PEEK

Buzz, perspectives, insight and news from AlterNet

Zombie Lies Don't Die ... WSJ Spins Discredited Claim that Programs for the Poor Caused Housing Crisis
Posted by Staff, Media Matters for America on November 14, 2009 at 2:03 PM.

A November 13 Wall Street Journal op-ed claimed that loans made "under the pressure of" the Community Reinvestment Act helped to "fuel the greatest housing bubble our nation has ever seen." The claim that affordable housing initiatives were responsible for the housing crisis is a widely discredited myth.

From Edward Pinto's Wall Street Journal op-ed:

Congress's goal was to force these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to purchase loans that had been originated by banks -- loans that were made under the pressure of another federal law, the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), to increase lending in low- and moderate-income communities.

From 1977 to 1991, $9 billion in local CRA lending commitments had been announced. CRA lending by large banks increased dramatically after the affordable housing mandate was in place in 1993, growing to $6 trillion today. As Ellen Seidman, director of the federal Office of Thrift Supervision, said in a speech before the Greenlining Institute on Oct. 2, 2001, "Our record home ownership rate [increasing from 64.2% in 1994 to 68% in 2001], I'm convinced, would not have been reached without CRA and its close relative, the Fannie/Freddie requirements."

The 1992 GSE Act was the fuse, and the trillions of dollars in subsequent CRA and GSE affordable-housing loans would fuel the greatest housing bubble our nation has ever seen. But who lit the fuse?

[...]

Fifty percent of the high-risk loans are estimated to be CRA loans, with much of the remainder useful to the GSEs in meeting their affordable-housing goals.

The flood of CRA and affordable-housing loans with loosened underwriting standards, combined with declining mortgage interest rates-to 5% in 2003 from 10% in early 1991-resulted in a massive increase in borrowing capacity and fueled a house price bubble of unprecedented magnitude over the period 1997-2006.

Now this history may repeat itself as many of the same community groups are pushing Congress to expand CRA to cover all mortgage lenders, credit unions, insurance companies and others financial industry segments. Are we about to set the stage for another catastrophe? [The Wall Street Journal, 11/13/09]

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

But What Does That 'Get a Brain Morans' Dude Think About All This?
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 14, 2009 at 9:54 AM.

I've had this nagging question bouncing around the old brain-pan for the past day or two.

It's about this dude:

You know him, you love feeling superior to him, he's clearly a superstar among liberal bloggers and their readers.

Booman referenced the iconic tea-partier* the other day, and something one of his commenters wrote got me thinking:

I am almost starting to feel sorry for that guy in the picture. Poor bastard.

He's probably too stupid to have a computer, but his kids will see their dad forever.**

Of course, an enormous number of stupid people own and use computers. Yet studies suggest that in terms of the websites we browse and the news media we consume, we are a deeply polarized nation. According to a Pew study, online users tend to "find and join groups that share their ideological, cultural, and lifestyle preferences."

And that widely-cited study of the political blogosphere during the 2004 elections (PDF):

... we found that liberal and conservative blogs did indeed have different lists of favorite news sources, people, and topics to discuss.... The division between liberals and conservatives was further reflected in the linking pattern between the blogs, with a great ma jority of the links remaining internal to either liberal or conservative communities.

We're also sorting ourselves out in the real world, living in communities of increasingly like-minded people. Who travels in moran-dude's circles? Well consider this: it's not just the hilarious misspelling that makes the image so rich, but also the knowledge that none of the people around him noticed. (You just know he proudly carried that sign around all morning as he anticipated sticking it to those smug hippie liberals.) So I think it's safe to assume that he and his pro-war fellow-travelers probably aren't big readers of Daily Kos or Talkingpoints Memo.

Which raises an interesting question: could a viral internet sensation like 'get a brain morans' dude -- a sensation only on our side of the information divide -- be splashed all over hundreds of thousands of web-pages and not even know it? Is he living his life, listening to Rush's soothing stream of grievances as he drives to and from his crappy mcjob, completely oblivious to the fact that he's brought countless smiles to the lips of millions of progressives across the country?

Is it possible in this wired era of social segregation to get your 15 minutes of fame and just miss them entirely?

I mean, surely that guy's as well known as this one ...

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Media Fail: 2nd Cop, not Kimberly Munley, Brought Down Ft. Hood Shooter
Posted by Staff, AlterNet on November 14, 2009 at 9:44 AM.

On Friday, the New York Times ran an interview with Sgt. Mark Todd, the police officer who, contrary to previous reports, ended the Fort Hood rampage by shooting Nidal Hasan.

Sgt. Kimberly D. Munley has been applauded as a hero across the nation for shooting down Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan during the bloody rampage at Fort Hood last week. The account of heroism, given by the authorities, attracted the attention of newspapers, the networks and television talk shows.

But the initial story of how she and the accused gunman went down in an exchange of gunfire now appears to be inaccurate.

Another officer, Senior Sgt. Mark Todd, 42, said in an interview Thursday that he fired the shots that brought down the gunman after Sergeant Munley was seriously wounded. A witness confirmed Sergeant Todd’s account.

Over at Editor and Publisher, Greg Mitchell chides the media for once again buying a story of singular heroism by a sympathetic individual without independently confirming the account.

First, it was the "death" of Major Hasan, not corrected for many hours. Then, for days, the story of how a female cop brought down the shooter, even as she was receiving serious wounds. Yet I noticed just hours after the attack that scattered eyewitnesses, via the Web and Twitter, were saying that the killer re-loaded after Sgt. Kimberly Munley went down.

How could he have done that if she had just plugged him four times, supposedly ending the rampage? Some of those witnesses said they yelled at the second cop to shoot Hasan--which he did, and then went up and kicked his gun away...

Most news outlets for days labeled Munley "the" (singular) Fort Hood hero. She was the "Mighty Mouse." It wasn't until two days ago that Sgt.Todd got feature billing, although in a secondary role. Now, in the past day, he is finally getting his due as the original account begins to fall away. The cop most responsible for saving the day, it turns out, is a black man, not a white woman.

We recommend reading Mitchell's whole piece here.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

National Review Bedwetters Wet Bed Over Terror Trial
Posted by Booman, Booman Tribune on November 14, 2009 at 9:37 AM.

The main reason that supporters of Bush's anti-terror policies are wetting their pajamas is pretty clear from a look at National Review Online:

We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.

No doubt the defense attorneys will try to exclude evidence obtained while these defendants were being tortured in black prison sites. But, the DOJ isn't going to rely on any of that evidence. No judge is going to allow a self-defense argument, so our policies are not going to be on trial. The indictments will be based on information obtained legally. The right is afraid that these folks will be convicted and sentenced to death for a crime that can proven without resorting to torture. And, then, what will be left of their justification for despoiling our country's reputation for upholding human rights?

