PEEK

Buzz, perspectives, insight and news from AlterNet

Dispatches from the Real Economy: They're Locking Up the Deodorant
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein, Majikthise on November 27, 2009 at 5:48 PM.

The drugstore has locked down the deodorant.

Addendum: You can tell a lot about a neighborhood by what gets locked up to prevent shoplifting. Here in New York, supermarkets in poorer neighborhoods tend to put baby formula behind glass. Swankier places will keep it behind the counter at the pharmacy, or sometimes even out on the shelf.

Yuppie liquor stores keep all but their most expensive bottles out on the shelves to encourage customers to facilitate impulse buys. By contrast, liquor stores in rougher neighborhoods may keep the bulk of their inventory behind plexiglass. Liquor stores are an extreme example because they've got to worry about robberies as well as shoplifting, but it's the same merchandising principle at work. It's a tradeoff between accessibility and security.

Small, expensive items like razor blades and batteries are likely to be secured no matter where you go. But it's a bad sign that deodorant shoplifting has become enough of a problem to justify the expense of the giant plastic case and extra hassle for the employees.

Where Does Karl Rove Find the Nerve to Criticize Anyone About Deficits?
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 27, 2009 at 4:29 PM.

When Karl Rove helped run the White House, he accepted certain beliefs as truths. He believed, for example, turning massive surpluses into massive deficits was entirely reasonable. He believed reckless tax cuts for the already rich were an example of responsible governing. He believed expanding the size of government, adding to entitlements, increasing the federal role in education, and putting it all on future generations' tab, was perfectly sensible. He believed fiscal responsibility was a punch-line.

And now that Karl Rove is outside the White House, he believes he's entitled to complain about deficits from his perch in the media establishment.

What seems to concern the president is not the problem runaway spending poses for taxpayers and the economy. Rather, what bothers him is the political problem it poses for Democrats.

Last year, Mr. Obama made fiscal restraint a constant theme of his presidential campaign. "Washington will have to tighten its belt and put off spending," he said back then, while pledging to "go through the federal budget, line by line, ending programs that we don't need." Voters found this fiscal conservatism reassuring.

However, since taking office Mr. Obama pushed through a $787 billion stimulus, a $33 billion expansion of the child health program known as S-chip, a $410 billion omnibus appropriations spending bill, and an $80 billion car company bailout. He also pushed a $821 billion cap-and-trade bill through the House and is now urging Congress to pass a nearly $1 trillion health-care bill.

Rove wants to see an "honest appraisal" of where we are. Good idea. The stimulus was necessary because Rove's old boss left the president an economy on the verge of wholesale collapse. S-CHIP expansion was necessary because Rove's old boss rejected a bipartisan measure to help low-income children go to the doctor. Rescuing the auto industry was necessary because it was a continuation of Rove's old boss' policy and the nation couldn't afford to cut off American manufacturing at the knees at the height of the recession. Cap and trade, Rove neglected to mention, wouldn't add to the deficit, and is necessary because Rove's old boss ignored the climate crisis for eight years. The health care reform bill would cut the deficit significantly, and is necessary because Rove's old boss fiddled while the dysfunctional health care system got worse.

That's an "honest appraisal."

 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Why the GOP Will Face an Uphill Battle Making Large Gains in 2010
Posted by Kos , Daily Kos on November 27, 2009 at 3:01 PM.

Massive Democratic gains in 2006 and 2008 were fueled in part by Democratic advantages in committee fundraising. While Bush's RNC handily outraised its Democratic counterparts at the DNC, both the Democratic House and Senate committees crushed their Republican counterparts. Not much has changed.

Fundraising for Democratic campaign committees is surging, helping the party to extend a winning streak in competitive special elections and giving House Democrats a more than 3-to-1 advantage over Republicans in cash stockpiled for the battles ahead, campaign-finance reports show.

The Democratic National Committee, along with the fundraising arm for House Democrats, outraised Republican committees last month. Overall, all Democratic committees ended October with nearly $38.8 million cash on hand, compared with $21.3 million for Republicans.

Here's the breakdowns ...

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Court Bars Couple from Having "Unnatural," "Hysterical," "Howling" Sex
Posted by Booman, Booman Tribune on November 27, 2009 at 1:57 PM.

Here's something straight out of Porky's:

A British woman lost her appeal Tuesday against a ban on her noisy sex sessions, after a court heard how her marathon romps that kept neighbours awake sounded like someone being murdered.

