PEEK

Buzz, perspectives, insight and news from AlterNet

White House Uninvited-Visitors-Gate: They Just Don't Make Contrived Scandals Like They Used to
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 30, 2009 at 5:30 PM.

What story could better encapsulate our culture: a couple of loser reality-TV wannabes get into a White House event without an invite, the corporate media offer breathless coverage of the non-event for 3 news cycles, and right-wing bloggers and talk-radio jabberers say the whole thing only proves that Obama's the anti-Christ.

Let's play Sanity Versus Madness. And let's take the latter first. As is often the case, I go to intrepid wingnuttologist Roy Edroso for help plumbing the depths of online "conservatism," this time via his excellent Village Voice column:

While the legacy media chronicled the Salahis' attempts to wring money out of their now-famous stunt and get on a reality show, and Mrs. Salahi's cheerleader fantasies, the more adventuresome rightbloggers pursued a new angle: Obama's "five year relationship" with the Salahis.

By this, they meant that Obama had been photographed with the Salahis at an MTV Rock The Vote event in 2005, which proves they have the sort of close relationship with the President enjoyed by everyone who has ever been photographed with him. (Also in attendance at the event: John McCain and the Black-Eyed Peas. The conspiracy is more vast than you can imagine!)

But that has never been the sort of thing that stops rightbloggers. "They actually knew Obama five years ago," said Right Truth. "BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AND TAREQ SALAHI GO WAY BACK," said Reliapundit. "So-called 'party crashers' of Obama's dinner have known Obama for years," said Jacksonian Lawyer's Blog, etc.

[...]

Eventually, as is customary with these guys, speculation grew darker.

"As far as I'm concerned, this 'incident' fits right in with the plans of the Muslim Brotherhood.," said JewPI. "Yes, I think it's a conspiracy, and not only that. It's a conspiracy decades in the making of which Americans are dangerously unaware."

"That Settles It... Obama Is In Fact A Jihadist," said Snooper's Take Our Country Back. "Remember. Obama is in fact a Jihadi scum bag."

"With Barack Obama, it's always about the radicalism," bold-faced Gateway Pundit. "Always."

Now hold all that crazy up against this hard little nugget of sanity, courtesy of John Cole:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Not One More Tax Dollar For the Banks
Posted by Dean Baker, Comment Is Free on November 30, 2009 at 4:30 PM.

The big talk in Washington these days is "helping homeowners." Unfortunately, what passes for help to homeowners in the capitol might look more like handing out money to banks anywhere else.

The basic story is fairly simple. Tens of millions of U.S. homeowners are now underwater: they owe more on their mortgage than the market value of their home. The reason is that they bought homes at bubble-inflated prices earlier in the decade. Economists and other policy wonks insisted that housing was a great buy, even as house prices got ever more out-of-line with economic fundamentals.

Needless to say, the Wall Street crew was eager to cash in on the mania, peddling deceptive mortgages and reselling mortgage-backed securities all over the world. These deceptive mortgages have now "reset" to higher interest rates, leaving many people unable to afford their mortgage payments. However, even at lower interest rates, homeowners who purchased houses at bubble-inflated prices would find themselves paying far more for their homes than they would to rent a comparable house.

As a result, these homeowners are effectively throwing money away every time they make their monthly mortgage repayment. They would be much better off renting the same house and putting the savings in a retirement account or some other form of investment.

The gaps between mortgage payments and rent can often be quite large. A study that we put out at the Center for Economic and Policy Research calculated a family that purchased a small home in Los Angeles near the peak of the bubble could save $1,640 a month by renting rather than owning. This comes to almost $20,000 a year. In Phoenix a family who purchased a home near the peak of the bubble could save $420 a month or $5,000 a year. In Miami the savings would be $1,940 a month, more than $23,000 a year.

These homeowners also have no reasonable prospect of ever getting equity in their homes. In many cases they are 20% or 30% underwater, possibly owing $100,000 more than the current value of their house. Many of the people who never saw the housing bubble are arguing that house prices will return to their bubble peaks. No doubt, these people also expect a resurgence of the internet stocks of the late 1990s.

In reality, there continues to be an enormous over-supply of housing as reflected by the record vacancy rate. This huge over-supply is causing nominal rents to actually decline for the first time ever. Once the homebuyers' tax credit and other extraordinary subsidies end, house prices will resume falling to bring supply and demand into balance.

In this context, it is extremely unlikely that the vast majority of underwater homeowners will ever accumulate a penny in equity. Keeping them in their homes as owners means wasting thousands of dollars a year on excess housing costs only to be forced to arrange a short sale or face a foreclosure at some future point in time.

So, who benefits from "helping homeowners" in this story? Naturally the big beneficiaries are the banks. If the government pays for a mortgage modification where the homeowner is still paying more for the mortgage than they would for rent, then the bank gets a big gift from the government, but the homeowner is still coming out behind.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Despicable: Right-Wing Group Selling Homophobic "Barney Frank Fruitcake"
Posted by Stephanie Mencimer, Mother Jones Online on November 30, 2009 at 3:00 PM.

Ah, 'tis the season for right-wing nuttiness. Black Friday has unleashed a barrage of racist and homophobic political offerings available to stuff this year's stockings. Today's selections:

The Barney Frank Fruitcake: Offered by a Leesburg, Va.-based conservative group called the Public Advocate of the United States, the fruitcake is a booze-free confection topped with a color photo of the gay congressman. Pubilc Advocate offers the cake in exchange for donations of more than $50. "We accept Speaker Pelosi and the current liberal domination but when lawlessness is rampant we must oppose it, and this Fruitcake distribution represents our marking of another season of protesting a sorrowful spirit of immorality in Washington," says PA president Eugene Delgaudio.

Obozo's America: A board game based on the idea that a socialist clown has become president of the United States, subtitled, "Why bother working for a living?" The low-down:

Get your initial $1,000 cash grant at the First of the Month, then maneuver along Obozo’s Welfare Promenade. Get cash for your out-of-wedlock children. Draw from a stack of Welfare Benefit Cards. Get extra cash from Saturday Night crimes: Gambling, Armed Robbery, Drugs, and Prostitution. Play the lottery and the horses. Get your live-in a job on the Government Cakewalk. Experience the Jail Jaunt. Avoid landing on one of those dreaded “Get a Job” blocks forcing you onto the Working Person’s Rut (Somebody has to pay for Obozo’s Welfare Promenade). 50 Welfare Benefit Cards. 50 Working Person’s Burden Cards. Lots of funny money.