Their continued expression of fear at the prospect of having these terrorists present on American soil is pathetic. They ought to spend the rest of their days huddling in their 1950's-built nuclear bombshelters. The only thing they fear more than terrorist attacks is having to face up to the pointlessness of what has been done with their support.

Tom Tancredo "Fully Intends to Run" for Governor of Colorado
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on November 14, 2009 at 4:27 AM.

The Denver Post reports that, “while he has yet to formally declare his candidacy or fill out paperwork with the secretary of state’s office,” Tom Tancredo told a reporter that he “fully intends to run” for governor. When asked if he is running for Governor, Tom Tancredo told another local news station, “That is exactly what I anticipate doing.” After a brief run for President in 2008, Tancredo has been polishing his credentials over the past year by doing his part to coarsen the political discourse on television:

– Said he “didn’t know” if Obama “hates white people.”

– Argued Justice Sonia Sotomayor is a member of the “Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses” and that she “appears to be a racist.”

– Claimed Obama may “indeed” be “a racist” because he nominated “Sonia Mayer” for the Supreme Court.

After Tancredo resigned from Congress, he told the press that he regretted being known for being anti-immigrant. A few months later, the proud nativist told a young Republicans gathering that he’d be open to halting all immigration to the United States.

Secretary Of State: Would Hillary Want The Job?
Posted by Seth Colter Walls, Huffington Post on November 14, 2008 at 4:46 PM.

On Friday, political chatter focused around reports that President-elect Barack Obama is thinking about naming Sen. Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State.



But while much of the talk focused on Obama's reasoning, Clinton has a few decisions to make herself. The New York Democrat is likely already running through a series of calculations, according to two members of the Clinton inner circle who spoke to the Huffington Post.



"She has a passionate network of supporters who are devoted to her. Is she going to shut all of that off? Because once you become a Secretary of State, you don't fundraise," one former aide to Clinton's presidential campaign said. "What happens with your political staff? You're really kind of upending a lot of stuff. It's a huge life change."



The aide noted that while the Senator began her campaign with only a couple-hundred thousand email addresses in her database, she now has "at least three to five million." Indeed, even as her name was being discussed non-stop on cable news channels, Clinton's political action committee sent out a fundraising pitch Friday on behalf of Al Franken, who is still locked in an extended battle with Norm Coleman over a Senate seat in Minnesota.



Among other dilemmas are facing Clinton, according to the campaign aide -- who requested anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the situation -- is whether the Secretary of State's role in an Obama administration would be diminished by the large role in foreign affairs that will likely be played by Vice President-elect Joe Biden. In addition, there is the question of whether or not Clinton will want to give up a safe Senate seat for life for a job from which she could be summarily fired without notice.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Former G&R Guitarist Slash Shreds in Support of Gay Marriage
Posted by Lisa Derrick, Firedoglake on November 14, 2008 at 3:25 PM.

Guitarist Slash and his wife Perla Ferrar send out this message in support of marriage rights, created by by the couple and Scout Productions. Says Perla:

I married my sweetheart. You should be able to marry yours, too. So say no to hate and yes to equal rights. Keep up the fight ... Be loud, be proud and stand up for your rights.

 Slash and Perla urge everyone to go to JointheImpact.com and find out where to protest in your city tomorrow in support of equal marriage rights for all.

Officials: Obama Offered Clinton Secretary Of State Position
Posted by Nico Pitney, Huffington Post on November 14, 2008 at 1:48 PM.

President-elect Barack Obama offered Sen. Hillary Clinton the position of Secretary of State during their meeting Thursday in Chicago, according to two senior Democratic officials. She requested time to consider the offer, the officials said.



Multiple reports have indicated that Clinton was under serious consideration for the nation's top diplomatic post, in addition to Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, the Republican Senator from Nebraska.



A longtime aide to the New York Senator argued to the Huffington Post that there are strong reasons why Obama would be inclined to make the post worth Clinton's time.



"She is a beloved figure around the world. She has visited over 80 countries, as first lady and senator together," the aide told the Huffington Post. Noting the fact that Clinton learned as first lady how to be effective as a "backdoor diplomat," the former White House assistant said Clinton mastered "a lot of the intricacies of these issues before ever joining the Senate's Armed Services committee. She's tough; she had meetings with some Prime Ministers and Presidents where she had to deliver some blunt messages for us."



The offer shows that the Obama team is, in fact, serious about bringing all types of political officials -- former foes included -- into its governing tent. During the Democratic primary, Clinton was often accused by aides to Obama of inflating or over-dramatizing her foreign policy experience.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Siegelman Case: More Proof That the Bushies Were Up to No Good
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 14, 2008 at 1:20 PM.

What do you know, the Bush administration's handling of the Don Siegelman case can get even more controversial.

[N]ew documents highlight alleged misconduct by the Bush-appointed U.S. attorney and other prosecutors in the [Siegelman] case, including what appears to be extensive and unusual contact between the prosecution and the jury.

The documents, obtained by TIME, include internal prosecution e-mails given to the Justice Department and Congress by a whistle-blower during the last 18 months. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which investigated the Siegelman case as part of a broader inquiry into alleged political interference in the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys by the Bush Justice Department, last week sent an eight-page letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey citing the new material.

Conyers says the evidence raises "serious questions" about the U.S. Attorney in the Siegelman case, who, documents show, continued to involve herself in the politically charged prosecution long after she had publicly withdrawn to avoid an alleged conflict of interest relating to her husband, a top GOP operative and close associate of Bush adviser Karl Rove. Conyers' letter also cites evidence of numerous contacts between jurors and members of the Siegelman prosecution team that were never disclosed to the trial judge or defense counsel.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Leahy First Democratic Senator to Go On Record Against Lieberman
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 14, 2008 at 12:19 PM.

Since the election, Senate Democrats have been reluctant to punish Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) for the ad hominem attacks he levied at Barack Obama while supporting Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in the election. While a few senators have said that they'd like to see Lieberman apologize, most have said that they'd like him to continue caucusing with Democrats.



Today, Daily Kos diarist terjeanderson caught an interview on Vermont Public Radio with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), during which the senator broke from the pack and said that Lieberman deserved to lose his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee:

I'm one who does not feel that somebody should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after doing what he did. ... I felt that some of the attacks that he was involved in against Sen. Obama, whom I did support -- I was one of the first in the Congress to support him -- I thought they went way beyond the pale. I thought that they were not fair. I thought they were not legitimate. I thought that they perpetuated some of these horrible myths that were being run about Sen. Obama.

I would feel that, had I done something similar, I would not be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the next Congress.

Listen here:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

States Get Creative To Limit Coal Plants, But it's Not Enough
Posted by Bruce Nilles, Sierra Club on November 14, 2008 at 11:20 AM.