Caroline and Steve Cartwright's "howling" lovemaking sounded "unnatural", "hysterical" and "like they are both in considerable pain", Newcastle Crown Court in northeast England heard.

A 10-minute recording of their sex sessions was played out in court, which also heard how she tried covering her face with a pillow to muffle her cries of passion.

Neighbours at their home in Washington, south of Newcastle, complained about the noise -- as did passers-by and the postman.

The couple were banned from "shouting, screaming or vocalisation at such a level as to be a statutory nuisance", but Caroline Cartwright, 48, appealed under human rights laws against her conviction for breaching the ban.

However, a judge on Tuesday upheld the original conviction and ordered that the banning order should stay.

Caroline Cartwright said she was unable to stop the din. "I tried to control it. I even tried to use a pillow (over her own face) to try and lessen the noise," she said.

The judge, Recorder Jeremy Freedman, rejected her claim.

The friggin' postman complained? That is some serious noise. Imagine having people play the sounds of your lovemaking in court. That must have been quite a scene. But at least it only lasted ten minutes. Thank god for small favors, I guess. I had some experience with loud dorm-mates in college, but nothing that could compare with this.

Strip-Club Owner Opens Dog Shelter Named After Newt Gingrich
Posted by Ben Armbruster, Think Progress on November 27, 2009 at 12:02 PM.

Last September, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich retracted an “Entrepreneur of the Year” award he accidentally presented to Dallas strip club owner Dawn Rizos and refunded the $5,000 donation Rizos made to Gingrich’s American Solutions for Winning the Future. At the time, Rizos said she would take the money to build a shelter for unwanted pit bulls. The Dallas Morning News reported yesterday that “Newt’s Nook: A Home For Pit Bulls” is now open:

A North Texas shelter for pit bulls has opened this week, thanks to a Dallas topless club owner’s contribution after Newt Gingrich’s conservative group snubbed her donation. [...]

Rizos says she decided to “make something positive out of his bad manners.”

She redirected the money to Animal Guardians of America’s sanctuary for rescued dogs in Celina, about 35 miles north of Dallas.

Gingrich didn’t attend the opening of “Newt’s Nook — A Home for Pit Bulls.”

Wingnuts Cite Lunatic Message Board Commenters as Authorities on Climate Science
Posted by Thers, Whiskey Fire on November 27, 2009 at 10:30 AM.

NewsBusters has always been a stupid fucking website, if rather pedestrian in its wingnuttery. But this breaks new ground:

An hilariously bizarre situation is happening in the wake of the growing Climategate scandal.  Many of the mainstream media stories about global warming are simply pretending it doesn't exist. Perhaps they feel that by ignoring Climategate entirely that it will just go away. Unfortunately for them, the readers of these global warming stories keep bringing up the inconvenient truth of Climategate by mentioning the scandal in the comments section over and over and over again.

This is inverse nutpicking, or the inane tactic of citing lunatic shitheads in comments sections in order to destroy cedibility. NewsBusters is now pioneering the inane tactic of citing lunatic shitheads in comments sections in order to claim credibility.

There should be a clever name for this innovation, I guess, but really they're just being shitheads.

State Dinner Crashers: Reality Show Dupes Secret Service?
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on November 27, 2009 at 8:41 AM.

On the one hand, you've gotta admire the moxie of Michaele and Tareq Salahi, publicity seekers who crashed Tuesday's state dinner, thrown by the Obama's in honor of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Trailed by cameras for Bravo's Real Housewives reality show, the couple found their way into the great fete, despite their lack of an invitation -- and even got their picture taken with Vice President Joe Biden and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. On the other hand, when you consider the fact that threats on the life of President Barack Obama, as AlterNet's Don Hazen reported, are 400 percent higher than those faced by George W. Bush, the episode raises serious questions about the quality of the president's Secret Service protection.

In September, AlterNet was prompted by reports of under-resourcing of the Secret Service to sent a petition signed by readers to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, requesting that Secret Service funding cutbacks not be allowed to endanger the safety of the president.



For White House events, the Secret Service not only provides the sort of bodyguard protection we're accustomed to seeing around the president, but also screens the visitors, who are usually required to provide personal information, such as date of birth and Social Security number, days ahead of the visit. The Salahis weren't on the White House guest list, and their vehicle was turned away before it got to the drop-off point. With cameras trailing, the Salahis simply hopped out and found their way into the line of guests, who went through a series of subsequent checkpoints. The Secret Service has acknowledged that the Salahis' passage through the first pedestrian check-point indicates a failure to follow procedure by the agents at that check point. No kidding.

