PEEK

Buzz, perspectives, insight and news from AlterNet

Conservative Bishop Denies Kennedy His Holy Cracker*
Posted by Joshua Holland on November 23, 2009 at 4:30 PM.

Boston Globe:

The war of words between the Catholic bishop of Rhode Island and US Representative Patrick J. Kennedy escalated yesterday when Bishop Thomas J. Tobin criticized him for disclosing a confidential request the prelate made in 2007 to stop receiving Holy Communion because of his stand on moral issues.

Tobin said he was disappointed the congressman had told a newspaper that he had been forbidden from receiving communion in Rhode Island because of Kennedy’s support of abortion rights. The bishop also accused the son of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy of prolonging their public feud.

[...]

Tobin and Kennedy have been exchanging testy words for weeks. Earlier this month, the bishop, who was installed in 2005, disputed Kennedy’s contention that disagreeing with church hierarchy on matters like abortion rights makes him no less of a Catholic.

“Well in fact, congressman, in a way it does,’’ the bishop wrote in a commentary in the Rhode Island Catholic newspaper. “Your position is unacceptable to the church and scandalous to many of our members.’’

One of the bloggers over at Truthdig sounds the requisite note:

Hey, it’s their clubhouse and rules are rules—just as long as the church also denies communion to politicians who support the death penalty, cut poverty programs and covet thy neighbors’ wives.

Forgot to mention those who are gung-ho for perma-war!

* Kudos to Truthdig's blog for the headline "Give Kennedy His Cracker," presumably a reference to PZ Myers' "Cracker-gate" scandal.

Christians Rap About Not Having Sex: 'Gimme That Christian Side Hug!'
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on November 23, 2009 at 4:00 PM.

Abstinence is hard, even when you really love Jesus. That's why seemingly foolproof methods for preserving the virginity of young, unmarried Christians -- like magic purity rings, or having them go on creepy dates with their dads -- seem to make teens have even more premarital sex: a 2009 study found that rates of teen pregnancy are much higher in religious communities, even when lower rates of abortion were accounted for.

But maybe that's just because most efforts to promote abstinence have one fatal flaw: none have a mechanism for ensuring that the genitals of unmarried Christians never align. Fortunately, some rapping youth pastors are on it.

"AWWWW YEAH! Y'all ready to party all up in here?!" yell the mostly white, Christian rappers in a YouTube clip of a live performance. "Gimme that Christian side hug! Gimme that Christian side hug!" they demand, pumping their fists in the air and bouncing a lot, in a very convincing approximation of what black, secular rappers do.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Most Racist Sheriff in America's Worst Nightmare: Meet Salvador Reza (Video)
Posted by Laura Flanders, GRITtv on November 23, 2009 at 3:21 PM.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a household name for all the wrong reasons. Known for accusations of racial profiling and immigration raids in Maricopa County, Arizona, Arpaio is held up as a hero by anti-immigrant groups but has created a climate of fear in his state, where the Latino community is afraid to call the police for common complaints for fear of deportation. Recently stripped of his federal authority to make immigration arrests, Arpaio continues to conduct raids and appears not to fear repercussions.

Salvador Reza, U.S. Air Force veteran, community organizer and renowned immigrants rights activist, joins Laura for an exclusive interview on Arpaio’s ongoing mistreatment of his community. Reza notes that the Obama administration, specifically Homeland Security secretary and former Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, have mostly made symbolic moves to control Arpaio, but in practice allow him to do whatever he wants. Going forward toward immigration reform, Reza calls for nationwide action.

Thanks to Dennis Gilman for the video footage in this segment.

Sarah Palin Celebrates Her Humble Roots by Eating at a Restaurant That Serves a $25,000 Dessert
Posted by Byard Duncan, AlterNet on November 23, 2009 at 1:30 PM.

Sarah Palin, ever the faux-populist, has finally committed an act of absurdity that perfectly allegorizes her own political M.O.

Last week, while in New York City, Palin dined at Serendipity 3, a restaurant in one of Manhattan’s swankier sections. Serendipity 3 is known for hosting celebrities (others have included Zac Efron and Bill Clinton), but it’s not famous for that. It’s famous for the "Frrozen Haute Chocolate," a sundae composed of edible gold and 28 different cocoas from across the globe. This treat, which costs $25,000, holds the Guinness world record for most expensive dessert. It is eaten with a diamond-studded gold spoon and served with a side of $2,600 per-pound chocolate. At the base of the sundae’s goblet (it is served, by the way, in a goblet) is an 18-karat gold bracelet with 1 carat of white diamonds.

One can only assume that the banana leaves to be fanned with are sold separately.

So how does Palin’s stop at Serendipity compromise her everywoman persona? Let me count the ways. Not only was she in one of the more expensive corners of the Big Apple (a city she promised ‘true’ Americans she would not visit during her book tour, on account of its elites); she was dining at a restaurant where just one item costs more than what many of her supporters will make in a year. Maybe more than twice what some of them will make.

Of course, this sort of gleaming, gold-plated contradiction is nothing new for Palin. Even the most baby-witted of observers know that her two main recipients of polito-pandering (working class Americans, the corporations that routinely screw them over) don’t quite line up right. No, the beauty here is the symbolism of it all -- the sweet, flagrant absurdity: Underdog (dare we say it? "Rogue") politician, preparing to set out across America in a grassroots neo-conquest of a book tour, must first stop to fuel up for the harrowing journey. What better place to do so than at a restaurant whose finest dessert costs as much as a year of college?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Gun Lobby's Absurd New Claim: Healthcare Reform Will Take Away Your Guns
Posted by , Think Progress on November 23, 2009 at 12:30 PM.