With the weak enforcement of environmental and health regulations by the Bush administration -- and the ever growing list of last minute rollbacks -- it is no wonder that  many states continue to take action into their own hands. Related to new coal plants, the Attorneys General in both South Carolina and New Jersey have spoken out against new coal-fired power plants in their state.

But more recently -- a consortium of Northeastern states have found an interesting way to make the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforce Clean Air Act rules in other states: use the Clean Water Act to go after mercury emissions.

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York are filing a provision "which requires the EPA to craft agreements to resolve multistate pollution issues, triggers a mandatory process for the EPA to control the atmospheric deposition of mercury that makes fish throughout the Northeast unsafe to eat."

We've heard this argument before in different ways -- but the basics are that even if one state is making great strides in utilizing clean energy to fight global warming and protect their air and water, other states' inactivity or further use of coal-fired power plants can negate that work. And many states have made the argument before that building a coal-fired power plant in one state will affect the quality of life in others.

So this move by the Northeastern states is not only a great way to force the EPA to do its job, but it also highlights how the problem of mercury emissions affects all Americans, no matter where the coal-fired power plant is.

Coal-fired power plants emit 42% of the country's industrial mercury pollution. When coal plants release mercury into our air, it rains down into our lakes, rivers and streams. The toxic mercury then makes it into our bodies via contaminated fish.

Mercury pollution causes brain damage and other developmental problems in unborn children and infants, and has been linked to a greater risk of coronary heart disease in men.

Yet coal-fired power plants keep resisting mercury regulations, claiming that mercury pollution sources can't be tracked.

But wait just a minute -- there are scientists also working now to discover the exact power plant and coal sources of mercury emissions -- as explained in this interesting article from the Christian Science Monitor. One article highlight:

"The new method relies on the ratio of mercury isotopes -- mercury atoms with differing numbers of neutrons -- to find where the mercury originates. Scientists gather coal from fields around the world, burn it, capture the escaping mercury, and determine its unique isotopic 'fingerprint,' says Joel Blum, a professor of geological sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor..."

Building new coal plants will only increase mercury pollution. -- yet another reason to oppose new coal plants and instead focus on increasing our reliance on clean energy. It's also another reason to push for more mercury regulation, much like the Northeastern states are doing.

p.s.- Want to know how much mercury is in your body? Which fish are safe to eat? Sign up to get tested and download our mercury survival guide: www.sierraclub.org/mercury

Excellent Maddow Piece Spells Out Why Lieberman Must Be Stripped of His Chairmanship
Posted by David Sirota, Open Left on November 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM.

Many in the blogosphere, including OpenLeft (here and here), have noted that the removal of Joe Lieberman from his committee post isn't about revenge -- it's about political pragmatism. In specific, it's about making sure a guy who has repeatedly displayed his deep personal and irrational hatred for Barack Obama doesn't have the subpoena power to embark on witch hunts against President Obama. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow last night took all of those arguments and summed them up in a really great piece:




So, to reiterate -- removing Lieberman is not about revenge, it's about helping make sure the next administration doesn't have to spend all it's time fending off a crazed McCarthyist with subpoena power.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Jon Stewart Mocks Bill O'Reilly for Unfounded Obama Fears
Posted by Staff, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on November 14, 2008 at 10:05 AM.

"You've got a 'no spin zone,' I've got a safe zone." Stewart tries to calm down Bill O'Reilly (who stayed for two segments) after Obama's win. Watch both segments, they're hilarious.

Watch part 1:



Watch part 2:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Larry Summers Out as Obama's Treasury Pick?
Posted by Matt Stoller, Open Left on November 14, 2008 at 9:45 AM.

Victoria McGrane and Lisa Lerer from the Politico are reporting that Larry Summers is on the outs with the transition team.

The incident would likely make Summers' Senate confirmation a rocky proposition, especially since women's groups and liberal bloggers have already unleashed fierce opposition to him.

So far, our petition has around 6000 names on it, and several Facebook groups have emerged to protest his possible selection.  Women's groups have released a list of names for good candidates.

For Treasury secretary, Gandy said she suggested Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairwoman Shelia Bair; Alice Rivlin, the first director of the Congressional Budget Office and expert on urban issues as well as fiscal, monetary and social policy; former Commodity Futures Trading Commission chairwoman Brooksley Born, who tried to regulate credit default swaps but was blocked by Summers, former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama and McCain to Meet in Chicago ... What's on the Table?
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 14, 2008 at 9:44 AM.

ABC News' Jake Tapper reported this morning that John McCain, accompanied by Lindsey Graham, will travel to the President-elect's transition headquarters in Chicago on Monday.



Tapper added that there's "no indication Obama intends to offer McCain a position in his Cabinet, or that McCain would accept."



I suppose, given the circumstances, cabinet speculation is inevitable. One of the TNR blogs, noting McCain's trip to Chicago, asked, "Bombshell cabinet appointment in the making? Maybe."



I really doubt it. I know how much Obama appreciates the whole "Team of Rivals" dynamic, and I'm confident that Obama values magnanimity in victory, but I strongly suspect Monday's get-together is about building bridges, not exploring cabinet possibilities.



Where, pray tell, would Obama put him? Defense Secretary? Not in a million years -- they fundamentally disagree about the role of the military in shaping U.S. foreign policy. Department of Veterans Affairs? It's unlikely given that McCain's record on veterans' issues is actually really awful, including his inexplicable opposition to a bipartisan expansion of the GI Bill.



I guess one could make a case that McCain might consider a post at the Department of Homeland Security, but the truth is, Bush created and staffed the entire agency. Putting another conservative Republican in charge seems like a very bad idea.



So, if it's not about the cabinet, what's the point of the meeting? I think Jonathan Martin is on the right track:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Confirmed: Hillary Met With Obama About Role in New Administration
Posted by Nico Pitney, Huffington Post on November 14, 2008 at 8:03 AM.

A Democratic official confirms to the Huffington Post that Sen. Hillary Clinton met with President-elect Barack Obama on Thursday to discuss her role in the new administration.


Clinton's trip to Chicago, described in press reports as "personal business," came following a request from Obama, the official said.


The New York Senator is reportedly under consideration for Secretary of State, but it is unclear whether she had discussed that position with the transition team before making the trip. "If they told her beforehand, she did not tell her people," the official said.


Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines referred questions to the Obama transition team

Now Is No Time to Sing Kumbaya: We Must Hold the Bush Regime Accountable
Posted by Ian Welsh, Firedoglake on November 14, 2008 at 7:34 AM.

So, I'm hearing a ton of arguments that we should all just let bygones be bygones, because gosh darn, there are so much more important things to do than bringing Bush apparatchiks who smashed the constitution to bits, invaded another country based on lies (a war crime that Nazis were hung for) and who were criminally incompetent in their management of the economy, Katrina and everything else, to account.