More galling than that, though, is the fact that the Secret Service is trying to downplay the incident based on the fact that no one was hurt. "It's important to note that they went through all the security screenings -- the magnetometer screening -- just like all the other guests did," Secret Service spokesperson Ed Donovan told USA Today. But, as Ronald Kessler, author of a book on the Secret Service told the New York Daily News, "They could have assassinated the President or vice president using other means -- anthrax, for example." The Secret Service does not check for bioweapons, Kessler told the News.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Hate Filled Crazies Get Out-Protested in Oregon
Posted by General JC Christian, Jesus' General on November 27, 2008 at 7:03 AM.

America's favorite spiritual family, Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Clan, came to Silverton, Oregon on Monday, November 24th, 2008, spreading the good news that God hates Silvertonians (having earlier visited Portland and Tigard to share the news that the lord cannot stand Portlanders and the country of Finland). The Mayor of Silverton (Stu Rasmussen) is transgender, and that ticks off the deity but good. Alas, the Lord had other commitments and could not deliver His condemnation in person: instead, He who is the One True God chose to delegate the job of sharing His bellicosity to one man and three young women from Kansas who had some free time. The God of the Israelites is one mysterious dude, and His hiring practices are opaque. He is nothing if not the King of "Go Figure."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

LA Film Fest Director Resigns over Prop 8 $$$
Posted by Lisa Derrick, Firedoglake on November 27, 2008 at 6:59 AM.

Richard Raddon, the director of the Los Angeles Film Fest has resigned the position over his $1,500 donation to Yes on 8, prompted by his Mormon Church.  Last week Raddon had tendered his resignation, but the board of Film Independent, which oversees both the festival and the Independent Spirit Awards, in a hastily arranged conference call, declined to accept it.However today, according to the Advocate, Raddon has officially stepped down and issued this statement:

I feel honored to have worked with such a wonderful group of people at the Los Angeles Film Festival over the last nine years. I am proud of our accomplishments. And I am proud to have worked at Film Independent, an organization whose principles and values of diversity and artistic integrity I cherish. I have always held the belief that all people, no matter race, religion, or sexual orientation, are entitled to equal rights. As many know, I consider myself a devout and faithful Mormon. I prefer to keep the details around my contribution through my church a private matter. But I am profoundly sorry for the negative attention that my actions have drawn to Film Independent and for the hurt and pain that is being experienced in the GLBT community.

Film Independent responded thusly:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

How to Tart Up Your Infant
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on November 27, 2008 at 6:33 AM.

Worried that your baby isn’t hot enough? Here's an enterprising solution: high heels for infant girls (collagen injections for children are apparently still frowned upon?).

The heels -- geared towards babies up to six months old -- come in all kinds of classy designs, including pink satin, leopard and zebra print.

Although the manufactuer's website claims that the shoes are "Not intended to harm children in any way," some parents seem to think that sexually objectifying young girls before they can talk might not be in their best interest.

From the Daily Mail:

"Michele Elliot, founder of the children's charity Kidscape, said the heels were ludicrous. 'High heels are meant to be sexy, and are definitely for adults not children.

'They are not cute or cuddly. It is absolutely disgusting to market them for babies. Parents should let babies be babies.

...

'Not only are the heels distasteful - and no good for a child trying to pull themselves up or begin to toddle - but pink PVC and leopard print are not appropriate fabrics for a baby. All that matters at that age is that they're warm and loved.'

Who would love a plain, unglamorous baby?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama's Wall Street Woes
Posted by Robert L. Borosage, Huffington Post on November 27, 2008 at 6:25 AM.

So much for perfect timing. Barack Obama presented his economic team -- Summers, Geithner, Orzag -- all protégés of Robert Rubin -- just as the Treasury Department was pumping out billions to rescue Citibank -- which featured Rubin as chair of its executive committee -- from collapse. Is this the change we need?

Forget about Rubinomics redux. The depth of the crisis we face renders the old arguments irrelevant. Under Bill Clinton, Rubin championed reducing budget deficits, deregulating finance, and opening foreign markets to private investment. Now deficit spending must go up, banks must be re-regulated, trade imbalances must be reduced and manufacturing can no longer be scorned.

Obama gets this. His first initiative will be to pass a substantial and sustained recovery plan based on putting people to work with public investment in areas vital to our future. He's chosen experienced hands to get that done. In his Cooper Union address during the campaign, he laid out clear principles for re-regulating finance, and curbing the excesses that created the mess we are in.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Doh! George and Laura Bush Send Out Christmas-Themed Hanukkah Invitations
Posted by Ryan Powers, Think Progress on November 27, 2008 at 6:07 AM.