On Friday, Gun Owners of America sent out an action alert to its 300,000 members warning that the Senate health care bill "would mandate that doctors provide 'gun-related health data' to 'a government database,' including information on mental-health issues detected in patients, which could jeopardize their ability to obtain a firearms license." The alert also warned its membership that the "wellness and prevention" provisions in the health care bill would allow the Obama administration to issue a "no guns" decree:

Finally, as we have mentioned several times in the past, the mandates in the legislation will most likely dump your gun-related health data into a government database that was created in section 13001 of the stimulus bill. This includes any firearms-related information your doctor has gleaned ... or any determination of PTSD, or something similar, that can preclude you from owning firearms.

And, the special "wellness and prevention" programs (inserted by Section 1001 of the bill as part of a new Section 2717 in the Public Health Services Act) would allow the government to offer lower premiums to employers who bribe their employees to live healthier lifestyles -- and nothing within the bill would prohibit rabidly anti-gun HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius from decreeing that "no guns" is somehow healthier.

The so-called "gun-related health data" is actually anonymous statistical information to help researchers develop health programs and initiatives that serve specific population groups or further the study of various conditions and medical needs. Section 2705 of the Senate health bill permits employers to vary insurance premiums by as much as 30 percent for employee participation in certain health promotion and disease prevention programs, but stipulates that the employer wellness program must be "based on an individual satisfying a standard that is related to a health status factor.” Gun ownership does not fall into this category.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Is a Desperate Desire For Leadership Behind the Droves Of Americans Waiting to Meet Sarah Palin?
Posted by Gary Younge, Comment Is Free on November 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama Is Playing Politics With Gitmo
Posted by Nick Baumann, Mother Jones Online on November 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM.

Liberals have not done enough public wrestling with Massimo Calabresi and Michael Weisskopf's Time article on the ouster of White House counsel Gregory Craig. Perhaps that's because they don't want to deal with the article's troubling implications. As Kevin explains, Craig was "the White House lawyer tasked with dismantling Bush-era interrogation and detention policies. At first, Obama was on board with Craig's plans.  Then, reality set in."

By "reality," Kevin presumably means "political reality." Time says that as soon as Obama's positions on Bush era torture -- releasing the torture photos, for example -- became politically difficult, the president jettisoned them. He did this despite the fact that he had been "prepared to accept -- and had even okayed" those same positions "just weeks earlier":

First to go was the release of the pictures of detainee abuse. Days later, Obama sided against Craig again, ending the suspension of Bush's extrajudicial military commissions. The following week, Obama pre-empted an ongoing debate among his national-security team and embraced one of the most controversial of Bush's positions: the holding of detainees without charges or trial, something he had promised during the campaign to reject.

But perhaps the most damning part of the Time piece is this sentence, near the beginning, that summarizes exactly what has happened in Obama's White House:

[Obama] quietly shifted responsibility for the legal framework for counterterrorism from Craig to political advisers overseen by Emanuel, who was more inclined to strike a balance between left and right.

Take a minute to think about how the left would respond to this if Obama was a Republican president. Obama delegated the responsibility for determining what to do about detainees to his political advisers. If George W. Bush had charged his political advisers, including Karl Rove, with crafting such policy, the entire blogosphere would have melted down from outrage overload.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Word "Canadian" So "Reviled in Some Places" that Visiting Canucks Say They're Americans
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 23, 2009 at 9:30 AM.

I'll confess that I own a backpack with a prominent Canadian maple leaf that I've lugged around Europe once or twice since the invasion of Iraq. Not as some kind of self-conscious act of political protest, mind you,  just to avoid the kind of casual sneers that were fairly common for U.S. travelers during the Bush years.

Perhaps that's why this story, from The Toronto Star, jumped out at me:

Canadian mining companies are facing allegations of abuse and assault on local citizens in dozens of developing nations.

[...]

The word "Canada" is so reviled in some places that traveling Canadians mask their citizenship by wearing American flags on their caps and backpacks.

Who'd have thunk it?

The allegations are severe: From Ecuador comes a lawsuit, filed in Ontario, alleging that in 2006 a Canadian company's armed security forces attacked unarmed locals with pepper spray first, then fired guns to dampen protest near a proposed mining site.

In El Salvador, allegations of violent attacks against anti-mining activists. In Mexico, allegations of human rights and environmental abuse that led a Mexican court to close a Canadian-owned mine.

[...]

The allegations of human rights abuses come from at least 30 of the world's poorest countries and have named companies of all sizes, from giant corporations to junior mining companies.

Thanks to reader Larry C. for flagging the article,which features some truly beautiful corporate propaganda.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Credit Card Companies Are Using Dirty Tricks to Force Us to Pay Late Fees: Why Won't Congress Do Something?
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on November 23, 2009 at 8:30 AM.

I honestly believe that this is the kind of thing that affects people every day and is leading to a populist backlash. People not only blame those who do these things, they blame those who have the authority and power for failing to step in and stop it:

Three years ago, the Haggler's credit card bill seemed to stop showing up in the mail. Another month went by -- no bill. The month after that, still nothing. Each month, the Haggler would call the issuer, Bank of America, and pay over the phone, then ask the same question: "Why did you stop sending me a bill?"

We're still sending you a bill, came the company's reply each time.

Guess what? The company was right. It just was sending the bill in a restyled envelope, with no trace of "Bank of America." In other words, it looked like junk mail, and the Haggler kept throwing it away.

Now, the Hagglers can't prove it, but this seemed like a brilliant, low-cost way to pocket a fortune in late fees.

"We are not trying to fool people, and we don't change our envelopes on a regular basis," said Anne Pace, a company spokeswoman. She explained that the change in envelope design was prompted by the 2006 acquisition of several credit card companies, after which the envelopes of all customers were left blank "for the sake of consistency."

Consistency? It would be consistent, as far as B. of A. customers are concerned, to leave the envelope unchanged, no?

Seriously, the person who dreamed up the envelope switcheroo must wake up laughing. Ever since, the Haggler has held a grudging, vaguely appalled respect for credit card companies.