Yes, we should all be BIGGER than justice, and just let bygones be bygones. What could be the harm in just saying "hey it's over now, let's fix the problems these criminal saps made and not bother to go after them." (I'm sure rapists and murderers who have killed and harmed far fewer people are wondering why this standard doesn't apply to them.)

The SAME people who were responsible for Nixon's crimes, were responsible for Iran/Contra. They and their proteges came back and were responsible for Bush, Iraq, torture, screwing up Katrina and so on.

But we're supposed to let bygones be bygones so they can do it again in the next Republican administration.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Michael Moore Takes on the Economy
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on November 14, 2008 at 5:14 AM.

The Hollywood Reporter reveals that Michael Moore's new documentary will focus on the global financial crisis and the U.S. economy. Moore is "feverishly shooting," and it is expected to come out as early as this spring. "The untitled movie will contain an end-of-the-empire tone, say those familiar with the project." Craig Minassian, an entertainment consultant, said, "If Moore offers a prescription for how to improve things, he may indeed find an audience that at this moment is eager for change," but cautioned "it's going to be hard for him. What this election shows is what's right with America, and sometimes what Michael Moore does is highlight what's wrong with America."

The Best Source of Patriotism Since Fox News: Joe the Website
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on November 14, 2008 at 5:07 AM.

Joe the Plumber has a website. And for only $14.95, you can get a special “Freedom” membership.


He’s also coming out with a book on American values ... like lying, practicing without a license, and being racist.

Obama to Give Up Senate Seat on Sunday ... Who Will Fill It?
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 14, 2008 at 5:03 AM.

It seems strange, but technically, Barack Obama is still a sitting senator. In fact, in an odd twist, when Congress reconvenes for a lame-duck session, Obama and Joe Biden can still vote on legislation while working on their transition in a competing branch of government.



Obama has indicated that he's not quite comfortable with this arrangement, which seems to touch on some serious separation-of-powers issues. With that in mind, Obama will officially give up his Senate seat on Sunday. Subscription-only Roll Call reported:

"It has been one of the highest honors and privileges of my life to have served the people of Illinois in the United States Senate," Obama said in a statement on Thursday. "In a state that represents the crossroads of a nation, I have met so many men and women who've taken different journeys, but hold common hopes for their children's future. It is these Illinois families and their stories that will stay with me as I leave the United States Senate and begin the hard task of fulfilling the simple hopes and common dreams of all Americans as our nation's next President."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Reports: Hillary Clinton Being Considered for Secretary of State?
Posted by Staff, Huffington Post on November 14, 2008 at 1:56 AM.

There are numerous reports that Hillary Clinton may be under consideration for Secretary of State in the Obama administration.



From the Washington Post:

There's increasing chatter in political circles that the Obama camp is not overly happy with the usual suspects for secretary of state these days and that the field might be expanding somewhat beyond Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and maybe former Democratic senator Sam Nunn of Georgia.

There's talk, indeed, that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) may now be under consideration for the post. Her office referred any questions to the Obama transition; Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to comment.

And NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports:

Two Obama advisers have told NBC News that Hillary Clinton is under consideration to be secretary of state. Would she be interested? Those who know Clinton say possibly. But her office says that any decisions about the transition are up to the president-elect and his team.

Clinton was seen taking a flight to Chicago today, but an adviser says it was on personal business. It is unknown whether she had any meeting or conversation with Obama while there.

According to CNN:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

News Corp and Fox News Have a Long, Chummy Relationship with Giuliani
Posted by Matt Corley, Think Progress on November 14, 2007 at 2:00 PM.

This post, written by Matt Corley, originally appeared on Think Progress

In a new lawsuit, former book publisher Judith Regan, who ran HarperCollins, claims that an unnamed executive at her parent-company, News Corporation, "encouraged her to lie to federal investigators about her past affair with Bernard B. Kerik." Regan says the "executive wanted to protect the presidential aspirations of Rudolph W. Giuliani."

Though a News Corp. spokesperson dismissed the lawsuit as having "no merit," Giuliani and the company -- specifically its subsidiary Fox News -- have a long-history of friendship and preferential treatment. In fact, Fox's start was directly aided by Giuliani when, as mayor of New York City, he "intervened" after the company was "blocked from securing a cable station in the city":

In 1996, when Mr. Ailes and Rupert Murdoch started Fox News, Mr. Giuliani intervened as mayor after Time Warner cable refused to carry the new station in the city. Time Warner, which had 1.1 million subscribers in the city, said it had room for only one more news station, which it had just awarded to MSNBC.

Fox accused Time Warner of trying to protect CNN, which Time Warner was buying. On Sept. 20, 1996, Mr. Ailes called Mr. Giuliani to ask for help. A flurry of meetings followed, but Time Warner did not budge. Three weeks later, the Giuliani administration said it would broadcast Fox News on a municipal-run station, citing the benefits of offering diverse news sources and protecting the 600 jobs Fox had created. [...]

But a federal judge blocked his plan, calling it "special advocacy" to "reward a friend and to further a particular viewpoint." The companies came to terms the next year.

As the New York Times noted in August, that friendly relationship has resulted in lopsided, favorable coverage by the cable news channel of Giuliani's presidential campaign:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Ron Paul Loses Support in Home State of Texas, Gains White Supremacist Fans
Posted by Paddy , Brave New Films on November 14, 2007 at 1:00 PM.

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

Looks like he may even lose his seat.

While Texan Ron Paul's stock is soaring nationally, there is trouble on the home front. In September, Paul finished third in a straw poll of 1,300 Texas Republican activists who had been delegates to recent Republican conventions.

The congressman corralled just 17 percent of the votes cast, trailing California's Duncan Hunter with 41 percent.

This outcome says Texas Republicans aren't terribly concerned about viability. Otherwise, one of the national front-runners like Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney would have beaten these long-shots. But if they were willing to "waste" their votes on Hunter, why didn't most back a fellow Texan? The truth is that Ron Paul, the angry prophet, has little honor in his own land. He's about to lose his congressional seat.

What endears him to the Paultards doesn't seem to sway his rank and file constituents.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Democrats May Force All-Night Filibuster on Iraq Withdrawal
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on November 14, 2007 at 12:00 PM.

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

When a senator threatens a filibuster on a bill, the Senate holds a cloture vote to end debate. If the measure gets 60 votes, the full chamber votes on the legislation. If the cloture vote fails, which is far more common in an evenly divided Senate, the bill is pulled from the floor. No one actually has to talk the bill to death.

But when it comes to the latest fight over Iraq funding, Senate Dems are apparently considering a plan to force Republicans to follow through and literally filibuster.

Senate Democrats might force Republicans to wage a filibuster if the GOP wants to block the latest Iraq withdrawal bill, aides and senators said Tuesday.

That could set the stage for a dramatic end-of-the-year partisan showdown, which Democrats hope will help them turn voter frustration with Congress and the stalemate over Iraq into anger with the Republican Party.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), the number two Democrat in the chamber, said a forced filibuster is "possible" and would "generate attention."