President and First Lady Bush recently sent Jewish community leaders invitations to a Hanukkah reception at the White House next month. But as the New York Post reports, the invitations "raised more than a few eyebrows" because the image on them was that of a "Clydesdale horse hauling a Christmas fir along the snow-dappled drive to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave":

One Jewish community leader from Brooklyn quipped, "It's obvious what's going on here: The Christmas tree is being taken out of the White House and the menorah is being brought in the back." The first lady's spokesperson explained, "It is something that just slipped through the cracks."

Just in Time for the Holidays: Obama's Shopping Advice for Nervous Consumers
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 27, 2008 at 6:00 AM.

The New York Daily News' Tom DeFrank asked Barack Obama at yesterday morning's press conference about the shopping season. "[A] lot of retailers are worrying that this year [that a drop in consumer spending during the holidays] could be a disaster that this economy can ill afford. Do you have any shopping advice for nervous consumers?"

It's a tricky question. The president-elect doesn't want to discourage people from spending money right now. He also doesn't want to look like Bush did in the aftermath of 9/11, suggesting shopping in the midst of a crisis is somehow the right thing -- the only thing -- for Americans to do.

It looked to me like Obama threaded the needle pretty well:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Oil Scandal, Larry Flynt Investigation Led to Trent Lott's Early Exit
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 27, 2007 at 2:00 PM.

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

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) refuses to say why he is retiring from Congress. Many in the media have reported that Lott likely wants to enter the lucrative world of K Street before "tougher restrictions in a new lobbying law" take effect.

But the right-wing American Spectator magazine speculates that brewing corruption scandals may have contributed to Lott's decision:

The tin-foil-hat crowd was almost immediately pushing a Jack Abramoff angle to the surprise resignation of Sen. Trent Lott. But a more recent scandal brewing -- which has already ensnared Sen. Ted Stevens, among others -- may also be playing on Lott's mind.

Lott, Stevens, as well as Rep. Dennis Hastert all have ties to Bill Allen, a larger than life Alaskan businessman who owned Veco, an oil-field services company, and who was a huge benefactor of Republican politicians.

Allen has pleaded guilty to bribing Alaska legislators, including Ben Stevens, the son of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK). The elder Stevens is currently the target of multiple federal investigation, including one on his ties to Veco.

Lott continues to stand by Stevens, donating $5,000 from his political action committee to Stevens's re-election campaign. Lott also has ties to Allen, who accompanied him to the lavish annual "Waterfall Fishing Tournament" in Alaska. Since 1996, at least 10 current and former lawmakers have attended the trip, an opportunity for "the energy industry's top brass" to influence lawmakers.

In addition to the lawmakers, high-ranking executives from the nation's top oil firms -- including Allen -- attended the Waterfall excursions. Companies with business before Congress occasionally provided free trips to Waterfall for lawmakers and top executives on private company jets. Lawmakers may have violated congressional ethics rules by not paying for the trips. Marketplace, which originally reported on the event, noted that it could find no PAC, personal, or campaign payments for the trip from Lott.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

23 Republican Retirements So Far and More to Come
Posted by Howie Klein, Down With Tyranny! on November 27, 2007 at 1:00 PM.

This post, written by Howie Klien, originally appeared on Down With Tyranny!

Yesterday Trent Lott's unexpected resignation from the Senate and Denny Hastert's long overdue one from the House, brought the number of Republicans leaving electoral politics to 17 in the House and 6 in the Senate. The Chairman of the NRCC, right-wing extremist Tom Cole (R-OK) tried to put on a brave face. "I don't hear a drumbeat that 'We're not effective and I don't like it here anymore.'" Maybe he needs to listen more carefully.

But with so many lawmakers -- including a large number from competitive states and districts -- heading for the exits, it's hard not to point to the GOP's newfound minority status in Washington, the turnover in party leadership and the perilous political environment heading into 2008 to explain the exodus.

Chris Cillizza in this morning's Washington Post thinks it's no exaggeration to say Republicans find themselves in serious danger of falling deeper into the minority in both houses. He points out how retirements seem to be throwing Republican held seats in New Mexico, Virginia and Colorado to Democrats Tom Udall, Mark Warner and Mark Udall, respectively.