The same thing happened to me. The plain brown envelope looked like it was one of those car dealership "checks" that were all the rage before the credit crisis hit. And because I didn't realize the first month that I hadn't gotten my bill, it created a black mark on my credit for a late payment which resulted in a cascade of raised rates on several cards.

It was clearly a sneaky trick. Yes, it's my responsibility to know when my bills are due, but I had been in the habit of putting the bill into the "to pay" file and paying it on the following Monday. It didn't occur to me that the bill would suddenly come in an envelope with no return address or label on it that didn't look like a bill and so I tossed it into a junk pile and didn't look at it right away.

And that's what people are dealing with all the time as consumers, with their health insurance, their credit cards, their mortgages, their pensions -- overwhelming complexity designed to trip them up and cost them money or deny them benefits to which they believed in good faith they were entitled. And its all perfectly legal -- or at least there's no visible accountability for it.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

How Congress May Keep Bloggers Out of Jail
Posted by Ari Melber, TheNation.com on November 23, 2009 at 7:30 AM.

It's hard out here for a blogger.

And hard for online journalists, unemployed new media producers, and just about anyone else dabbling in journalism without professional backing.

Beyond the basic financial challenges, there is scant legal help for members of the new media, even though they face the same complex, pricey legal threats as traditional media. Plus extra threats -- like government attempts to out anonymous bloggers, which can cost a lot to fight in court.

On Thursday, however, it just got a little easier out here for a blogger. (h/t Jon Stewart.) The smart folks at Harvard's Citizen Media Law Project are launching a program of free legal services for online and citizen media. And I'm taking the liberty of substituting the word "free" for pro bono in their announcement -- us lawyers have trouble kicking the Latin:

 

We are [launching the] Online Media Legal Network (OMLN), a new [free] initiative that connects lawyers and law school clinics from across the country with online journalists and digital media creators who need legal help. Lawyers participating in OMLN will provide qualifying online publishers with [free] and reduced fee legal assistance on a broad range of legal issues, including business formation and governance, copyright licensing and fair use, employment and freelancer agreements, access to government information, pre-publication review of content, and representation in litigation.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Is Taxing Plastic Surgery Sexist?
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on November 23, 2009 at 6:30 AM.

Part of the funding for the Senate's health care bill will come from a 5% tax on cosmetic surgery. The tax would generate $5 billion over ten years, and would only tax procedures where surgery "is not necessary to ameliorate a deformity arising from, or directly related to, a congenital abnormality, a personal injury resulting from an accident or trauma, or disfiguring disease."

It sounds fine and good on its face to tax unnecessary procedures -- especially those that are primarily accessed by the upper middle class. I couldn't find statistics on the average income of people who get cosmetic surgery, and certainly there are low and lower-middle income people who seek out cosmetic procedures, but by definition it seems like plastic surgery would be accessed most often by upper-middle and upper-class people (it is at least accessed disproportionately by white people). But 91 percent of cosmetic procedures are performed on women. While they're generally cast as simple vanity procedures, the fact is that women are under extreme pressure to maintain a particular physical appearance -- to look young, thin and attractive. Men certainly don't escape that pressure either, but women face it to a much higher degree. It seems a little unfair that women are inundated with messages that we need to constantly improve our physical appearance, and then taxed when we take steps to do just that. As Lindsay Beyerstein said on a feminist listserve I’m on, “It’s one of those classic sexist double binds: Society tells you that you have to look perfect and then sticks you with a ’sin’ tax when you do what’s expected of you. Boob jobs would titillate men AND subsidize their health care.”

On the other hand, I don't have much of a problem taxing luxury goods, so why not also tax luxury surgeries? And I know a lot of Feministe readers disagree with me on this one, but I’m also a proponent of taxing things like soda and cigarettes, which offer zero benefits but many health costs.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Lieberman's Latest B.S. Excuse for Opposing Health Reform
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 23, 2009 at 5:31 AM.

That Joe Lieberman would rather kill health care reform than let some consumer choose between competing public and private plans isn't exactly new. I continue to find it fascinating, though, to see his evolving explanations.

In June, Lieberman said, "I don't favor a public option because I think there's plenty of competition in the private insurance market." That didn't make sense, and it was quickly dropped from his talking points.

In July, Lieberman said he opposes a public option because "the public is going to end up paying for it." No one could figure out exactly what that meant, and the senator moved onto other arguments.

In August, he said we'd have to wait "until the economy's out of recession," which is incoherent, since a public option, even if passed this year, still wouldn't kick in for quite a while.

In September, Lieberman said he opposes a public option because "the public doesn't support it." A wide variety of credible polling proved otherwise.

In October, Lieberman said the public option would mean "trouble ... for the national debt," by creating "a whole new government entitlement program." Soon after, Jon Chait explained that this "literally makes no sense whatsoever."

Well, it's November. And guess what? We're onto the sixth rationale in six months. I actually like the new one.

"This is a radical departure from the way we've responded to the market in America in the past," Lieberman said Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press." "We rely first on competition in our market economy. When the competition fails then what do we do? We regulate or we litigate.... We have never before said, in a given business, we don't trust the companies in it, so we're going to have the government go into that business.."

 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Glenn Beck Has a 'Plan' to Sell Books With March On Washington on the Anniversary of MLK Speech
Posted by Matt Corley, Think Progress on November 23, 2009 at 4:21 AM.

Yesterday, while promoting his latest book at “a festive campaign-style rally” in The Villages in Florida, Fox News host Glenn Beck announced that he was crafting “a 100 year plan” that will be “radical” and will “restore our nation to the maximum freedoms we were supposed to have been protecting.” In his speech, which Media Matters captured on video, Beck told his followers, “we need to start thinking like the Chinese“:

 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama and a Paucity of Progressives
Posted by Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake on November 23, 2008 at 6:56 PM.