"We want to go to the bill, and [Republicans] have to decide initially whether they want us to go to the bill," Durbin said. "I wouldn't call it theatrics."

Well, I might call it a little theatrical, but that's not necessarily a criticism.

Depending on which polls you read, about two-thirds of the country wants to see Congress step and fight the Bush White House over ending the war in Iraq. Dems have tried to push various measures, even some with a few Republican allies, but when push comes to shove, they come up far short of the 60-vote requirement the GOP has established for meaningful legislation.

The typical American doesn't know about filibusters or cloture votes; all they know is that a Democratic Senate keeps failing to force Bush's hand and change the existing policy. It's one of the reasons Congress' approval rating is as low as it is.

Forcing a real, live filibuster, with Republicans front and center, refusing to allow a vote on a withdrawal measure, would as Durbin put it, "generate attention." Or, more specifically, highlight exactly who's responsible for the lack of progress.

Now, it's worth noting that some of this sounds a bit like a trial balloon. Harry Reid's office wouldn't comment, and all the filibuster talk seems rather speculative.

If that's the case, allow me to give the Democratic leadership some positive encouragement: this is a good idea.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Homophobic Surgeon General Nominee Reveals Bush's Plan to Recess Appoint Him
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 14, 2007 at 11:00 AM.

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

President Bush's controversial Surgeon General nominee, Dr. James Holsinger, has resigned from the board of trustees of the Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, KY. From a seminary e-mail:

From: Communication Office [at Asbury Seminary]

To: ATS Info, Staff News, Faculty News

Subject: Announcement from the Board of Trustees

November 12, 2007 3:53PM

The Asbury Theological Seminary Board of Trustees met on November 12, 2007. The board discussed the resignation letters submitted by Dr. James Holsinger and Mr. Phillip Connolly. Following this discussion and prayer, the board voted unanimously to receive these resignation letters with regret.

We realize from time to time board members resign before the end of a their term, however we have a deep appreciation for the many years of service, dedication and commitment of Dr. Holsinger and Mr. Connolly. The board of trustees wishes them both all the best in their future endeavors.

The Board of Trustees

Holsinger is resigning before the end of his term. A source in Wilmore tells Bible Belt Blogger that Holsinger is resigning because he expects to be recess appointed as Surgeon General:

Holsinger's nomination, opposed by several leading Democrats, has stalled in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. But Holsinger is telling people the president plans to appoint him to the post anyway once the Congress goes into its holiday recess.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Justice Dept Reopens Warrantless Wiretapping Inquiry Stymied by Bush
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on November 14, 2007 at 7:00 AM.

This post, written by Faiz Shakir, originally appeared on Think Progress

In early 2006, the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) launched an investigation to examine whether information "obtained from the NSA program, as well as whether Justice lawyers complied with the 'legal requirements' that govern it."

Just a few months later, the inquiry was shut down because Alberto Gonzales refused to grant security clearances to investigators. Gonzales later suggested to the Senate that Bush made the decision to block the investigation. "The President of the United States ultimately makes decisions about who ultimately is given access," Gonzales said.

The National Journal's Murray Waas reported that Bush shut down the investigation upon learning that Gonzales "would likely be a focus of the investigation." OPR's chief lawyer Marshall Jarrett reported that Bush's actions were unprecedented:

"Since its creation some 31 years ago, OPR has conducted many highly sensitive investigations involving Executive Branch programs and has obtained access to information classified at the highest levels," the office's chief lawyer, H. Marshall Jarrett, wrote in a memorandum released yesterday. "In all those years, OPR has never been prevented from initiating or pursuing an investigation."

Now, the AP reports that the Mukasey-led DoJ will reopen the inquiry:

"We recently received the necessary security clearances and are now able to proceed with our investigation," H. Marshall Jarrett, counsel for the OPR, wrote to New York Rep. Maurice Hinchey. A copy of the letter, dated Tuesday, was obtained by The Associated Press.

According to the DoJ website, "The objective of OPR is to ensure that Department of Justice attorneys continue to perform their duties in accordance with the high professional standards expected of the Nation's principal law enforcement agency." High professional standards were once a threat to the Gonzales-led DoJ. Hopefully, that tide is turning.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

"Hidden Epidemic" of Suicides in Iraq Revealed
Posted by GottaLaff , Brave New Films on November 14, 2007 at 6:59 AM.

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

Mental illness. Suicide. Just more side effects of the disaster in Iraq that Bush and Cheney own. It's theirs. And guess what, guys? It followed us home. So much for fighting them over there so we don't have to... blah blah blah.

Sometimes the enemy is the demon that torments you, the demon that doesn't show up for 6 months to a year.

[A] CBS News analysis reveals [some of the 25 million veterans] lose that battle, and take their own lives, at a clip described by various experts as "stunning" and "alarming," according to Chief Investigative Correspondent Armen Keteyian. One called it a "hidden epidemic."

Be proud, BushCo. When they come home, the bloody bits and pieces of human flesh stay with them. The nightmares stay with them. The horror and carnage and anguish all stay with them.

He says no one had ever counted just how many suicides there are nationwide among those who had served in the military -- until now.

The five-month CBS News probe, based upon a detailed analysis of data obtained from death records from 2004 and 2005, found that veterans were more than twice as likely to commit suicide in 2005 as non-vets.

A recent Veteran Affairs Department estimate says some 5,000 ex-servicemen and women will commit suicide this year, largely as a result of mental health issues, and Keteyian says, "Our numbers are much higher than that, overall."

5,000 dead. Not shot, not grenaded, not killed. 5,000 suicides. That's about 2,000 more than died on 9/11. Yeah, we're really winning this one.

Oh but who cares. They did what the administration wanted them to do, what none of the insensitive, fear-mongering, shock-and-awed chickenhawks would have the guts to do themselves.

After the weary, mentally destroyed, broken soldiers come back, it's pretty much, "Staff Sergeant who?"

"The war didn't end foe him when he came home," says [Staff Sgt. Justin Reyes's] mother, Jean Willis. "I think he was being tormented and tortured by his experiences."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Republican Accused of Groping Four Women in Four Separate Incidents
Posted by Paddy , Brave New Films on November 14, 2007 at 6:54 AM.

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

From our friend blogenfreude's nice little round-up for Blowvember-

A 3rd District judge this week scuttled Republican leader Ozwald Balfour's efforts to disqualify the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office from prosecuting him for allegedly groping, or attempting to grope, four women.

Four sex assault cases filed against Balfour in 2005 were still unresolved last fall when he threw his support - and the free services of his two media consulting companies - to Republican district attorney candidate Lohra Miller.