"It's in the House, however," according to Cillizza., "where surprise retirements in swing districts have badly crippled Republican attempts to bounce back from 2006. And it's in the House where there are likely to be even more retirements. Currently on Republican retirement watch are John Doolittle (CA), Bill Young (FL), Tom Davis (VA), and Roscoe Bartlett (MD). And although increasingly unstable Chris Shays (CT) says he's not retiring (as of this week), he's become so bizarre that you never know what to expect from him.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Is MSNBC All Tuckered Out?
Posted by Litbrit , Shakesville on November 27, 2007 at 12:00 PM.

This post, written by LitBrit, originally appeared on Shakesville

It was probably at least a year ago when I e-mailed Melissa about one of her favorite (heh heh) teevee-talkers, the guy she'd poetically dubbed "a penis in a bowtie".

"Tucker is a changed man, M!" I wrote. "No more bowtie!"

Looks like we aren't the only non-fans. To paraphrase Frank Zappa, the price of gas is going up and Tucker's ratings are going down, which fact has not escaped the notice of network suits:

Olbermann's success doesn't mean that MSNBC is banking left. Officials there swear it. MSNBC Senior Vice President Phil Griffin has known Olbermann for more than two decades and says he's betting on his host's personality and sensibility, not his beliefs. It's a question of branding, he says.

"Keith Olbermann is our brand; Chris Matthews is our brand," Griffin says. "These are smart, well-informed people who have a real sense of history and can put things in context."

Clearly, though, the brand is evolving. Conservative Joe Scarborough is being moved to the morning to replace Don Imus. MSNBC opened talks -- since aborted -- with outspoken liberal comic Rosie O'Donnell. But what about MSNBC's other conservative talk-show host, Tucker Carlson? Is he part of that same brand?

"He is right now," Griffin says.

Tucker's audience--all two of them, and of course they're bloody Florida-based--is hoping to drum up a little support for the unbowed boor. Via TRex, behold the Save Tucker Carlson website:

This decision by MSNBC will silence a conservative voice, part of a move by MSNBC to swing left and become "FOX for the Liberals," dropping any pretense of objectivity or balance. Tucker Carlson is a conservative who brings a tone of civility and his unfailing good-humor to political talk television. Quirky and unpredictable, we love Tucker.

Good humor? Are they referring to Tucker's former costume? And I admit it, I laughed out loud at FOX for the Liberals. As TRex drily notes:

Things I secretly enjoy:

1. When Republicans inadvertently admit that Pox News is a GOP propaganda mill.

And:

Any guy willing to go on "Dancing with the Stars" and treat guests both left and right with spirited but congenial debate should not be purged in some ideological marketing plan.

2. When suddenly the Right's faith in free markets collapses like a federal levee because god forbid, one of their own is actually threatened. (See National Review Online and Lileks, James for further details.)

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Victoria's Secret: It's Slave Labor and So-Called "Free Trade"
Posted by Jonathan Tasini, Daily Kos on November 27, 2007 at 11:00 AM.

This post, written by Jonathan Tasini, originally appeared on Daily Kos

When you slip on your Victoria's Secret garb, remember this: it comes to you partly due to the wonders of so-called "free trade." And, in particular, that little Victoria's Secret garment (I guess "little" is redundant in this context) may even hail from Jordan--which was supposed to be the poster child for how one forges the "right" kind of so-called "free trade" deal. But, instead, Victoria's Secret exposes the exact fallacy of so-called "free trade."

My friends at the National Labor Committee have just released a report on some appalling conditions at Victoria's Secret production facilities in Jordan:

D.K. Garments is a subcontract factory with 150 foreign guest workers (135 from Bangladesh and 15 from Sri Lanka), which has been producing Victoria's Secret garments for the last year. None of the workers have been provided their necessary residency permits, without which they cannot venture outside the industrial park without fear of being stopped by the police and perhaps imprisoned for lack of proper documents.

The Victoria's Secret workers toil 14 to 15 hours a day, from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 or 10:00 p.m., seven days a week, receiving on average one day off every three or four months. All overtime is mandatory, and workers are routinely at the factory 98 to 105 hours a week while toiling 89 to 96 hours. Treatment is very rough, as managers and supervisors scream at the foreign guest workers to move faster to complete their high production goals.

Workers who fall behind on their production goals, or who make even a minor error, can be slapped and beaten. Despite being forced to work five or more overtime hours a day, the workers are routinely shortchanged on their legal overtime pay, being cheated of up to $18.48 each week in wages due them. While this might not seem like a great deal of money, to these poor workers it is the equivalent of losing three regular days' wages each week.