Chris Hayes:

 

Not a single, solitary, actual dyed-in-the-wool progressive has, as far as I can tell, even been mentioned for a position in the new administration. Not one. Remember this is the movement that was right about Iraq, right about wage stagnation and inequality, right about financial deregulation, right about global warming and right about health care. And I don't just mean in that in a sectarian way. I mean to say that the emerging establishment consensus on all of these issues came from the left. There's tons of things the left is right about that aren't even close to mainstream (taking a hatchet to the national security state and ending the prison industrial complex to name just two), but hopefully we're moving there.

Many people managed to convince themselves that Obama was a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool progressive at some point during the primaries.  For no reason as far as I could tell -- his voting record in the Senate was pretty much identical to Hillary Clinton's, and the people he surrounded himself with weren't exactly "outsiders."  But in the midst of the pie fights, that hardly seemed worth dwelling on for the pointless vitriolic arguments it would have engendered.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama and the End of the Military's Ban on Gays
Posted by John Ridley, Huffington Post on November 23, 2008 at 12:03 PM.

Wouldn't that be novel; gay soldiers serving openly in the military. People willing to fight and perhaps die for freedom allowed to freely be themselves.

With Barack Obama as president it's not just possible. Thankfully, it's probable.

Out on the stump candidate Obama promised to work toward lifting the ban on gays serving openly, calling the ban is a "counterproductive strategy." A typically Obama-esque way to intellectualize what is a moral imperative: the obligation of the government to fight discrimination which, obviously, includes the institutionalization of "separate but equal."

While this will not be an easy fight -- the passage of the bigoted Prop 8 in California only demonstrates the glacial pace the acceptance of Sexual Orientation moves -- it also won't likely be a return to the belabored hearings of the Clinton presidency which produced the Bizarro World Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) non-policy of not asking what nobody's saying.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Republicans Turn to Dirty Tactics in Georgia
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 23, 2008 at 9:57 AM.

The polls must be pretty close in Georgia's runoff election for the U.S. Senate, because the right, true to form, is aiming pretty low.

Over the last few days, both the National Republican Senatorial Committee and a far-right group called Freedom's Watch have both launched ads attacking Democrat Jim Martin for being "soft on crime." More specifically, the conservatives insist that Martin has opposed measures that would crack down on criminals who prey on children.

Of all the issues Republicans could have picked, this has to be the most offensive -- Martin's daughter was kidnapped when she was just eight years old. She was, fortunately, returned to the family safely, but Martin has a more personal background when it comes to crimes against children than most of us would even care to imagine.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Summers and Gibbs Both Get Jobs From Obama
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on November 23, 2008 at 7:14 AM.

ABC News reports that President-elect Obama "has decided to name former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers the director of the National Economic Council, essentially the president's senior economic adviser." Also today, Obama named his campaign spokesperson Robert Gibbs as White House press secretary and Ellen Moran of Emily's List as communications director.

Watching the Watchmen: What Obama Can Do About Illegal Surveillance
Posted by Emptywheel, Firedoglake on November 23, 2008 at 6:01 AM.

With all the commotion and hubbub surrounding the personalities and gossip of Obama's cabinet formation, and expression of everyone's opinion on how that should proceed, little has been said about the actual policies and actions (other than Iraq) that should be implemented right out of the gate. One area that has been neglected is that of the illegal wiretapping and surveillance policies and practices that were instituted in the country's name by the Cheney/Bush regime.

Our friends at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have some ideas for the incoming Obama Administration in this regard, and they are pretty good.

President Obama can end the immunity process. Consistent with his previous opposition to immunity -- then-Senator Obama voted in favor of Senator Dodd's amendment to strip the immunity provisions out of the FAA altogether -- Obama could instruct his new Attorney General to withdraw the government's motion to dismiss the lawsuits based on the immunity statute. Or,

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush's Backward Sprint to the Finish: Shady Rules Passed in the Final Days
Posted by Staff, Think Progress on November 23, 2008 at 4:25 AM.

In its "sprint to the finish," the Bush administration is working tirelessly to enact or alter a wide array of federal regulations that would weaken government rules protecting consumers, workers, and the environment.

As Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, told the Wall Street Journal, "This administration will stop at nothing to jam through as many reckless proposals as they can before the clock runs out."

The Wonk Room and ThinkProgress are keeping a close eye on Bush's Backward Sprint to the Finish, and have compiled a document to keep tabs on both the proposed and already enacted changes. Here are some examples:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Giuliani’s Most Absurd Gaffe
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on November 23, 2007 at 1:04 PM.

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

When a presidential candidate misspeaks and commits a dreaded "gaffe," it's embarrassing. When a candidate commits a gaffe that feeds into existing concerns, it tends to have a far greater impact.

So, in 1992, when Bill Clinton said he "didn't inhale," it reinforced the narrative that he liked to try and have things both ways -- in this case, he tried to try marijuana, but couldn't. When John Kerry accurately described his votes on an appropriations bill, saying he voted for it before he voted against it, it reinforced the largely-bogus notion that he was inconsistent on his policy positions.

With that in mind, I wonder if Rudy Giuliani's comments to the Weekly Standard might help underscore what a ridiculous candidate he is.

A liberal who had penned columns in his college paper extolling John Kennedy's virtues, Giuliani opposed the Vietnam war and voted for George McGovern in the 1972 presidential election. "I had traditionally been a Democrat," Giuliani told me in a recent interview in Las Vegas. "It was almost like a reflex mode. I actually remember saying to myself, 'If I was a person really deciding who should be president right now, I'd probably vote for Nixon, because I think the country would be safer with Nixon.' My concern was the Soviets, foreign policy, strong military."

Whatever his concern, it was not enough to make Giuliani pull the lever for a Republican.