The deluxe version available for just $37.90, plus tax and shipping.

EMAIL PRINT 6 COMMENTS PERMALINK

Video: AlterNet's Adele Stan Talks Health Care on C-SPAN
Posted by AlterNet Staff, AlterNet on November 30, 2009 at 2:20 PM.

In a wide-ranging conversation on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, AlterNet's Adele Stan faced off with conservative blogger James Joyner about health care, the economy, Afghanistan and Dick Cheney's presidential aspirations.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH

Naomi Klein: Why Rich Countries Should Pay Reparations To Poor Countries For The Climate Crisis
Posted by Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! on November 30, 2009 at 1:40 PM.

AMY GOODMAN: We turn to the best-selling author of The Shock Doctrine. Yes, independent journalist Naomi Klein joining us from Toronto, Canada to talk about the latest shocks to the economy and with the climate summit in Copenhagen just two weeks away, the coming together of a global movement for climate justice. She is just out with the 10th anniversary edition of her first book, the international bestseller No Logo. And her latest articles include "Climate Rage," for Rolling Stone Magazine, and "Copenhagen, Seattle Grows Up," for The Nation. Naomi Klein, Welcome to Democracy Now! Let’s begin with the issue of climate change and as you put it, climate rage. Tell us what is happening.

NAOMI KLEIN: That piece in Rolling Stone is looking at a growing demand for the repayment of climate debt. This is really a relatively new framing for the climate crisis and is becoming predominantly from the developing world, led by the government of Bolivia and other Latin American governments, and it has been joined by the coalition of least developed countries which are primarily in Africa. And essentially what they're saying is that the climate crisis as we know was created in the industrialized world. There is a direct correlation between industrialization (what we call development) and carbon emissions. In fact, 75 percent of the historical carbon emissions have been produced by only 20 percent of the world's population. Then we have this cruel geographical irony, which is that the effects of climate change our felt overwhelmingly in the developing world, and the parts of the world that are least responsible for creating the crisis. According to the World Bank, 75-80 of the effects of climate change are being felt in the developing world. So, you have this inverse relationship between cause and effect.

It is in this context that we see a growing movement from the developing countries that really are on the front lines of climate change, saying that the rich world that created the climate crisis owes them a debt, owes them a tangible reparations for the creation of this crisis. And those reparations should be paid in three forms. First through deep emissions cuts in the developed world, in the rich world. At least 40 percent below 1990 levels- this is a figure we have heard a lot. In addition to this, they are saying the rich world, the G-8 countries, the industrialized countries, should pay for the costs, the huge costs, that poor countries face in adapting to climate change. In addition to that, they’re also saying that they would like to leapfrog over the dirty energies, the fossil fuels that are fueling the climate crisis. But they point out that this is expensive and more expensive to shift to cleaner green technology than it is to develop with cheap, dirty fuels, which is the way we did in the rich world. So, they are saying we will change, but we don’t think we should have to pay this additional cost because of our problem that is not of our creation. Essentially the climate debt arguments is the “polluter pays” argument, which is a familiar argument to people in the United States, its a basic principle of jurisprudence. Another way of putting this is “you broke it, you bought it”.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk specifically about the countries that are raising these concerns and saying we shouldn’t have to pay. For example in Africa.

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, the African Union, the coalition of African states, have been very clear that their primary demand out of Copenhagen are these deep emissions cuts and serious funding for adaptation to climate change. In eastern Africa right now, you have massive, you have serious droughts affecting millions of people. That is just one example of the kind of costs that are being incurred because of climate change already. So, we’re not talking about projecting into the future, some hypothetical future, we are talking about right now.

The main push, as I said, is actually coming from Bolivia. And Bolivia has an extraordinary climate negotiator, who I quote in the Rolling Stone piece, named Angelica Navarro, who I first met in Geneva. She was actually Bolivia’s ambassador to the World Trade Organization. She’s very clear, very tough, multilingual. It takes a lot of strength to stand up to the sort of pressure that a small country like Bolivia faces, whether at the World Trade Organization or now in the climate negotiations. And Angelica Navarro is really up to the task and she has been giving these really inspiring speeches, at summits in the lead up to Copenhagen. And has really been an galvanizing force for other developing countries.

But also, you know she is taking a demand that is coming from groups like the third World Network, Focus on the Global South, Jubilee South, coalitions of NGOs and climate justice groups, that have been making these demands on the outside of summits. But, what is interesting now is that these demands have entered inside the summit, they are at the negotiating table. And of course there is extraordinary resistance from the United States, and the European Union, Canada, Australia, to the idea that they shouldn’t just be giving money to the developing world to adapt to climate change, to deal with climate change, out of the goodness of our hearts, out of a sense of charity, but actually out of a legal obligation. This is a frightening concept as you can imagine.

AMY GOODMAN: Naomi Klein –

NAOMI KLEIN: The case for this is very strong, just to add.

AMY GOODMAN: Last week, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon rejected widespread predictions that the summit in Copenhagen would be a failure.

BAN KI-MOON: Reading the latest news reports, however, you might think Copenhagen is destined to be a disappointment. That is wrong. To the contrary, we can, and I believe we can and we will reach a deal in Copenhagen that sets the stage for a binding treaty as soon as possible.

AMY GOODMAN: Your response to what Ban Ki-Moon is saying?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, the problem is the definition of success in Copenhagen has been lowered and lowered. A few months ago the definition of success in Copenhagen was countries agreeing to lower emissions, to levels that climate scientists were demanding. And the science is very clear that we really do need cuts of 40 percent below 1990 levels. The other definition of success was rich countries coming to the table with levels of funding for the developing world that once again meet the actual need. And we know what those types of figures are. The World Bank for instance has estimated the cost faced by developing countries to simply adapt to a changing climate dealing with droughts, dealing with increased flooding, is $100 billion a year. The cost of leapfrogging over those dirty energies, as I was saying earlier, that’s $500 billion-$600 billion a year. That’s a figure from independent UN researchers. But now what we hearing from the UN is there hope for Copenhagen is that they can get developed countries, rich countries, to agree to $10 billion a year.

