Posted by GottaLaff , Brave New Films on November 13, 2007 at 6:54 AM.

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

They don't know nothin' about no stinkin' e-mails:

A federal judge Monday ordered the White House to preserve copies of all its e-mails, a move that Bush administration lawyers had argued strongly against.

Who, us? We didn't do it. We know nooottthhhhinggg:

The White House has provided little public information about the matter, saying that some e-mails may not have been automatically archived on a computer server for the Executive Office of the President and that the e-mails may have been preserved on backup tapes.

The White House has said that its Office of Administration is looking into whether there are e-mails that were not automatically archived and that if there is a problem, the necessary steps will be taken to address it.

This goes back to the CIA leak case:

Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald revealed early in 2006 that relevant e-mails could be missing because of an archiving problem at the White House.

We should just "trust" them to do the right thing:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Senior Intelligence Official Wants Americans to Redefine, Expect Less Privacy
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein, Majikthise on November 13, 2007 at 6:26 AM.

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

Via Spencer Ackerman at TPM, we learn that the deputy director of national intelligence says that citizens need to redefine privacy:

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information.,/blockquote>

Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. [AP]

Kerr argues that anonymity is outmoded because some people have chosen to disclose some information to some trusted sources:

Millions of people in this country -- particularly young people -- already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These sites reveal to the public, government and corporations what was once closely guarded information, like personal statistics and credit card numbers.

"Those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to inflict one size fits all," said Kerr, 68. "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that." [AP]

That's the worst argument I've heard in a long time.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Feinstein Faces Democratic Censure After Backing Mukasey
Posted by Max Follmer, Huffington Post on November 13, 2007 at 5:41 AM.

This post, written by Max Follmer, originally appeared on The Huffington Post

One day after voting to elevate a divisive conservative judge to the federal appeals court in New Orleans, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein was the president's guest aboard Air Force One. She had been invited to survey the damage from the recent spate of Southern California wildfires.

The senator later remarked privately that she found her conversation with Bush aboard Air Force One "illuminating," a source close to Feinstein told the Huffington Post.

Two weeks later, Feinstein was one of two Democrats on the Senate judiciary committee to vote to send Michael Mukasey's nomination to be the new attorney general to the full Senate. Her support helped turn the tide in favor of a nomination that faced an uncertain future after Mukasey refused to say whether waterboarding was torture.

When the full Senate voted, Feinstein was one of only six Democrats to vote in favor of confirming Mukasey.

Now, a coalition of progressive Democrats upset with Feinstein's controversial votes will ask the California Democratic Party to censure her at its executive board meeting this weekend, the Huffington Post has learned.

The move comes as Feinstein again finds herself under fire for saying Thursday that she now supports granting legal immunity to telecom companies that shared customer email and phone messages with the federal government as part of the warrantless surveillance program.

"Dianne Feinstein does not listen to the people of California," said Rick Jacobs, president of the Courage Campaign, a progressive organization in California. "She supports George Bush's agenda time after time."

Feinstein's office did not respond to messages seeking comment.

East Bay For Democracy, a chartered Democratic Club outside San Francisco, will introduce the censure motion on Saturday at the state party's executive board meeting in Anaheim. The Governing Board of the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party and the Progressive Democrats of America are also backing the measure.

In addition to her move to back Mukasey, critics have lashed out at her decision last month to vote to confirm Judge Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Southwick's opponents charged that his record on the bench in Mississippi demonstrated that he was both racist and homophobic. The Congressional Black Caucus, Human Rights Campaign and People for the American Way opposed his nomination.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

UPDATED: White powder terrorist of Jon Stewart, Letterman, Pelosi...
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 13, 2006 at 2:06 PM.

Yes, it appears that Chad Conrad Castagana, the man "suspected of mailing more than a dozen threatening letters containing white powder to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Jon Stewart and other high-profile figures," was a conservative and a commenter on conservative blogs. Unless there are two Chad Castaganas:

He also appears to have been a frequenter of Right Wing sewer, The Free Republic.

Heavens. What does it mean?!

Hardly anything; let the witch hunt end here, please. Liberal blogs, not a monolithic entity in the first place, aren't, as Fox's new talking head (former Maxim Pimp Greg Gutfeld) claimed, "sending the same message as terrorists."

Just as conservative blogs, like "Expose the Left," aren't necessarily promoting terrorism, as has been allegedly committed by Chad Castagana.

GLOSSARY:

Wackos attach themselves to any perspective and take it to the extreme. A**holes blame the most salient representatives of a given perspective for the actions of their most radical adherents for political gain.