Now, by any reasonable measure, Giuliani sounds ridiculous. Giuliani could have said, "Yes, I was a liberal Democrat in 1972, but soon after saw the error of my ways. Like Ronald Reagan, I made the transition from Democrat to Republican and I'm glad I did." That would have been a perfectly satisfactory answer, and very few voters would lift an eyebrow over how a candidate voted in an election 35 years ago.

But Giuliani chose a very different direction. He told the Weekly Standard that he voted for McGovern but he really thought Nixon was the better candidate. He knew Nixon would keep the nation "safer," but he voted for McGovern anyway. Giuliani was in "reflex mode," whatever the hell that means.

This is both amusing and pathetic at the same time.

Greg Sargent added an important contextual note:

Does this mean that Rudy didn't vote for the candidate who he himself thought would keep the country safer? Seems a bit odd. Foreign policy and national security issues were kind of front and center during that campaign.

Quite right. In 1972, the war in Vietnam was still a disaster, and McGovern ran on a "platform that advocated withdrawal from the Vietnam War in exchange for the return of American prisoners of war and amnesty for draft evaders who had left the country."

Giuliani heard this and supported McGovern -- but wants the conservative Weekly Standard to know 35 years later than he knew, even then, that he was supporting the candidate that was weak on national security.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

MoveOn Sets Its Sights on Facebook Privacy Violations
Posted by Sara Robinson, Group News Blog on November 23, 2007 at 12:00 PM.

This post, written by Sara Robinson, originally appeared on Group News Blog

Bill O'Reilly can howl all he wants about the "war on Christmas." But Facebook has leaped several parsecs ahead of him, making itself into a Grinch so big that the good Dr. Seuss himself would have been gobstopped by the sheer evil magnitude of it all.

How did Facebook manage this? Simply by spoiling the surprise for everybody.

In recent weeks, Facebook has implemented this new "feature" called Beacon. Beacon keeps track of purchases made through businesses that have contracted with Facebook for this service. If you buy a movie ticket through Fandango, or a rental from Blockbuster, Beacon sends around a note to your friends, so everybody will know you went to see American Gangster, or rented Sicko.

This is pernicious enough -- does my conservative boss really need to know I spent Saturday night watching No End In Sight? -- but from a privacy standpoint, it wouldn't be quite so much so if you were given the chance to opt in or out of using Beacon. But, of course, you're not. What you get is a very tiny Javascript link with every purchase -- and a short window of time to click it if you don't want this transaction broadcast to your entire Facebook network. If you don't click that link, your business becomes everybody's business.

And worse: there is no global opt-out on this. You can't just go somewhere that will allow you to bow out of this intrusive feature once and for all. You've got to catch that tiny link and remember to click it -- every single time.

The privacy nightmares are endless -- and already happening. One man quoted in a MoveOn press release said:

"It's easy to picture serious consequences: A college student buying a ticket to Brokeback Mountain and his homophobic football teammates finding out on Facebook. Or a battered woman buying a ticket to see Violence Behind Closed Doors when she told her husband she's working an extra shift. Or a not-so-friendly employer learning a staffer has bought a ticket to a screening of Living With AIDS."

But the real brunt of this is a far more common experience that's not nearly so frightening, though far more universal: Facebook is telling people what you bought them for Christmas.

Say you go, unawares, to some business that's made this deal with Facebook, and buy your honey that gorgeous jacket he's been eyeing. Or that expensive Beatles boxed set for your nephew. Or or or. And your Facebook account dutifully puts out the notice to everyone in your network -- including said nephew (and yes, I have a nephew on my Facebook account) -- that "Sara bought a Beatles boxed set from Amazon."

Well, now, that sort of spoils the surprise, doesn't it? But it's already happened. And is happening. Don't let it happen to you.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush Accepts Violence Against Women as Long as US Allies Inflict It
Posted by Lucinda Marshall, Feminist Peace Network on November 23, 2007 at 11:00 AM.

This post, written by Lucinda Marshall, originally appeared on Feminist Peace Network

As journalist Mary Kay Blakely pointed out many years ago, sometimes there simply aren't two sides to a story. That is most certainly true in the case of the 19 year old victim of a gang rape who was recently sentenced by a Saudi court to 6 months in jail and 200 lashes. Her crime? Riding in a car with men who were not her relatives. There cannot be any acceptable cultural or legal justification for the violation of human rights, even when the country committing the violation is a U.S. ally.

CNN apparently didn't get that memo if their recent "Saudi: Why We Punished Rape Victim" is any indication. According to the report, the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. told CNN that Saudi Arabia,

"welcomes constructive criticism and insisted that the parties' rights were preserved in the judicial process."We would like to state that the system has ensured them the right to object to the ruling and to request an appeal," the statement continued, "without resorting to sensationalism through the media that may not be fair or may not grant anyone any rights, and instead may negatively affect all the other parties involved in the case."

The statement also described the progress of the woman's case and explained that it was heard by a panel of three judges, not one judge "as mentioned in some media reports.""

SO WHAT???

"It said the case was treated normally through regular court procedures, and that the woman, her male companion and the perpetrators of the crime all agreed in court to the sentences handed down.""

And their other choice would have been???

The article goes on to say that U.S. officials have expressed dismay, but not directly to the Saudis. Gee, that is helpful.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Primary Point of the Occupation of Iraq is the Occupation Itself
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 23, 2007 at 10:00 AM.

Over in Iraq special coverage, I'm running a piece by Jeffrey Feldman, who argues that we're about to see a monumental shift in the discourse around Iraq. Here's the nut of it:

The change can be summed up in 4 simple words:

troops leave, violence drops

As the deafening hubbub of propaganda drowns out every attempt to talk real policy change on Iraq, this simple descriptive formula--troops leave, violence drops--cuts through it all…

The British pullout from Basra, and the subsequent logic of violence dropping as a result of that pullout, will change the debate again by reimposing a simple logic of up and down, in and out.