So Amy, they will turn around and say that is a success, but it is simply not a success. So, the definition of success is just been pushed lower and lower. And this is really a troubling issue, and it an issue that a lot of environmentalists, climate justice activists are going to have to confront. Because, with an issue like climate change, urgency matters, maintaining a sense of urgency in the face of this crisis really matters. So, there is a danger, a very real danger of creating an illusion of doing something about the problem in Copenhagen. You know, having Obama go make another terrific speech which he is very good at, claiming it is a breakthrough that the U.S. is talking about emission cuts of between, now they are saying 14-20 below 2005 levels, which is just absurd, it has nothing to do with the science. And then this $10 billion a year figure, which once again there such a huge gap between that figure, and the lowest possible figure that we’re hearing from the World Bank which is $100 billion.

So, we have to be very careful about what is called success, because if you turn around and say “It is a success to have U.S. commit to 14 percent cut from 2005 levels,” and a throwing a couple billion dollars a year out of the goodness of their hearts while still recognizing historical responsibility, then you lose some of this crucial urgency, in confronting this crisis. So, I think is very important for the climate justice movement not to allow politicians to pass off the failure as success.

AMY GOODMAN: Naomi Klein, the issue of President Obama going. He's going to be in the region, he's going to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. He also just recently was in Copenhagen. He was there to push for Chicago to get the Olympics. But, he has not said he is going, although 65 world leaders have. The top three carbon polluters, the U.S., China and India, have not said they will attend the meeting. Your response?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, you know John Kerry is publicly calling on Obama to go and I think now that that is happened, my assumption is Obama will go. I do not think Kerry would be saying this if it was not already pretty much decided that he will go. And I think this whole process of lowering the definition of success, so essentially failure can be passed off as success, is really, much of it is about creating conditions for Obama to go and claim that failure is success. So, frankly, I think he will go, but I do not think we should allow that to be a definition of success.

AMY GOODMAN: Now of course we will be there, “Democracy Now!” will be there in force, en masse, to cover what is happening for the two weeks. We will be covering what is happening at the summit and we will be covering what is happening in the streets. Naomi, it is the 10th anniversary of the Battle of Seattle, the protests in Seattle, Washington. I’m going to be there in a few days and there’s a lot of conversation about what that has meant. But, before we go to break and talk about this 10 years later, talks specifically about what is planned for Copenhagen in the streets.

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, the latest column I wrote for The Nation is about this line that you can draw from Seattle to Copenhagen. I call the column “Seattle Grows Up,” because I think we're also seeing an evolution of a movement that can to world attention on the streets of Seattle. I think there has been a profound deepening of the coalition between groups that are primarily focused on poverty, on development, on debt, and environmental groups that have traditionally been focused on environmental issues. We saw that in Seattle, the beginnings of that coalition, with the famous "Teamsters and Turtles" coalition. Now we are seeing something much deeper.

It is this idea of climate debt that is bringing together groups, like I was saying, Jubilee South, like Action Aid, groups that have been mostly focused on anti-poverty and development and are now are seeing climate change as the single greatest barrier to human development around the world, but also seen the call for climate reparation as an opportunity for, to quote Angelica Navarro, Bolivia's ambassador to the climate negotiations, who I was talking about earlier, when she talks about the need for the developing world- developed world to pay our climate debt, she says if this happened and we would have a Marshall Plan for planet earth, which is a very exciting prospect because it means you have the opportunity to tackle simultaneously two of humanities most intransigent challenges, most intransigent problems, climate debt on the one hand, and inequality on the other. So, the bringing together of these two forces. That is what's going to be really, really exciting in Copenhagen. And a lot of the people, a lot of networks that grew out of Seattle are going to be activated in Copenhagen and have only grown stronger in recent years.

AMY GOODMAN: When we will come back, we’ll talk about ten years after the Battle of Seattle protest overall, its also the 10th anniversary of the release of your book, No Logo, I want to talk about "world branding."

...

... But Naomi, before we talk more specifically about Seattle, what about the specific actions planned for the streets of Copenhagen at the Climate Summit?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, you know, it's going to be a maze, Copenhagen. It's the largest environmental gathering in history, larger, even, than the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. So there's going to be a lot happening all around the city.

But, here is where I think it's really different from Seattle: in Seattle, the World Trade Organization was really the enemy for the activists in the street, and the goal was to shut down the meeting, both from the outside and inside. And you had this interesting coalition of activists in the street with that message, that "No WTO" message. And then you had coalitions of developing countries inside, emboldened by these protests in the street, emboldened to stand up to the pressure from the European Union and the United States. And ultimately it was that sort of "pincer" that collapsed the meeting.

In Copenhagen, it's a different dynamic, because the fact is that the people in the streets overwhelmingly support the mission of the meeting in Copenhagen. And, so, they're not saying "no" to the idea of a climate summit. In fact, they're saying "yes," and they're revealing, highlighting that, in fact, it is the world leaders, particularly world leaders from the heavy-emitting countries, like the United States and Canada, who are the naysayers, who are the ones who are saying, "No, we don't actually want to tackle the climate crisis, we don't want to make the emissions cuts that are needed, that are required by science."

So, in a sense, it’s an inversion where it’s the activists who are saying, "Yes, we believe in this mission." And it's the politicians, really, who we need to reveal as being the ones who are actually saying, 'no,' even as they claim to be saying 'yes,' and even as they claim -- even as they sell failure as 'success.'"

So, it’s really tricky for activists in terms of figuring out how you interact with a summit like this. So, there's one day, for instance, the 18th -- December 18th, where activists are going to be kind of storming the conference center, nonviolently, but using civil disobedience. But their goal, they say, is not to shut down the meeting, but to open up the meeting and to have a forum inside the meeting to talk about real climate solutions, like leaving fossil fuels in the ground—dirty fossil fuels, particularly things like the Alberta tar sands -- talking about solutions like climate debt that we’ve been discussing, and exposing the fallacies of the claims that the market can solve the climate crisis.

Because, of course, that's what we’re going to be hearing a lot of in Copenhagen, market-based solutions: cap and trade, emission trading, carbon sinks, basically creating a huge market in pollution. And you have many of the same players that crashed the global economy, like Goldman Sachs, salivating over the idea of being able to have a speculative bubble over carbon.