Workers are allowed just 3.3 minutes to sew each $14 Victoria's Secret women's bikini, for which they are paid four cents. The workers' wages amount to less than 3/10ths of one percent of the $14 retail price of the Victoria's Secret bikini

And when workers protested a speed up demand? Management had six of the workers arrested. A strike is under way:

The workers begged management to free their unjustly imprisoned friends and co-workers. Management refused and the workers stopped working at 10:30 a.m. on November 12. The strike continues. The owner of the factory is now threatening to have all the guest workers forcibly deported back to Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The owner says food and water will be cut off and following that, the workers will be forcibly removed from the dorms.

The workers paid anywhere from $1,500 to over $3,000 to purchase three-year work contracts in Jordan--an enormous amount of money in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Workers had to go deeply into debt, borrowing the money on the informal market, often at five to ten percent interest per month, If the workers are deported, they will never be able to pay off their debts, and they and their families will be ruined.

This is nothing new. The National Labor Committee has been documenting slave-like conditions in Jordan

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Romney Endorses Religious Discrimination in Government
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on November 27, 2007 at 7:04 AM.

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

Of all the presidential candidates, Mitt Romney should be the very last one to publicly endorse discrimination on the basis of religion. He's a member of a religious minority, he's been the target of discrimination, and he's spent the better part of 2007 imploring Americans to judge public officials on their ideas and character. To show prejudice on the basis of faith, Romney has said many times, is "un-American."

And yet, there was Romney in Las Vegas recently, insisting that he would discriminate against a religious minority if he's elected president. From a report in the Christian Science Monitor from diplomat Mansoor Ijaz:

I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that "jihadism" is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered, "...based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration."

This is more than just offensive; it's a special kind of stupid. Indeed, Romney would likely have faced no flack at all if he'd only said what was expected: "When picking members of my cabinet, I will judge them exclusively on the basis of merit and qualifications." It's not as if Republicans would respond, "Hey! If he's judging officials on their fitness for office, a Muslim might get a cabinet spot!"

But, no, Romney had to pander to the right's most crass instincts, and argue that Muslims don't deserve a cabinet position because they're a small religious minority.

It's painful to recognize, but in modern Republican circles, there is widespread tolerance for intolerance. Open and unabashed discrimination towards certain Americans -- Muslims and gays, among others -- is not only acceptable to too many conservatives, it's expected. It's why Romney's vow to discriminate against Muslims will probably not hurt him politically -- given the ideology of the GOP base, it might even help him.

That said, his comments raise a few questions.

First, Jewish Americans represent a fairly small percentage of our population. Does this mean that Romney would oppose cabinet positions for Jews, too?

Second, by basing cabinet slots based on population percentages, isn't Romney embracing a quota system?

Third, if Romney supports quotas in employment, why did he say the exact opposite yesterday on CNN?

BLITZER: The charge -- the charge is that you have no diversity in your inner circle, no African-Americans who are really involved in your decision-making process.

ROMNEY: Well, I do have inner-circle members of my team that are African-American and also Hispanic-American and people of various backgrounds. So, he just happens to be ill-informed.

But I also think that suggesting that we have to fill spots based on checking off boxes of various ethnic groups is really a very inappropriate way to think about how we staff positions.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Supreme Court Allows Warrantless Searches of Welfare Applicants' Homes
Posted by Richard Blair, The All Spin Zone on November 27, 2007 at 6:26 AM.

This post, written by Richard Blair, originally appeared on The All Spin Zone

With their refusal to hear a San Diego County case yesterday regarding unannounced searching of homes of public assistance applicants, the Supreme Court once again turned noted English jurist William Blackstone on his head. In the view of the Roberts court, it is better that ten truly needy people suffer than one potential fraudster escape.

Back in the mid-1980's, when big companies started requiring employees to submit to random drug and alcohol screenings, it was quite apparent that privacy and fourth amendment constitutional protections were under serious attack. There were two lines of reasoning that courts eventually approved of the screenings -- workplace safety and, hey, if someone didn't want to submit to the testing, they were free to quit the job.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court decline to hear a fourth amendment case from San Diego County, California that seems almost nazi-ish in nature:

The Supreme Court rejected a challenge Monday to a county's practice of routinely searching welfare applicants' homes without warrants and ruling out assistance for those who refuse to let them in.

The justices refused, without comment, to intervene in the case from San Diego County, where investigators from the local District Attorney's office show up unannounced at applicants' homes and conduct searches that include peeking into closets and cabinets. The visits do not require any suspicion of fraud and are intended to confirm that people are eligible for government aid...