He is charged with three second-degree felony counts of forcible sexual abuse and one count of attempted forcible sexual abuse, a third-degree felony.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush Still Refuses to Admit Ever Making An Error As President
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 14, 2007 at 5:14 AM.

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

Yesterday, President Bush sat down for an approximately 30-minute interview with Fox Business Channel. Toward the end of the interview, host David Asman asked Bush, "What do you think, looking back, your greatest hit was? Where you really hit one out of the park. And what do you think your greatest error was?"

Bush replied, "Success, there's been a lot." But he refused to reveal his greatest error, instead saying that he was disappointed Congress blocked his Social Security plan:

BUSH: Well, I would rather go disappointments, rather than errors. The disappointment is not getting a Social Security package, Social Security reform, because that truly is the big deficit issue. I'm sorry it didn't happen. I laid out a plan to make it happen -- to enable it to happen. I was the first president to have addressed it as specifically as I did. I wish Congress wasn't so risk-averse on the issue.

Watch the video to your right

Self-reflection and admitting mistakes aren't strengths of Bush administration officials. In April 2004, Bush famously froze when asked to name the biggest mistake of his presidency. "I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it," he told the reporter. "Maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Marines declare war on Christmas
Posted by Melissa McEwan on November 14, 2006 at 12:38 PM.

Why do the Marines hate America?

A talking Jesus doll has been turned down by the Marine Reserves' Toys for Tots program.

A suburban Los Angeles company offered to donate 4,000 of the foot-tall dolls, which quote Bible verses, for distribution to needy children this holiday season. The battery-powered Jesus is one of several dolls manufactured by one2believe, a division of the Valencia-based Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Co., based on Biblical figures.

Why is the phrase "battery-powered Jesus" making me laugh uncontrollably?

Anyhoo, the vice president of Marine Toys for Tots Foundation, Bill Grein, said that toys are distributed to children based on financial need and "we don't know anything about their background, their religious affiliation," so they rejected the donation, lest they risk "sending a talking Jesus doll to a Jewish family or Muslim family." Grein also noted, rather amusingly, that "kids want a gift for the holiday season that is fun." What -- and a battery-powered doll designed for religious indoctrination isn't fun?!

Michael La Roe, director of business development for [one2believe and Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Co.], said the charity's decision left him "surprised and disappointed."

"The idea was for them to be three-dimensional teaching tools for kids," La Roe said. "I believe as a churchgoing person, anyone can benefit from hearing the words of the Bible."

Well, Mr. La Roe, I hate to surprise and disappoint you further, but that's probably only one of many beliefs that you don't share with everyone in America.

(Crossposted at Shakespeare's Sister.)

Once again conservative, you are wrong on immigration
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 14, 2006 at 11:15 AM.

As Josh pointed out recently here on AlterNet, the rhetoric on immigration is so divorced from reality that many are up in arms about something they are simply wrong about; not a disagreement, wrong:

Being in this country illegally is not (currently) a violation of the criminal code, it's a civil code violation like letting your car's registration lapse. It's not a felony and it's not a misdemeanor.

And here we have Michelle Malkin's site, appropriately named Hot Air, spouting off incorrectly. Here's Bryan on a Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund attorney who told a Texas border city council that their new anti-immigration measures may violate Federal Law:

Don’t illegals violate federal law by traipsing across the border? Funny how these Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund types never mention that.

Know why they never mention that? Because it's not true.

Federal Law refers to Constitutional Law, which has nothing to do with immigration. It's a violation of civil law, which isn't even something that law enforcement is currently meant to enforce.

Don Boudreaux argues:

The phrase "illegal immigrant" is a boon to xenophobes. It permits them to mask their hostility to freedom of movement, to freedom of association, and to foreigners, behind high-sounding rhetoric about the rule of law.

I concede that many people today are in the United States without Uncle Sam’s formal permission. I disagree, however, that these people are "illegal" or "criminal" in any but the most formal and empty sense of the terms.

Hot Air's Bryan, who will doubtlessly update his post with a correction note, concludes: "Got a headache yet?"

No. You? (CafeHayek, HotAir)

Simpsons do Army Recruitment [VIDEO]
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 14, 2006 at 9:06 AM.

Hat tip to The Largest Minority on this scathing clip of the Simpson's satirizing the recruitment process.

Including a recruitment commercial so ridiculous it could only be taking its cues from actual recruitment commercials...

My cell phone is bigger than yours...
Posted by Deanna Zandt on November 14, 2006 at 8:02 AM.

Just a short reminder that we're all hopeless monkeys trapped inside one giant National Geographic special, via TechDirt:

Well, it appears some things don't change much. Almost exactly six years ago, we wrote about a study that said that men tend to use mobile phones in the same way that peacocks display their plumage: as a mating call to try to impress women. A new study has found that this still happens. Men are much more likely to actively display their mobile phones in social situations. The article suggests it's a way to pick up women, but it also notes that men are just as eager to display their mobile phones to other men to make themselves appear more important. Of course, what makes this even more interesting is the study we saw this past summer that found that women use mobile phones for almost the exact opposite purpose. They do it to keep men from approaching them. That is, if they see someone approaching them, they may pull out the phone so they have an excuse to avoid talking to the man. No wonder the sexes have so much trouble communicating. They don't even use communication devices the same way.

Judith Miller: Times reporter who pushed Iraq War worried about blogger standards...
Posted by Melissa McEwan on November 14, 2006 at 7:11 AM.

Judith Miller is worried about bloggers:

"I'm worried about bloggers," says former New York Times reporter Judith Miller. "(A post) starts as a rumor and within 24 hours it's repeated as fact." Miller said blogs "don’t post corrections when they learn that what they have posted is wrong," but added that she was "glad to welcome them as long as they agree to the standards." When not helping blogs improve their correction standards, Miller peddled false intelligence from the White House and Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi that helped convince Americans that Iraq had WMD.

Let's put Judy's theory to the test, shall we? Judith Miller has a brain the size of a pecan, and it's filled with nothing but hotdog innards. I don't know this to be true; it's just a rumor. (That I'm starting.) Let's give it 24 hours and see if it gets repeated as fact on the front page of the freaking New York Times.

(Think Progress)

Public school teacher gives lesson in right-wing Christian Tolerance®
Posted by Joshua Holland on November 14, 2006 at 7:04 AM.

From the Lippard Blog, via Pharyngula:

A history teacher at the local public high school [in Kearny, New Jersey] may have bitten off more than he cares to chew this fall. Self-described conservative Baptist David Paszkiewicz used his history class to proselytize biblical fundamentalism over the course of several days at the beginning of this school year.

Among his remarks in open class were statements that a being must have created the universe, that the Christian Bible is the word of God, and that dinosaurs were aboard Noah's ark. If you do not accept Jesus, he flatly proclaimed to his class, "you belong in hell." Referring to a Muslim student who had been mentioned by name, he lamented what he saw as her inevitable fate should she not convert. In an attempt to promote biblical creationism, he also dismissed evolution and the Big Bang as non-scientific, arguing by contrast that the Bible is supported by what he calls confirmed biblical prophecies.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush going to Vietnam
Posted by Melissa McEwan on November 14, 2006 at 7:03 AM.