So, that's the dynamic. It's not saying "no," not saying "shut down," but saying, "Open up. Let's talk about real solutions." And another example of this is that, actually, there will be an attempt to shut something down in Copenhagen, but that is focused on shutting down the port for a day -- Copenhagen's port -- to highlight the corporate side of this equation, the shipping industry and how emissions-heavy it is. And, so, not to shut down a meeting that actually the activists believe in, but to go after industry itself. So, there's going to be a lot of actions like that. A lot of thought and debate is going into how to craft actions that are really consistent with the goals of this movement.

AMY GOODMAN: And the delegates, the people who are involved in the climate talks, as opposed to the activists in the street -- something interesting that happened ten years ago with the Battle of Seattle that also turned things were those inside who were saying, "You are not listening to us." I mean, developing countries, for example, countries in Africa. What about those countries here, their role at the climate summit in Copenhagen?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, you know, it remains to be seen. As I said, some of the most interesting solutions are being put on the table by Latin American governments, like Bolivia, also Ecuador.

But what we just saw in Barcelona, which was, you know, the last major negotiating push before the meeting in Copenhagen, is that the coalition of African states walked out of the summit en masse. So, basically a form of civil disobedience within the summit, in protest of the very low commitments for emission cuts coming from the developed world, which was interesting that the African bloc walked out, not because there wasn’t enough money for them, not because there wasn’t enough aid for them to deal climate change, but because they don’t simply want aid, they want us in the rich world to change our way of life because they are facing the effects of that. They’re on the front lines of climate change.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Alberto Gonzales Inspires Students to "Dream Big" and Hope to Meet "the Next George W. Bush" One Day
Posted by Matt Corley, Think Progress on November 30, 2009 at 11:30 AM.

After months without finding work, former attorney general Alberto Gonzales landed a teaching job at Texas Tech University earlier this year, where he is now leading a political science class on the Executive Branch. When Gonzales' hiring was announced, Texas Tech chancellor Kent Hance said that the former Bush appointee would "help Texas Tech and ASU prepare our students for success and to be future leaders in the State of Texas and beyond." In an interview with the Daily Toreador, Gonzales gave an example of some of the inspirational wisdom he is providing to his students:

Gonzales said he wants to encourage Tech students to have high aspirations but to realize that success doesn't come overnight.

"Dream big but be patient," he said. "You never know when the next George W. Bush is going to come along and give you a once in a lifetime opportunity like he gave me, but you have to be patient."

Dubai May Finally Be Broke, But It's Been Morally Bankrupt All Along
Posted by Johann Hari, AlterNet on November 30, 2009 at 10:30 AM.

Dubai is finally financially bankrupt -- but it has been morally bankrupt all along. The idea that Dubai is an oasis of freedom on the Arabian peninsular is one of the great lies of our time. Yes, it has Starbucks and Dunkin' Donuts and the Gucci styles, but beneath these accouterments, there is a dictatorship built by slaves.

If you go there with your eyes open -- as I did earlier this year -- the truth is hidden in plain view. The tour books and the bragging Emiratis will tell you the city was built by Sheikh Mohammed, the country's hereditary ruler.

It is untrue. The people who really built the city can be seen in long chain-gangs by the side of the road, or toiling all day at the top of the tallest buildings in the world, in heat that Westerners are told not to stay in for more than 10 minutes. They were conned into coming, and trapped into staying.

In their home country – Bangladesh or the Philippines or India – these workers are told they can earn a fortune in Dubai if they pay a large upfront fee. When they arrive, their passports are taken from them, and they are told their wages are a tenth of the rate they were promised.

They end up working in extremely dangerous conditions for years, just to pay back their initial debt. They are ringed-off in filthy tent-cities outside Dubai, where they sleep in weeping heat, next to open sewage. They have no way to go home. And if they try to strike for better conditions, they are beaten by the police.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Rick Warren Refuses to Condemn Death Penalty for Homosexuals
Posted by Allison Kilkenny, True/Slant on November 30, 2009 at 9:30 AM.

I think I was too hard on Meet The Press the other day. Here I was, fussing that MTP rarely includes leftist voices on its panels when something much bigger was happening. Now I understand that the producers of the longest-running television show in worldwide broadcasting history can’t include leftist perspectives because they have to create a “safe space” for the views of people like pastor Rick Warren, who recently refused to condemn the idea of a death penalty for gays in Uganda.

In a recent interview with Newsweek, Warren refused to reject the ideas of Martin Ssempa, a Ugandan pastor who has come to his Saddleback Church multiple times, and whose stunts include burning condoms in the name of Jesus and endorsing state executions for homosexuals.

But Warren won’t go so far as to condemn the legislation itself. A request for a broader reaction to the proposed Ugandan anti-homosexual laws generated this response: “The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts endowed by God, our creator. However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations.”

Yes, one wouldn’t want to interfere with the political process of an autonomous nation. Meanwhile, Warren and his tax exempt church are fine with meddling with the political process in this country. The pastor was a key player in endorsing Prop 8, which amended California’s Constitution to say marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

But don’t take my word for it. Warren stated his support for Prop 8 in this video:

Let me just say this really clearly. We support Proposition 8. And if you believe what the bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues, I come out really clear…. We should not let 2% of the population determine — uh, to change the definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture, and every single religion for 5,000 years.

Apparently, this was taken out of context because Warren later panicked and tried to distance himself from the movement. He told Larry King that he “never once even gave an endorsement” of the proposition.

Let me just say this really clearly. We support Proposition 8.

Okay.

Warren has also compared homosexuality to incest, pedophilia, and bestiality, though this totally doesn’t mean he hates gay people, he explained to MSNBC’s Ann Curry:

I could give you a hundred gay friends. I have always treated them with respect. When they come and want to talk to me, I talk to them.

I talk to them, but I’m also cool with them being killed by the state. I can see why MTP didn’t want to let this gem slip through their fingers. Warren reiterated his refusal to condemn the crazy Ugandan pastor yesterday on his most recent MTP appearance, Newsweek reports:

“As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides.” Warren did say he believed that abortion was “a holocaust.” He knows as well as anyone that in a case of great wrong, taking sides is an important thing to do.