The up-and-down-in-and-out logic of this description is more powerful than any protest argument about the war to date, and has an almost unlimited potential to sweep through both the broadcast media and face-to-face conversations that make up American political debate.

He's got much more to say, so be sure to read the whole thing.

I don't mean to single out Jeffrey Feldman here -- he's a good guy, and a contributor to AlterNet from time to time -- but I want to highlight the piece because it's such a good example of the kind of perfectly rationalist analysis that dominates in progressive America. There's a persistent belief that if opponents of the occupation could only win the "debate" over Iraq on the merits, then a U.S. withdrawal will somehow follow.

There are a number of problems with this idea, not least of which is the fact that to a very significant degree we've already won the debate -- majorities of Americans now say that it is no longer possible for the U.S. to "win" in Iraq (whatever that means) and favor a timetable for pulling troops out -- but the public's views have so far had only minimal impact on the foreign policy elite.

But more than that, the commonly-held rationalist analysis denies a crucially important reality: that for various (and differing) reasons, a significant portion of Washington's strategic class is determined to maintain a "soft" occupation of Iraq for a long time to come, and that means that regardless of how soundly opponents of the occupation thrash whatever the argument du jour for keeping troops in the country may be, there will always be a new and pressing need to maintain U.S. forces in the country. The goalposts will always be perfectly mobile, and they'll keep shifting until something changes structurally.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

If Edwards Were Obama...Or Vice Versa
Posted by David Corn, DavidCorn.com on November 23, 2007 at 7:05 AM.

This post, written by David Corn, originally appeared on David Corn.com

The other day, I noted that John Edwards' recent swings at Hillary Clinton had a whiff of silliness and/or desperation to them. He has equated her position on the Iraq war (create a plan for troops withdrawal once elected) with support for continuing the war, and Edwards blasted her for laughing at the economic dislocation caused by Nafta when she had merely chuckled at a reference to a quasi-infamous debate on Nafta between billionaire Ross Perot and then-Vice President Al Gore. But this is not to say that there is no argument for Edwards to make. Yesterday, he summed up his case against HRC:

I saw that Senator Clinton gave a speech that talked about change versus status quo, and I agree that that's what this election will be about. But I believe if you defend the system in Washington as Senator Clinton does, you're for the status quo. If you want to continue the occupation in Iraq, you're for the status quo. If you're not willing to stand up to Bush and Cheney on Iran, then you're for the status quo.

We need change very badly. When I'm president, I will shake things up and end the corruption in Washington and say no to donations from federal lobbyists. I will end the U.S. occupation of Iraq. We need a leader with the strength to stand up and refuse to go along with the Bush Administration's aggressions against Iran. And as much as Senator Clinton attempts to blur the lines with this talk of change, I believe at the end of the day the American people understand the fundamental differences between the system she has chosen to defend and the change I will bring to America.

Aside from the reference to Clinton's alleged support for occupation in Iraq, this ain't a bad argument. And I take Edwards at his word when he says he's for overhauling Washington--and, as he has declared elsewhere, for addressing poverty in America.

But Edwards does have a problem. During his relatively short stint in public life--the six years he spent as a senator--he did not legislate or agitate as a full-throated, populist-minded agent of change. He was no Paul Wellstone. And when he was on the ticket in 2004 as John Kerry's veep choice, he did not rage against the Washington machine in such a manner. As a trial attorney, he indeed confronted powerful corporations in courtrooms. Yet his Washington career was not that of a rabble-rouser.

So he's caught on the wrong side of a fundamental political rule: it's better to show than tell. He now has to tell potential voters what sort of leader he will be if elected, when he did not as a senator show voters this.

The fellow who would have a better shot at presenting this sort of case would be Senator Barack Obama. Though he's been in the Senate only a short while, he has pushed for reform that would diminish the influence of lobbyists. And his past experience as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, and reformist state legislator is more in sync with a throw-the-rascals-out cry.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Knife-Wielding Rapist Turns Out to be a Minister
Posted by Pam Spaulding, Pam's House Blend on November 23, 2007 at 7:00 AM.

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

Another sick perv in the pulpit, this time a beast cruising late nights in the streets targeting sex workers, threatening them with a knife and raping them.

Investigators say the 23 year old minister used the same tactics each time he approached women off Parkway and Motel Drives. Once he lured them into his car, police say at least 4 women were raped while the suspect held a butcher knife to their necks.

Fresno police say Anthony Ireland was repeatedly targeting random women along Highway 99 near Olive Avenue, a well known place to pick up prostitutes. ...Monday Ireland was charged with 4 felony counts of forcible rape with special circumstances. He could face additional punishment since there are multiple victims and he used a dangerous weapon.

Lt. Don Gross, Fresno Police Department, says "He identified women who were walking along the sidewalk, picked them up, and took them to a secluded location where he sexually assaulted them."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Brian Williams Under Fire and On the Defensive Over Marriage Remarks
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on November 23, 2007 at 6:47 AM.

This post, written by Melissa McEwan, originally appeared on Shakesville

After noting in his newscast that marriage is "under attack," Brian Williams has issued a statement of clarification on his blog:

I was the recipient today of several emails from well-intentioned people, telling me I was being attacked in parts of the blogosphere for something I wrote and said on the air in last night's broadcast. It was a closing piece about Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip celebrating their 60th anniversary. I noted this accomplishment, especially in this era when, as I put it, marriage seems "under attack" as an institution. My meaning? Our national divorce rate, which is currently somewhere between 40 and 50 percent. Others took it upon themselves to decide that I was somehow attacking gay marriage. The simple fact is that nothing could have been further from my mind, as many others easily understood. In fact, one comment shared with me today came from a respected member of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, who said, "It seemed to me he was talking about the sky-high heterosexual divorce rates. Marriage IS under attack -- by straight people. It had nothing to do with the gay marriage movement."