UPDATE: Domestic Terrorism expert David Neiwert has responded to the evidence that's pouring in from all corners about Castagana and his love for Conservative commentators. Noting that prominent pushers of hatred are somewhat culpable, he writes:

[M]entally unstable types are almost always stirred up and driven to their insane acts by haters of various stripes, the kind whose voices seem each day to be growing louder in our public discourse. These cultural vampires have developed a real knack for inspiring mentally unstable people into horrific acts of violence.

Haters like the people Castagana claims as his heroes -- Coulter, Malkin, Ingraham, just for starters -- are constantly engaging in the worst kind of eliminationist rhetoric directed primarily at liberals. It is simply an inevitability that, when this kind of hate is broadcast to millions of people daily, some of them are eventually going to start acting it out in fashions precisely like this. And worse.

Absolutely agreed. My original post was a bit more contrarian than I would've liked -- although, to be fair, the full range of his love for the Tipsy Chicks had yet to be discovered.

Still and all, my point wasn't that every event takes place in a vacuum, that we're all independent agents, but rather that blogs, as opposed to other mediums (I sic myself) bear no more or less responsibility for their readers than networks, newspapers or magazines bear for theirs. Which is to say: some.

And on that note, I agree once more with Neiwert that it's past time to hold media executives and producers responsible for the voices they amplify... (C&L, Nitpicker, ExposeTheLeft, Orcinus)

Lame duck Senate session starts today
Posted by Bob Geiger on November 13, 2006 at 9:56 AM.

It's only going to last a couple of weeks between now and the new year, but the Senate opens for business again today with a decidedly different scenario in place than when it went on recess in October for the midterm elections. As everyone knows, the do-nothing Republican Congress was sent an abundantly clear message on November 7, when voters elected a significant Democratic majority to the House of Representatives and voted Democrats into six new seats in the Senate, giving them control of that body as well.

While Republicans will still be the majority party when the Senate reconvenes today -- thus, giving them a last chance to do absolutely nothing but George W. Bush's bidding -- they do so with the other side of the aisle knowing that a filibuster will work on everything and that anything Democrats don’t want, isn’t going to happen.

So what will get discussed during this abbreviated lame-duck session?

Well, on Thursday, Bush sent the nomination of John Bolton to be the top U.S. diplomat at the United Nations back to the Senate for reconsideration. At the same time, he has also called on the Congress to validate his illegal domestic spying program before Democrats take over in January.

Dick Durbin (D-IL), the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, reinforced my belief that the chances are better that I will become Britney Spears' next temporary husband, than they are that these two things will go through.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Working families now guaranteed a raise from Democrats
Posted by Bob Geiger on November 13, 2006 at 9:11 AM.

Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy (D-MA) has served in the United States Senate for over four decades and one of the main subjects to caused him endless heartburn in the last few years has been the battle he has fought to get a minimum wage increase for America's low-income families.

Kennedy, who will undoubtedly chair the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee when the new Congress convenes in January, got bills to raise the federal minimum wage to the Senate floor three times in the last two years, only to see all of those killed by Republicans on almost straight party-line votes.

"I believe that anyone who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year should not live in poverty in the richest country in the world," Kennedy said, in arguing for one of his defeated bills in 2005.

And Kennedy, who has long been the Senate's champion of worker rights, made a vow when the minimum wage increase was shot down in the current Congress for a third time in June of 2006, that voters could expect a different result if they retuned the Senate to Democratic control in November.

"When the Democrats control the Senate, one of the first pieces of legislation we'll see is an increase in the minimum wage," said Kennedy.

And that's about to come true in January.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Was Republican corruption the tipping point?
Posted by Don Hazen on November 13, 2006 at 8:10 AM.

The highly competitive post election spin battle over which constituency or issue was truly the tipping point for the smashing Democratic victory on November 7th continues unabated. Pundits and experts offer their analysis and theories, while exit polls are wrung out for their secret truths.

The issues most credited for the Republican demise are (a.) unhappiness with the results of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and (b.) populist economic messages, particularly concern for the impact of international trade policies. These two issues are considered the paradigm shifters for many voters. But I want to make a case for the underdog in this race for issue supremacy: Republican corruption.

Let's go back and take a look at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) report on the Twenty Most Corrupt Members of Congress, released in September of 2006. Entitled "Beyond DeLay: The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and five to watch)," the report documents the "egregious, unethical and possibly illegal activities of the most tainted members of the 109th Congress..." with transgressions "analyzed in light of federal laws and congressional rules."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Late Night Comedians spin the election [VIDEO]
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 13, 2006 at 7:41 AM.

Late night comedians do the 2006 elections... Olbermann does the late night comedians doing the elections... Watch the video...