 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

George Will: Get Off My Lawn You Hippie Dope Fiends!
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 30, 2009 at 8:35 AM.

I'm not sure when George Will completed the transition from acerbic center-right pundit to crotchety old fart whinging about the kids these days, but there's actually something reassuring about the fact that even in a world as crazy as ours is today a bow-tied moral scold like George Will can still find the time to get worked up over states passing medical marijuana laws.

Inside the green neon sign, which is shaped like a marijuana leaf, is a red cross. The cross serves the fiction that most transactions in the store -- which is what it really is -- involve medicine.

The Justice Department recently announced that federal laws against marijuana would not be enforced for possession of marijuana that conforms to states' laws. In 2000, Colorado legalized medical marijuana.

George Will's mad about it. But he was for states' rights before he was against them, of course. When? Oh, way back in ... last week, when the issue was a state's God-given right to refuse to participate in federal health-care schemes. Anyway ...

Since Justice's decision, the average age of the 400 persons a day seeking "prescriptions" at Colorado's multiplying medical marijuana dispensaries has fallen precipitously. Many new customers are college students.

Oh. My. God. College students smoking pot! What next -- people marrying trees?!?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Inhofe Trashes Military Generals Who Advocate For Clean Energy Legislation
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on November 30, 2009 at 7:34 AM.

In testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, retired Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn articulated a national security argument for passing clean energy legislation. “Continued over reliance on fossil fuels, or small, incremental steps, simply will not create the kind of future security and prosperity that the American people and our great Nation deserve,” McGinn warned.

In an interview with the New York Times Magazine, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the ranking member of the Senate environment committee, argued that McGinn and other generals who are advocating for clean energy reform (like Wesley Clark, Stephen Cheney, Brent Scowcroft, etc) are simply doing so because they crave “the limelight”:

NYT: Senator Boxer is chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, on which you are the ranking Republican. She and her fellow Democrats have lately suggested that global warming could be a threat to national security by destabilizing developing countries.

INHOFE: That’s the most ludicrous thing. They looked around and they found, I think, five generals to testify before the committee. Well, that’s 5 generals out of 4,000 retired generals that say that. There are a lot of generals who don’t like to be out of the limelight. They’d like to get back in.

 

 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Conservative Hypocrisy: Food Stamps Are Hand-Outs to the Lazy ... Until I Need Them
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on November 30, 2009 at 6:30 AM.

This article on increasing rates of reliance on food stamps illustrates pretty clearly the right-wing mentality when it comes to social programs -- any sort of government aid is a hand-out to the lazy until I need it. Then it's still a hand-out to the lazy, just not for me.

While Mr. Dawson, the electrician, has kept his job, the drive to distant work sites has doubled his gas bill, food prices rose sharply last year and his health insurance premiums have soared. His monthly expenses have risen by about $400, and the elimination of overtime has cost him $200 a month. Food stamps help fill the gap.

Like many new beneficiaries here, Mr. Dawson argues that people often abuse the program and is quick to say he is different. While some people "choose not to get married, just so they can apply for benefits," he is a married, churchgoing man who works and owns his home. While "some people put piles of steaks in their carts," he will not use the government’s money for luxuries like coffee or soda. "To me, that's just morally wrong," he said.

He has noticed crowds of midnight shoppers once a month when benefits get renewed. While policy analysts, spotting similar crowds nationwide, have called them a sign of increased hunger, he sees idleness. "Generally, if you’re up at that hour and not working, what are you into?" he said.

I don't know, sir -- but since you're there too, why don’t you tell us?

Almost as precious is the suggestion that food stamps should come with work requirements, akin to cash welfare benefits:

"Some people like to camouflage this by calling it a nutrition program, but it's really not different from cash welfare," said Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, whose views have a following among conservatives on Capitol Hill. "Food stamps is quasi money."

Arguing that aid discourages work and marriage, Mr. Rector said food stamps should contain work requirements as strict as those placed on cash assistance. "The food stamp program is a fossil that repeats all the errors of the war on poverty," he said.

No word from Mr. Rector, though, on where those jobs are coming from.

Food stamps are increasingly utilized in large part because more Americans are unemployed or underemployed. Work requirements aren't particularly helpful if you live in rural Appalachia or suburban Detroit or the South Bronx and there just aren't jobs to be had.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Has Obama Done More Than Any Other President in Their First Year?
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 30, 2009 at 4:28 AM.

President Obama's detractors on the right believe the president has racked up some accomplishments, all of them awful. The more widespread impression among news outlets and many who voted for the president is that Obama hasn't accomplished much at all.

Slate's Jacob Weisberg has a contrarian piece this weekend, arguing that the opposite is actually true. If health care reform is completed by mid-January, Weisberg argues, the president will deliver a State of the Union address in a couple of months "having accomplished more than any other postwar American president at a comparable point in his presidency."

We are so submerged in the details of [the health care] debate -- whether the bill will include a "public option," limit coverage for abortion, or tax Botox -- that it's easy to lose sight of the magnitude of the impending change. For the federal government to take responsibility for health coverage will be a transformation of the American social contract and the single biggest change in government's role since the New Deal. If Obama governs for four or eight years and accomplishes nothing else, he may be judged the most consequential domestic president since LBJ. He will also undermine the view that Ronald Reagan permanently reversed a 50-year tide of American liberalism.

 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Right-Wingers and Neocons Love Obama's Cabinet Appointments
Posted by Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet on November 30, 2008 at 9:51 AM.

 As Barack Obama's opus, Team of Rivals, continues its rolling debut, the early reviews are in and the "critics" are full of praise for the cast:

"[T]he new administration is off to a good start."
-- Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell.

"[S]uperb ... the best of the Washington insiders ... this will be a valedictocracy -- rule by those who graduate first in their high school classes."
-- David Brooks, conservative New York Times columnist

"[V]irtually perfect ... "
-- Senator Joe Lieberman, former Democrat and John McCain's top surrogate in the 2008 campaign.

"[R]eassuring."
-- Karl Rove, "Bush's brain."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush's Delusional Take on His Legacy
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on November 30, 2008 at 9:42 AM.