As promised back in August, President Bush is finally going to visit Vietnam for the first time for the Pacific Rim summit. Reportedly, "terrorism and bird flu will be the dominant topics of discussion."

Considering that Bush's failure as a soldier may be eclipsed only by his failures in diplomacy and reducing terrorism, I'm fairly certain this is one scenario where "Better Never Than Late" would be the appropriate back-asswards aphorism.

(Via State of the Day.)

Feminizing the streets
Posted by Melissa McEwan on November 14, 2006 at 7:02 AM.

Vanessa at Feministing:

A small Spanish town council has decided to fight machismo through altering half of all road signs and traffic signals to "feminine attributes."

While all of the street signs in Fuenlabrada have always consisted of boxy male figures, the council is requiring the town to change half of the signs to show female silhouettes with ponytails or a skirt.

While I'm not too keen on using a ribbon, ponytail and/or skirt to define what a woman looks like, sometimes something as simple as identifying women as pedestrians can stick it to (even in a small way) a sexist system. And I'm all for it.

I'm all for it, too. One of the most pernicious attributes of sexism is regard for "male" as the norm, which manifests in usage of terms like mankind, as opposed to humankind, preference for "him" or "his" as the default pronoun, and people generically being represented on everything from street signs to "How to Perform the Heimlich Maneuver" pamphlets with exclusively male forms. Over my lifetime, I've seen improvements in this area, from safety cards on airplanes featuring women to language usage. I'm not a total language fiend, but I certainly prefer terms like "firefighters" to "firemen," for example, when referring to a mixed-sex group (and the profession generally).

These "little" things tend to be of the sort that make people who aren't big on the equality tip (including and especially those who are of the mind that we've "pretty much got that sexism thing sorted, and now I'm tired of hearing about it") roll their eyes, but it's not quite as pointless as all that. I remember being very young (6 or 7) when I first heard a woman referred to as a "policeman." I asked my teacher, "Shouldn’t she be called a policewoman?" She kind of laughed, and looked a bit startled by the question, and then said, "Well, yeah -- I guess she should!" It wasn't just that I was a pedantic little twerp (which I was), but I felt a weird pang of unfairness upon hearing the dissonant moniker.

Particularly growing up in an era when women could be readily seen doing "-man" jobs -- policeman, fireman, mailman, repairman, businessman, congressman, councilman, spokesman, chairman, fisherman, tradesman -- before I had the words to describe what I felt or why I felt it, I had the sense that something wasn't right. In a very real way, the use of the sex-specific terms to describe something I saw women doing too was itself transmitting sexism to me, because even though the jobs were now open to women, their titles were reflecting that they were still regarded as the province of men. To hear the inharmonious "She's a mailman" conjured a sense of a woman doing a man's job, as opposed to "She’s a mail carrier," which does not.

Telling a girl since birth that she is equal matters little if she travels within a culture that consistently sends signals contrary to that message, which is why it's imperative to address these "little" things, like the presumption that male is the default, the norm, the unique representative of humankind.

I've been told before that sounds like so much hyperbole to some men, but the world is a very different place when you never see yourself reflected back in so many little and big ways.

(Feministing; crossposted at Shakespeare's Sister.)

Giuliani makes a move
Posted by Melissa McEwan on November 14, 2006 at 6:27 AM.

The AP reported yesterday that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has filed the paperwork to form the "Rudy Giuliani Presidential Exploratory Committee, Inc., establishing a panel that would allow him to raise money for a White House run and travel the country."

In response, I offered to explore his chances for him on the spot for a buck and a pack of smokes:

Pro gun-control: No chance.

LGBT friendly: No chance.

Pro-choice: No chance.

I smoke Marlboro Lights. Thanks.

Steve at No More Mister Nice Blog, one of my favorite bloggers, disagrees with me. Not only does he think that Rudy's infamous appearances in drag won't hurt him, but also that "Righties love a guy who wears jackboots as comfortably as Giuliani does -- they instinctively know he's a my-way-or-the-highway kind of guy and it really moistens their knickers." Ha.

You know, I think Steve's absolutely right that about a particular contingent of the Bush base, the ones who spend their time blogging empassioned if intellectually bankrupt defenses of Bush's varied and plentiful demonstrations of his contempt for the rule of law. But I'm not so sure that the religious right sector of the Bush base, who themselves haven't exactly appeared turned off by jackbooted thuggery, will be as generous in overlooking Rudy's positions on gun control, abortion, and gay rights, his well-known open affair, and his having lived with two gay men. After all, these are the people who are mad at Bush for not being conservative and religious enough.

If the conservative evangelicals deliver on their promise to abandon the GOP out of frustration with having only been delivered repeated votes on the Federal Marriage Amendment, 19 state marriage amendments, two anti-abortion SCOTUS appointments, the decimation of comprehensive sex education, and the distribution of millions of tax dollars to approved "faith-based" programs (for a start), then Rudy might have a chance. If they hold their ground and use their weight to continue to influence the party that has shown a willingness to be influenced by them, Rudy's got a long, difficult road ahead of him.

(No More Mister Nice Blog)

Cooked FDA report...
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 14, 2005 at 1:21 PM.

Interesting one-two punch here.

On the same day that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report confirming that the FDA's decision to prevent the over-the-counter selling of emergency contraception (Plan B) wasn't entirely on the level, the controversy over Target's Plan B policy heats up.

According to Nico Pitney: "The blockbuster finding of the report is that then-FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford (a close ally of anti-choice groups) reportedly decided to reject the Plan B application months before the FDA’s study of the drug was completed."

At the same time, Target is officially allowing its pharmacists to refuse to fill women's prescriptions if their belief system tells them it's wrong. A situation nobody would have to confront were Plan B an over-the-counter medication.

I'm not saying it was coordinated. I'm just saying.

Atrios is calling for a boycott. (ThinkProgress)

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

It's about... ethics
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 14, 2005 at 11:59 AM.

In today's Times David Carr calls Gawker -- and blogs in general -- out on certain behaviors inappropriate for the media. The story was "inspired" by Gawker's flippant (and frequent) posts on an alleged sexual assault by a media professional, Peter Braunstein, in which Gawker also reveals the name of the victim, a traditional no-no:

"In order to stick out from the clutter online -- and Gawker does it extremely well, having had six million visitors in October -- Web sites need to not just push the envelope, but rip it to shreds. But, built on knowing cynicism and youthful exuberance, sites like Gawker and Jossip lack the vocabulary for genuine human misfortune."