No one (except the impacted families) will care about this case, but it should be exceptionally concerning to everyone. Why will no one care? Because (once again) the erosion of civil liberties starts at the bottom of the economic ladder, with those who are least personally equipped to resist.

Think about it. If you apply for public assistance in San Diego County, Ca., you are granting agents of the government the right to come into your house, unannounced and without a warrant, and examine every nook and cranny to make sure that you're not committing welfare fraud. The usual "proof of need" is no longer applicable. If you are poor in San Diego County, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Like the random drug testing before it, the excuse of prosecutors is that, well, if applicants don't want their homes searched, they are free to refuse. And then not receive public assistance. Let's also posit that a vast majority of public assistant recipients are young, single mothers who have few other options in terms of feeding their children or keeping the lights on or paying the rent.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

What Do Conservatives Spend Their Time Thinking About?
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on November 27, 2007 at 5:29 AM.

This post, written by Jill Filipovic, originally appeared on Feministe

Amanda sends on this post, which provides Conservapedia's most-viewed articles list:

1. Main Page [1,897,388]

2. Homosexuality [1,488,013]

3. Homosexuality and Hepatitis [516,193]

4. Homosexuality and Promiscuity [416,767]

5. Homosexuality and Parasites [387,438]

6. Homosexuality and Gonorrhea [328,045]

7. Homosexuality and Domestic Violence [325,547]

8. Gay Bowel Syndrome [314,076]

9. Homosexuality and Syphilis [262,015]

10. Homosexuality and Mental Health [249,14]

And just when I thought I couldn't laugh any harder, I find this gem in the comments:

I don't want to stand in denial of equal rights and all of that PC stuff but then again I do object to enrolling my five year old in the gay straight alliance. If you are going to promote something as beneficial to all of mankind than you best not attempt to shove it up my ass like it or not. That kind of thing sort of like, well, breeds contempt and reactionary behaviors.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Was Trent Lott Involved With a Gay Male Escort?
Posted by GottaLaff , Brave New Films on November 27, 2007 at 4:56 AM.

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

I've always been called fair-minded, so I'll post the update first:

It looks like a Washington DC-based blog called BigHeadDC is making claim that there was (or, is) a working relationship between myself and Senator Trent Lott. There are falsely pieced-together quotes that serve no purpose other than to sensationalize a completely fabricated scoop.

I will continue to offer a great sense of confidentiality to the people I see. I have not, nor have I ever seen or had contact with Senator Trent Lott. It's as simple as that. It never happened.

Benjamin Nicholas

What's up with that, Benjamin?

Now here's the allegation, via Daily Kos' lost (the BigHeadDC site is down due to traffic):

According to the post:

Once upon a time, there was a twentysomething boy-next-door type with reddish blond hair and a brilliantly white smile. Not one to shy away from attention, he wrote a blog called "Fifteen Minutes," and also became a freelance writer for various publications, including The Stranger in Seattle. He'd often focus on his non-traditional lifestyle as a gay male escort -- a topic that often fascinated his readers, which, in turn, helped him to garner a substantial amount of powerful business acquaintances through the years.

The boy happens to be real, and his "stage name" is Benjamin Nicholas. One of the politicos Big Head DC has learned he's alleged to have been involved with is the married Sen. Trent Lott, 66, who unexpectedly announced his retirement on Monday. Lott is well-known to have been against a plethora of gay rights issues throughout his terms in Congress. He was also good friends with Sen. Larry Craig throughout his time in Congress.

Nicholas told Big Head DC today via e-mail that he didn't want to go on the record to talk about his dealings with Lott, because, said Nicholas, "Trent is going through his fair share of scrutiny right now and I don't want to add to it." However, e-mail and other records confirm that the two have met on at least two occasions.

"All I can say at this point is no comment," Nicholas told us. "It's the professional thing for me to do."

It's speculated that Larry Flynt is working on the story. But Flynt will not comment on it.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

South Park does Dawkins [VIDEO]
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 27, 2006 at 11:41 AM.

A recent 2-part South Park episode took up Richard Dawkins' latest book, The God Delusion. And, as usual, they rip him to shreds.

I may not always agree with South Park, I may think they're shallow bozos at times, but they do occasionally hit the mark.

In this clip, Cartman has woken from a frozen sleep in the 26th century, at a time when Richard Dawkins' desire for a Godless world have come to fruition. Amazingly, the battle for supremacy of one's ideas has not ceased...