In your dreams:

"I'd like to be a president [known] as somebody who liberated 50 million people and helped achieve peace," Bush told his sister, Dorothy Bush Koch, in a conversation recorded for the oral-history organization StoryCorps for the American Folklife Center at the Library of Congress.

I'm sure that would be nice, but instead you will be remembered as the man who invaded a country that hadn't threatened it using lies and propaganda -- and ended up "liberating" millions of people from their lives.

"I came to Washington with a set of values, and I'm leaving with the same set of values. And I darn sure wasn't going to sacrifice those values; that I was a president that had to make tough choices and was willing to make them," he said

No, it wasn't a tough choice to invade Iraq or ignore Katrina or allow the financial system to run completely amuck. It was a unique combination of stupidity and malevolence, which will be studied for centuries by historians struggling to imagine how such a person was ever given such power by a supposedly democratic people.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Mormons Losing Members Over Anti-Gay Campaigns
Posted by Lisa Derrick, Firedoglake on November 30, 2008 at 9:33 AM.

While the Mormon Church hierarchy  was responsible for organizing millions of dollars and thousands of hours of manpower to pass California's Proposition 8 and Arizona's Prop. 102, the church's tactics haven't sat so well with some of its members -- including families, members with Mormon heritage going back 150 years, and gay members -- who began speaking out in July on the Web site signingforsomething.org. 

 

Many have public resigned from the church, citing reasons such as these:

*I think the church has no right to assume the inner thinkings of its members and take such an open stand of any political issue.

*The church's involvement in the effort to rescind a basic constitutional right from California citizens is shameful and misguided.

*The position the church took on this particular issue went against everything I learned from the church. Not only was the church's position discriminatory, but it was also hateful. 

*The leadership fights for bigotry and hate. The God I grew up with was perfect in His Love and Justice. Shame on the men who act so disgracefully in His name.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bill Kristol Thinks America Should Reward Torturers
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on November 30, 2008 at 9:11 AM.

In his new Weekly Standard column, right-wing pundit Bill Kristol lays out a to-do list for President Bush before he leaves office. He urges Bush to deliver speeches "reminding Americans of our successes fighting the war on terror." Kristol dreams, "Over time, Bush might even get deserved credit for effective conduct of the war on terror."

After urging Bush to fight the incoming administration's desire to close Guantanamo, Kristol concludes with this:

One last thing: Bush should consider pardoning-and should at least be vociferously praising-everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror, but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points. The lawyers can work out if such general or specific preemptive pardons are possible; it may be that the best Bush can or should do is to warn publicly against any such harassment or prosecution. But the idea is this: The CIA agents who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the NSA officials who listened in on phone calls from Pakistan, should not have to worry about legal bills or public defamation. In fact, Bush might want to give some of these public servants the Medal of Freedom at the same time he bestows the honor on Generals Petraeus and Odierno. They deserve it.

In the Bush era, the Medal of Freedom has come to absurdly represent a reward for those who carried out policy failures at the urging of the Bush administration. By this standard, the implementers of torture and warrantless wiretapping certainly qualify for such a medal.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

It's Official: Hillary Clinton Will Be Secretary of State
Posted by Staff, Huffington Post on November 30, 2008 at 8:58 AM.

It's official. Obama will name Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State on Monday:

President-elect Barack Obama planned to nominate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as his secretary of state on Monday, transforming a once-bitter political rivalry into a high-level strategic and diplomatic partnership.

Obama will name the New York senator to his national security team at a news conference in Chicago, Democratic officials said Saturday. They requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly for the transition team...

...The Clinton pick was an extraordinary gesture of goodwill after a year in which the two rivals competed for the Democratic nomination in a long, bitter primary battle.

Senator Clinton's path to the Cabinet was cleared after her husband Bill agreed to disclose the names of all the donors to his foundation and library as well as agreeing to further conditions:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Get Ready for Bobby Jindal: the GOP's Trumpeted 'Own Version of Obama'
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 30, 2008 at 6:44 AM.

The Washington Post has an interesting item today on Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's (R) recent swing through Iowa, apparently the first step towards the 37-year-old governor's 2012 presidential campaign. As has been apparent for quite a while, the GOP's far-right base has exceedingly high hopes for Jindal, and consider him "the party's own version of Obama."

Like the president-elect, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana is young (37), accomplished (a Rhodes scholar) and, as the son of Indian immigrants, someone familiar with breaking racial and cultural barriers. He came to Iowa to deliver a pair of speeches, and his mere presence ignited talk that the 2012 presidential campaign has begun here, if coyly. Already, a fierce fight is looming between him and other Republicans -- former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who arrived in Iowa a couple of days before him, and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who is said to be coming at some point -- for the hearts of social conservatives. [...]

No less an aspiring kingmaker than Steve Schmidt, the chief strategist of McCain's failed presidential bid, sees Jindal as the Republican Party's destiny. "The question is not whether he'll be president, but when he'll be president, because he will be elected someday." The anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist believes, too, that Jindal is a certainty to occupy the White House, and conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh has described him as "the next Ronald Reagan."

Jindal is, above all else, a political meteor, sharing Obama's precocious skills for reaching the firmament in a hurry. It was just four years ago, after losing a gubernatorial election, that he won election to Congress, and only this year that he became Louisiana's governor, the first nonwhite to hold the office since Reconstruction. And now, 10 months into his first term, the talk of a presidential bid is getting louder among his boosters.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Ashcroft Confronted by Protesters, Claims Waterboarding Is "Not Something I Can Make a Decision On"
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on November 30, 2007 at 4:00 PM.

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

Last night, John Ashcroft delivered an address on the Cornell University campus "in the face of shouting dissenters and shrouded protesters." At his last appearance on a student campus, Ashcroft was asked whether he would be willing to be subjected to waterboarding. "The things that I can survive, if it were necessary to do them to me, I would do," he said.

Last night, Cornell University kept the heat on Ashcroft, repeatedly confronting him about his views on waterboarding.

Prior to his speech, Ashcroft answered students' questions in the lounge of a resident house on campus where a small reception was held for him. One student in the adjoining dining hall (which shares a common window with the lounge) "taped a piece of paper to a window...asking Ashcroft why waterboarding was not considered torture." The Cornell Sun reports that Ashcroft "merely stared at the piece of paper without comment."