On this account it's difficult to disagree. As for Carr's leap from Gawker's straddling of the ethics line to generalizations about blogger ethics, Terry has something to say. Carr's comment:

"But because blogs can be amended or erased, the people who write them tend not to be held to account. The expectation is that bloggers will transgress lines in terms of efficacy and tone and anybody who complains is viewed as a weenie."

Terry, who is "on record for getting very pissed when people just blatantly pull posts," responds: "Funny thing, though... I seem to remember Russ Kick at the Memory Hole saying something about some people who liked to 'amend' and 'erase' things on the web." Go [HERE] for several instances of the Times' unexplained web "amendments."

On a more personal note, I wrote a blog a couple of months back in which I pointed out that a TV station's short write-up of offensive anti-war protesters neglected to point out that these weren't just any anti-war protesters but Fred Phelps' God Hates Fags brigade.

Several readers apparently wrote in to protest the misleading story (which had been picked up by a conservative blog to illustrate how "loony the antiwar left is") which was then amended to include a reference to Phelps.

In an email exchange with an employee of the station who prefers to remain anonymous, I was condescendingly told that reports are changed all the time without notification or explanation. Typos perhaps, but even when an AP story is updated, it's noted and time-stamped. The corporate media is apparently as divided as the bloggers on this one... (Nitpicker; hat tip: Atrios)

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

Do only white people have sex in NY?
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 14, 2005 at 10:23 AM.

Jessica asks whether "only white people have sex in New York?" Based on this recent New York magazine cover [left] you'd be tempted to believe it.

Incidentally, there appear to be no gays.

Gawker, from whence the item came, claims to have found something: "We think maybe we see one non-white leg on this cover," but commenter "Valerie Flame" contends that "that leg is just very tan."

Really though, you've got to wonder what possessed New York to make such a transparent transgression. The desire for the inevitable publicity? In this city, in this day and age, who could possibly just neglect all other ethnicities? (Gawker / Feministing)

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

Dowd debate
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 14, 2005 at 8:12 AM.

NYT columnist Maureen Dowd moved into the spotlight with her controversial book excerpt in the NYT Mag a couple weeks back. For more on that see AlterNet's front page.

But more than just this excerpt has been bandied about in the blogs; her column itself has been the object of much discussion as well, exemplified by this back and forth between Scott Lemieux and BitchPhD.

Scott challenges the liberal embrace of Dowd simply because Bush is now the object of her derision. He writes:

"Oh, yes, she's turned her vacuous snark on Bush now. But when he was busy being elected, Dowd was lying about Gore's fundraising, peddling the 'invented the internet' and 'summer chores' lies, accusing Gore of flip-flopping with no evidence, writing idiotic pop-psych nonsense including the 'earth tones' crap, discussing Hillary Clinton's haircuts, spreading the 'Alpha Male' meme, attacking Gore for having the temerity to discuss actual issues in a Presidential campaign, and on and on and on."

And then there was the Love Story lie that Dowd invented herself.

But here's the book portion of Scott's rant that inspired BitchPhD's ire: "Dowd's argument consisted of a bunch of whining anecdotes about how rich, shallow assholes shockingly want to date dimwitted 23-year-old anorexics instead of strong intelligent women. And this...proves that feminism has failed. A bad argument leading to a non sequitur--I'm not convinced this is going to lead to a good book."

BitchPhd doesn't challenge Scott's column critique but rather the fact that in his book assessment:

"what's going on is revealing a fair bit of latent misogyny, in men and women alike. What, exactly, is Dowd's big sin? That she's being 'weak'? 'Whiny'? 'Petty'? 'Silly'? 'Illogical'? Isn't this really of a piece with the attacks I get for being a 'bad feminist' because I like high-heeled shoes? She's failing some kind of feminist litmus test because she's unhappy in her personal life?"

(Lawyers, Guns and Money / BitchPhD)

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

Rove still in legal jeopardy
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 14, 2005 at 6:35 AM.

One of the biggest pieces of news in the blogs is that last week's New Jersey gubernatorial loser Doug Forrester blamed his loss on Bush drag. No, that's some new political cabaret, but the political cost of being aligned with Bush, one of the least popular presidents in history.

While the Iraq War itself is undoubtedly the major reason for Bush's tanking, a related and close second is the traitorgate scandal. For a short time it looked like the political fallout was subsiding with the indictment and resignation of Scooter Libby and the murky circumstances under which Rove escaped indictment. Not so according to John Aravosis:

"All that talk about Karl Rove being in the clear was just talk. He was probably doing the spin himself...in some of his infamous super double secret background briefings. But whoever has been doing the spin has been pulling one over on the media...again."

Aravosis quotes from Murray Waas' latest:

"Fitzgerald did not seek an indictment of Rove, opting to present any potential new evidence on the White House deputy chief of staff to a new grand jury. In recent days, Fitzgerald has reinterviewed several witnesses with knowledge of Rove's role in the Plame leak and talked with attorneys of other potential witnesses."

"The ongoing investigation means that Rove's legal status is likely to remain up in the air until the final disposition of Libby's case. That could be two years from now, or even longer."

At first glance you might be tempted to conclude that he's escaped prosecution for most of the remainder of the Bush presidency -- a bad thing. But the reality is, with the possibility of indictment and ongoing investigation hanging over the head of Bush's closest adviser, this amounts to a free-floating criticism for opponents to whip out at their convenience. Pray they use it wisely. (Americablog)

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

Dweebs drive Humvees
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 14, 2005 at 6:28 AM.

Long known but little documented, the Humvee is the ultimate compensatory measure for the American male on the wrong end of one too many penis enlargement emails...

Or, in their own words, Dweebs Drive Humvees is: "A web page dedicated to the insecure and overweight motorists who drive the bloated anchor of the General Motors fleet, the Hummer SUT."

This photo [left] was taken in a Burger King parking lot in New Hampshire. The caption: "Tragically, this Hummer owner lost his chin in grisly hand-to-hand combat with dozens of Whoppers." (DDH; hat tip: Gristmill)

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

Cokie's hubby on Miller
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 14, 2005 at 5:31 AM.

Steve Roberts, hubby of Cokie and formerly under the jagged and mercurial editorial hand of Judy Miller, spoke up on Howard Kurtz's Reliable Sources via susanhu. Quick note before the quote: His analogy is mostly wrong (more on that...):

"You know, I think there is a parallel between Judith Miller and Mary Mapes, your guest on the first half-hour here, Howard. Both of them are convinced that they were right and everybody else was wrong."

"And I think that Miller -- the single biggest mistake Judy Miller made was the same mistake Mary Mapes made. She wanted this story to be true."

Actually, Mary Mapes' story was true, it was the single document within a Mt. Everest of documentation and testimony that wasn't true. Ah well, one out of two ain't bad.

Roberts also has some unkind words about having her as an editor for the schadenfreude crowd... (BoomanTribune)

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