A Note: Battles in the name of religion are a part of the way humans can interact. Battles for the supremacy of any idea, as South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone suggest.

They, however, seem to suggest that we are destined to battle over ideas, only that religion provides the easiest current context; take that away and we'd find another.

I don't take a deterministic view of humanity, so I think we can move away from sectarian violence of all kinds. Perhaps not absolutely or always, but major shifts are certainly possible...

Other two clips are the full two episodes of not safe for work or kids... or adults or mammals of any stripe really...

Leaving Iraq … honorably?
Posted by Joshua Holland on November 27, 2006 at 8:43 AM.

At the end of an otherwise highly cogent op-ed about getting out of Dodge, Senator Chuck Hagel (NE) -- a "moderate" who's been known to brag about his 100% rating from the American Conservative Union -- offers this bit of Nixonian rhetoric:

It is not too late. The United States can still extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton commission gives the president a new opportunity to form a bipartisan consensus to get out of Iraq. If the president fails to build a bipartisan foundation for an exit strategy, America will pay a high price for this blunder -- one that we will have difficulty recovering from in the years ahead.

The column's titled, "Leaving Iraq, Honorably," and while Hagel has to embrace that as a possibility for obvious reasons -- political reasons -- the potential for leaving with "honor" (at least within the framework of the kind of analysis favored on cable news stations -- truly honorable results could never have followed a war of choice against a third-rate power) is a fading image in our rearview mirrors. We will leave Iraq when domestic pressure reaches a tipping point -- unlikely with Bush in the White House -- or when the more powerful Shiite factions in Iraq decide they've had enough with the occupation forces keeping them from getting their full-blown civil war on, whichever comes first.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Why Israel/Palestine peace treaty won't work
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 27, 2006 at 8:26 AM.

There are generally three camps on Israel/Palestine.

1. Palestinians are evil suicide bombers.
2. Israel is an evil state.
3. Aye yayay.

The latest Hudna, or peace treaty, between the nations has already been "broken," according to a headline in Ha'aretz: Day into truce, militants in Gaza fire rockets at Israel.

Of course it has. If it weren't so tragic there'd be humor in this game between rightwingers in each country. This game is why incremental peace plans have almost no chance of working. Until many people in each nation are given a palpable sense of change that they're loath to lose, they'll throw their support behind revenge factions.

Or: Both Hamas (and a variety of other militant orgs) and Likkud (and other parties) trade in fear and revenge -- much like the right wing in any nation. Peace treaties threaten their power and encourage violence as a means to retaining power and support. If the populations haven't been given any reason to withdraw their support (like a better standard of living, the withdrawal of troops and onerous and humiliating checkpoints, etc), they're unlikely to oppose revenge, a powerful currency for those who lose hope.

If Israel and Palestine want peace, Israel will have to give up the territories. Just leave. There will be bombings and attacks the very next day. There will be violence for some time, perhaps. But, as the justifications for those bombings is removed in the eyes of the world and as the Palestinian street begins to fear the loss of their newfound opportunity, they'll be the ones to take care of the violence.

Remove the demand and you'll end the supply. Discuss.

Fox's Wallace chastised by Barney Frank [VIDEO]
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 27, 2006 at 7:49 AM.

In recent weeks, both George Soros ("[Your colleagues are] so disreputable I wouldn't want to mention their names") and Bill Clinton ("So you did Fox’s bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me...") have chastised Fox hosts on the air for their obviously slanted coverage.

Now, likely head of the committee that oversees financial services, Barney Frank, stopped a Chris Wallace interview with three dems poised to take over several committees to point out how unbalanced the questions were (video upper right), beginning: "I've got to say, Chris, you have an odd view of balance..."

According to the NY Sun:

Mr. Frank said Mr. Wallace's questions improved after the on-air criticism. Asked how fair Fox is when compared to other news outlets, the congressman said the network is "substantially worse."

"Chris is actually one of the better ones," Mr. Frank added. "Some of them just cut you off if they don't agree with you. I think Fox is by far the most biased news medium in which I ever get involved."

***A sidenote of possible interest. Both Fox's Chris Wallace and the National Review's Byron York are reporting that the Congressional Black Caucus has sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi supporting Democrat Alcee Hastings for chairman of the House Intelligence Committee "100%." In the clip above, CBC member Charlie Rangel hadn't heard anything about it (he claims), and no mention of it appears on the CBC website. I've put in a call to the CBC for confirmation...