The Sun adds that it later followed-up on the question with Ashcroft:

In an interview with the Sun conducted just prior to his speech at Statler Hall, Ashcroft did address the question when it was again posed to him.

"The question of whether or not waterboarding is torture is defined by statute. It's not something I can make a decision on," Ashcroft answered. "There are laws about what is torture and what isn't."

Ashcroft told the Cornell students "I have no regrets" about his tenure as attorney general, adding "and I have done some crazy things."

Ashcroft's dodge on waterboarding is much like the answer former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) tried to give during the CNN/YouTube debate on Wednesday night. Romney claimed he can't say specifically whether waterboarding is torture or not. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) ripped his equivocation:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

New Toys Target Men Who Hate Women
Posted by Amanda Marcotte, Pandagon on November 30, 2007 at 3:30 PM.

This post, written by Amanda Marcotte, originally appeared on Pandagon

Shakes is running a long series on the various items available for purchase by men who hate women and think that's just so funny. It's interesting, though I haven't linked it before because I didn't have much to say about it. But today's series entry just can't pass without comment.

(click for larger version)

In case the toy wasn't hostile-seeming enough at first glance, the manufacturers give you an option to engage in a little playful rape, which is the toy victim's fault, of course.

You'll note from the packaging that Lusty Linda can utter "8 lusty sayings," which fall into one of two categories--"good mood" or "bad mood," controlled by the click of a switch. Says one site (screen cap) that sells Lusty Linda, "too bad all women did not have such a switch." Ho ho ho!

In her "good mood," Lusty Linda says things like "Oh so good, do that again" and "Yes!" In her "bad mood," Lusty Linda says things like "Ow!" and "Help! Help!" (Though she never loses her grin!) Talk about art imitating life. I don't know about the rest of you gals, but nothing puts me in a "bad mood" like being raped! Trust Lusty Linda to speak the truth.

What I find fascinating about this stuff is that the male audience for these toys are probably the same kinds of guys who dwell bitterly over the way Andrea Dworkin pointed out that our society constructs heterosexual intercourse as rape. They pretend that they dwell over this because it shows how supposedly crazy she was, but in actuality, I think they're bitter because she had their number. Dworkin didn't believe that all sex was rape by definition, but men who think this shit is funny certainly do. If you think that screaming for help only differs from ordinary sex because your selected fuckhole is just being whiny tonight, I'm pretty convinced you have no fucking clue what sex with a woman who genuinely is into it would even be like.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Hostage Situation in Clinton Campaign Office
Posted by Cliff Schecter, Brave New Films on November 30, 2007 at 2:01 PM.

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

UPDATE: 4 PM EST The two people taken hostage have reportedly now been released and the situation has evolved into a standoff between police and the man inside the campaign office who allegedly claims to have a bomb.

Hillary Clinton has released this statement on her website: "There is an ongoing situation in our Rochester, NH office. We are in close contact with state and local authorities and are acting at their direction. We will release additional details as appropriate."

UPDATE: 6:30 PM EST The suspect in this incident, Leeland Eisenberg, was finally arrested. After the hostage situation, Clinton, who was in Washington, said "I am very grateful that this difficult day has ended so well."

----------

I'm not going to speculate until we hear more. My prayers are with those inside.

ROCHESTER, N.H. -- An armed man has taken people hostage at the Hillary Clinton campaign office in Rochester, police said.

It was not clear how many hostages there were or what weapons the man has. Police have set up a command post near the office on 28 North Main St.

Witness Lettie Tzizik said that she spoke to a woman shortly after she was released from the office by the hostage-taker.

"A young woman with a 6-month or 8-month-old infant came rushing into the store just in tears, and she said, 'You need to call 911. A man has just walked into the Clinton office, opened his coat and showed us a bomb strapped to his chest with duct tape."

UPDATE via CNN:Two people are being held hostage by an armed man at Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign office in Rochester, New Hampshire, police said Friday.

Emergency crews arrive at the office building in Rochester, New Hampshire, Friday.

The man walked into the office at about 1 p.m., Maj. Michael Hambrook of the New Hampshire State Police told CNN affiliate WMUR-TV.

Hambrook and Clinton campaign officials said two people were believed to be inside.

Shortly before 2 p.m., police officers had taken positions across the street from the office, some kneeling behind police cruisers with guns drawn.

Clinton, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, is in the Washington area.

She was scheduled to speak at 3 p.m. at a Democratic National Committee event, but canceled the talk because of the situation, DNC Chairman Howard Dean said.

"Unfortunately as some of you know, there is a hostage situation in New Hampshire involving a Clinton campaign staff person," Dean told those who had gathered for the event.

"The details are sketchy at this time, but understandably Senator Clinton is now dealing with this very difficult problem and she is not going to be able to join us today. And we will keep them in our prayers and hope for a resolution to this situation in New Hampshire."

The nearby campaign office for Sen. Barack Obama, also a Democratic candidate for president, was shut down as a precaution, WMUR said. The offices of former senator and Democratic candidate John Edwards were also closed.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Kirkuk Oil Battle Heats Up; Oil Funds for Refugees
Posted by Ben Lando, Iraq Oil Report on November 30, 2007 at 11:00 AM.

Iraq's Oil Ministry is accusing the Kurdistan region of preventing development of one of Iraq's oldest, largest and most controversial oil fields, another dispute in the battle over control of the country's vast reserves. While the rift has been public, the issue of the Kirkuk oil field project is starting to surface in conflicting accounts. …"We have an engineering procurement contract. When equipment arrived, we started working ourselves," Falah al-Khawaja, director general of the State Company for Oil Projects, an arm of the ministry, said on the sidelines of an oil conference in London. "They prevented us from continuing our work, which is actually against the law. "Khawaja wouldn't elaborate on who "they" actually are, adding: "I've been there. I know what's going on in Khurmala. The equipment started to arrive only seven months ago."

Read my whole story for United Press International HERE.

More on the KRG visit to the U.S.A.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

GOP Presidential Candidates Announce a New Plan for American Women: Do-it-Yourself Abortion
Posted by Cristina Page, Huffington Post on November 30, 2007 at 6:37 AM.