First of all, Williams did not say that marriage seems under attack. He said it is under attack. When a news anchor states something as fact, as opposed to a common impression, it's not a semantic difference--and it's incredibly disingenuous of Williams to pretend otherwise. I find it highly ironic that even as Williams sniffs derisively at "parts of the blogosphere" who had the temerity to question a Real News Man, he simultaneously shrugs off the responsibility of the unassailable status to which he implicitly lays claim.

But the familiar invocation of haughty, duty-free entitlements of the media is the least of his problems.

It's incredibly careless to say that marriage is under attack, without specifying one's meaning, and presume that everyone will intuitively understand that to mean "divorce," particularly given that it isn't the prevention of divorce about which a constitutional amendment has been repeatedly introduced. It isn't divorcees who have been routinely, publicly accused of undermining the sanctity of marriage. Banning divorce hasn't been put on the ballot in more than a dozen states in the past two elections.

"Marriage is under attack" is such a recognizable dog whistle to opponents of same-sex marriage that it's practically synonymous with "the radical gay agenda." Is Brian Williams, anchor of the NBC Nightly News (and regular Rush Limbaugh listener), seriously trying to tell me that he doesn't know that? If so, he's manifestly unfit for his job, because that's a truly stunning lack of awareness about one of the most important news stories in American politics and culture in the last decade.

That he seems to be equally ignorant about the divorce rate doesn't bode well for him, either: As of 2005, the US divorce rate is at its lowest point since 1970. Americans are getting married at a lower rate, but also getting divorced at a lower rate, suggesting those who do get married are forming better unions. If the institution of marriage is taking a hit in sheer numbers, it's to the benefit of the people who get married.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

GOP Senator Admits to Being "Very Underwhelmed" by Bush's Iraq Knowledge
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on November 23, 2007 at 6:00 AM.

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

When the president speaks publicly about the war in Iraq, he often seems confused and uninformed. Maybe he speaks more intelligently in private? Maybe not. (via TP)

At a luncheon in Chattanooga on Tuesday, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) spoke with 500 supporters about recent events, including recent discussions with the president about the war. Apparently, Corker noticed that Bush doesn't know very much.

"I was in the White House a number of times to talk about the issue, and I may rankle some in the room saying this, but I was very underwhelmed with what discussions took place at the White House," Corker said.

A few minutes later during a question and answer session a man in the audience asked him to clarify his statement.

"I was concerned about your statement that you were underwhelmed with what was going on in the White House. Did you mean with him or with his staff?"

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Election week gas prices were year's low; started rising again immediately afterwards
Posted by Joshua Holland on November 23, 2006 at 10:46 AM.

Barring an unexpected Southward turn in the final five weeks of 2006, Americans will have enjoyed the lowest average gas prices of the year during the week of the 2006 midterm elections. Two weeks before, the prices hit what was then an annual low, and in the week after the votes were cast the cost of a gallon of gas in the U.S. rose by more than three cents (last week they rose by another penny).

If you'll recall, average gas prices dropped by fifty cents, or 17 percent, between the end of August and the end of September -- when the primaries were done and the campaign season began in earnest. At the time, the White House said that any suggestion the drop was related to the midterms was a "conspiracy theory," prompting me to ask, not for the first time, exactly how stupid they think we are.

According to Trilby Lundberg, whose Lundberg Survey of gas prices showed a five-cent hike after the election, the recent price hike -- after three months of plummeting retail costs -- is a result of the market having "soaked up" a "mini-glut" of crude oil from August, causing a "normalization" of supply and demand.

What's the source of said "mini-glut"? My new friend Ghandi at Bush Out points to this bit of gamesmanship during the summer:

… the Saudis and other pro-US players in the Middle East play[ed] a delicate balancing game by promising their OPEC friends that they would cut production, but then failing to commit to the cuts and even raising production slightly instead.

Hmmm, where have we seen that kind of thing in the past?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Viral Videos
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 23, 2006 at 10:42 AM.

I spent time in the sewers of Youtube and Google Video to bring you Thanksgiving films to chew on while you're Tryp-ing out on turkey (it's a myth, by the way, that turkey tuckers you out).

***

*This first video is destined to become a viral sensation. Shortly thereafter it'll be enshrined in the museum of a future civilization as a relic of the shriveled souls that populated ours. Unless of course, it's tongue-in-cheek -- in which case, the joke's on me...









*A 13-inch centipede eating a bat!















*Big-brained Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek walks you through cinema's most relished toilet scenes.















*A 9-minute mini-documentary on the band that influenced everyone, yet wasn't British enough for the 60s: The Velvet Underground. Take that Stones, Beatles, and Kinks.















*White people do Thanksgiving. Everything that was right, and wrong, with the 50s. Time to remember the freedoms the Pilgrims gave us!















*Finally, the infamous, and incendiary, Yule Log broadcast.

***

I give thanks that with all the tragedies taking place at this very moment, humans can still find the time for frivolous messages and unidentifiable orange and marshmallow side dishes.

Turkeys again refuse ceremonial White House pardon
Posted by Bob Geiger on November 23, 2006 at 8:58 AM.

Struggling to absorb his own abysmal approval ratings and the Republican party's landslide defeat in the midterm elections, George W. Bush took another shot to the gut yesterday when both birds designated by Bush as the National Thanksgiving Turkeys, refused the president's ceremonial "pardon."

"Flyer" and "Fryer" who hail from the Lynn Nutt farm in Monett, Missouri, were formally pardoned by Bush in a ceremony today at the White House, marking the 59th anniversary of the Thanksgiving tradition.

But both white-feathered birds made it clear that they would refuse the president's pardon, citing fundamental disagreements with Bush-administration policies and the legacy of last year's pardon recipients, "Yam" and "Marshmallow," who broke new ground in the turkey community by spurning Bush in 2005.

"This wasn't an easy decision. I mean, hey, I used to be a Republican," said a pugnacious Fryer in an interview on Tuesday evening. "But this guy Bush being both a Chickenhawk and a lame duck is an insult to all birds. Even turkeys have standards."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

NY Post fellates Scalia
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 23, 2005 at 12:22 PM.

Al Franken decided to be a bit of a stinker at a "Conversations on the Circle" event earlier this week featuring what we can only assume was a downright collegial chat between Supreme Court Justice Scalia and Time's Norman Pearlstine.

Anticipating an evening of softballs, Franken, according to Murdoch's vanity rag, the NY Post:

"started talking about 'judicial demeanor' and asking 'hypothetically' about whether a judge should recuse himself if he had gone duck-hunting or flown in a private jet with a party in a case before his court."

"Franken was clumsily referring to the fact that Scalia had gone hunting and flying with Dick Cheney before the 2000 election."

Glass houses, NY Post. The incident that Franken is referring to, took place after the 2000 election, not before.

But, no matter, facts have no place in a Murdoch venture that loses $40 million annually and more than half a billion since he took it over.

All asweat with excitement, the Post continues: "Scalia lectured Franken, 'Demeanor is the wrong word. You mean ethics.' Then he explained, 'Ethics is governed by tradition. It has never been the case where you recuse because of friendship.'"

Actually, that's not entirely true. As Tony Mauro writes in Legal Times: "Like all federal judges, the justices are subject to a federal ethics law -- 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) -- that requires recusal when a judge's 'impartiality might reasonably be questioned.'"

And questioned his relationship with Cheney has been. By numerous editorials all across America from the Houston Chronicle to the San Antonio Express News to the Seattle P-I.

Also, ask yourself this: if you were being sued and the judge and your opponent were buddies, would you feel comfortable with that?

And by the way, demeanor, which the American Heritage dictionary defines as "The way in which a person behaves; deportment," works quite nicely in this situation.

As in: Scalia's demeanor must compete for shameful anti-American asshat status with the New York Post's.


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

Galloway panders to homophobes
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 23, 2005 at 10:57 AM.

This week is unwittingly shaping up to be "so you thought so-and-so was different" week.

First there was Tony Blair, then John McCain. Now it's George Galloway's turn to become a reglar old fashioned politician. Which is not to say that because a. politicians pander then: b. all politicians are equal. It's just in service of clarifying the process and making us less emotional and more strategic in our support. As I've said before, politicians are not fully human, they're partly the assembled interests of voters and funders.

Back to Galloway. You may recall the inspired can of whoopass Galloway opened on inept Republican Norm Coleman and his fatuous Oil-for-Food accusations.

Following that performance, an admittedly refreshing dose of forthrightness, Galloway became the darling of the American Left. Not so fast. His Respect Party recently expunged its platform of reference to gay rights. Doug Ireland explains:

"The district in which Galloway deliberately chose to run had a huge Muslim population, and it was thanks to the votes from that population that he was able to be elected. The party 'manifesto' is to be the basis for Respect's campaign in municipal elections this coming May, and the party leaders' strategy is to try to elect local city council members from areas that have high Muslim populations. Moreover, 'Respect is in alliance with the right-wing, anti-gay Islamist group, the Peter_tatchell Muslim Association of Britain [MAB]...'"

(Direland)

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

The new map
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 23, 2005 at 10:02 AM.

Dreaminonempty, who has more than just the map at left, writes: "The Survey USA 50-state polling is out for November, as noted before, and it's not good news for Bush in more ways than one. His 'base' of strong support has dwindled to a grand total of two states. He is also losing ground among Republicans, notably in the South. And the number of respondents who are identified as Republican is decreasing. Will Bush ruin his own party?" (DailyKos)

Not a congressional pay raise
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 23, 2005 at 8:33 AM.

Tom DeLay has got to be kidding. Truth be told, he's not alone, and at least he's willing to regale us with his selfishness, hypocrisy and astonishing stupidity. But Jesus Tom, are you kidding?

Here's the deal. After some hollow posturing by the senate, which made a show of forgoing pay raises (in a 92-6 vote), $2 million somehow snuck through another bill for congressional pay raises. Musta been inserted by an anonymous senior administration official.

Okay, well, scummy to be sure, especially considering, as The Carpetbagger puts it: "There is, however, a symbolic significance. Lawmakers emphasized a sense of 'sacrifice' when they cut funding on food stamps, low-income health care, and child care assistance."

But come on, with all that's going on, nobody in the press was gonna force the issue. But no, DeLay had to take the opportunity to give us yet another description of the asylum in which he resides (one whose cost of living is apparently on the rise): "It's not a pay raise, It's an adjustment so that they're not losing their purchasing power." Ah, well then... (The Carpetbagger Report)

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

Bush must hate PDB
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 23, 2005 at 6:38 AM.

So now we learn that a week and a half after 9/11 the president was told, via Presidential Daily Briefing, that there was no connection between the attacks and Saddam.

Not only that, but "the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group." (Or whatever the hell Al Qaeda is).

But Cheney wasn't happy with the facts from the intelligence community. He wanted different facts. When Pentagon Jester Douglas Feith got him those facts, a purported connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, according to Murray Waas, Cheney wrote: "This is very good indeed … Encouraging … Not like the crap we are all so used to getting out of CIA."

Laura Rozen comments:

"What is most offensive about the revelations... is not that Cheney sought out and received sci-fi intelligence from the Pentagon zealots who shared his obsessions, but that they have all been denying it for the past two years, and trying to blame their mistakes and zealotry on the CIA. That's what's offensive."

She continues: "And I believe that's why we are seeing Bush's and Cheney's and Rumsfeld's numbers taking a nosedive on just that issue, personal integrity. Everybody in the world knows the difference between 'steadfastness' and CYA [cover your ass]." (War and Piece)

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