This post, written by Cristina Page, appeared on The Huffington Post

Any casual watcher of Wednesday night's Republican debate may have come away thinking that women don't have much at stake in this election. After all, of the questions CNN chose, less than a third were even from women. (Sadly even in cutting edge political forums, like The Daily Show, that's typical. In the last year, of the 140 guests of the Jon Stewart Show 13 have been women of which only 4 were not actresses.) The Democrats have Hillary as a candidate this year, which puts women front and center. For the Republicans, though, it's pretty much a choice between graying, gray or bald white men, all of whom seemed to nod in agreement on one breathtaking policy initiative for women that surfaced in last night's debate: the DIY abortion.

The question from the "young lady" was: If abortion is outlawed then who is the criminal, woman, doctor, or both? This has always been the sticky question for the anti-abortion side. Do they intend to start locking up women for murder? Fascinatingly, Fred Thompson, National Right to Life's endorsed candidate, said no. He suggested that some people will be able to perform abortions at any stage of pregnancy with no fear of prosecution: women on themselves. Thompson explained his (and one would figure, National Right to Life's,) bold new plan that would kick in once Roe is overturned: "The question is who get penalized and what should be the penalty. I think it should be fashioned along the same lines it is now. Most states have abortion laws that outlaw abortion after viability and it [the criminal penalty] goes to the doctor performing the abortion not the girl, the young girl, her parents, or whoever it might be. I think that same pattern needs to be followed." So, under this plan, a woman is free to perform abortions on herself, possibly with the help of her parents or "whoever it might be" as long as a physician or healthcare provider who is actually skilled to provide safe abortion care isn't involved. The last time the United States banned abortion -- pre-Roe -- doctors faced only minimal penalties for providing safe care. Apparently Thompson, and every GOP candidate except Giuliani appeared to agree, that was a mistake. The crime of abortion, if (and apparently only if) performed by a doctor, will be murder and extreme penalties will apply. Of course, the details will have to be worked out. Electric chair or lethal injection, that's still up for grabs. But it seems clear that the environment post-Roe will be harsher than pre-Roe. The clandestine network of safe abortion services that sprung up last time might not emerge this time. The risk for physicians would be too great. And so women who can't reach safe care will be much more likely than women before Roe to take matters into their own hands, which apparently the Republicans don't mind.

During Wednesday night's debate, there were some anti-abortion ideas dismissed as too preposterous. Will there be a "federal abortion police" force? Candidate Ron Paul seemed to think that would be too difficult. But it's not been too difficult for other "pro-life" wonderlands and so it's probably not exactly off the table as a possibility. In El Salvador, for example, they do use police. Actually they're called "Forensic Gynecologists," and they investigate possible crime scenes (aka: women's bodies) after a miscarriage because, of course, once abortion is illegal every miscarriage is suspect. The immediate past AG of Kansas, Phil Kline, attempted some version of this; seizing abortion patients records in an attempt to find misdeeds on the part of the physician.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Giuliani's Mistress Used N.Y. Police as Taxi Service
Posted by Howie Klein, Down With Tyranny! on November 30, 2007 at 6:00 AM.

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

(click for larger version)

ABC-News tells a different story of the latest Giuliani scandal than the one he tried passing off on Anderson Cooper at the Republican hatefest CNN/YouTube debate last night.

Well before it was publicly known he was seeing her, then-married New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani provided a police driver and city car for his mistress Judith Nathan, former senior city officials tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

"She used the PD as her personal taxi service," said one former city official who worked for Giuliani.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel: "Arrogant" Bush White House Has "Failed Country"
Posted by GottaLaff , Brave New Films on November 30, 2007 at 5:02 AM.

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

Chuck Hagel's not exactly who you'd call a lefty. You can check out his voting record here. But this is what he has to say about the Bush administration:

Sen. Chuck Hagel, a leading Republican lawmaker who has come out against the Iraq war, had some harsh words for the Bush White House Wednesday, calling it "one of the most arrogant" administrations he's ever seen.

Guess whose phone is probably about to be tapped. But I digress:

"I would rate this one the lowest in capacity, in capability, in policy, in consensus -- almost every area, I would give it the lowest grade," Hagel said during an event at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

Heavens! He sounds just like a U.S. Nobel Laureate!

"I think of this administration, what they could have done after 9/11, what was within their grasp," he said. "Every poll in the world showed 90 percent of the world for us. Iran had some of the first spontaneous demonstrations on the streets of Tehran supporting America."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Card Rejects Rove’s Claim That Congress Pushed Bush To War: "His Mouth Gets Ahead Of His Brain"
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on November 30, 2007 at 4:51 AM.

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

Karl Rove asserted on the Charlie Rose show recently that it was Congress that pushed the Bush administration into war with Iraq. "The administration was opposed" to voting for a war resolution in the fall of 2002, Rove claimed. "It seemed it make things move too fast," he argued.

As ThinkProgress documented, key leaders in both the House and the Senate -- including then-Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) -- were asking Bush in 2002 to delay the Iraq war vote. But as Daschle recalled, when he asked Bush to delay the vote, Bush "looked at Cheney and he looked at me, and there was a half-smile on his face. And he said: 'We just have to do this now.'"

This morning, former White House chief of staff at the time, Andrew Card, appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe and completely discredited Rove's argument:

SCARBOROUGH: We have to start with something that we all are talking about a couple of days ago where Karl Rove went on Charlie Rose and he blamed the Democrats for pushing him and the president into war. Is that how it worked?

CARD: No, that's not the way it worked.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Mistaken terrorism victim to be paid $2M by U.S.
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 30, 2006 at 12:00 PM.

The Nitpicker spots some good news on the civil liberties front: A court awarded $2 million to an Oregon man who was wrongfully arrested and detained for two weeks on suspicion of terrorism because of a fingerprinting fiasco.

Brandon Mayfield was locked up for two weeks in 2004 after the authorities mistakenly linked him to a Spanish terrorist through botched fingerprint identification. Mr. Mayfield, an attorney, says he plans to continue is legal challenges to the constitutionality of the PATRIOT Act.

[Nitpicker]

Bill "Cat Killer" Frist is leaving politics
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 30, 2006 at 10:50 AM.

According to the New York Times' political blog, Bill Frist won't run for president in 2008. Instead, he's going back to Tennessee.

T.A. Frank at the Washington Monthly is crestfallen:

NO MORE FRIST? Looks like we'll be deprived of a Bill Frist presidential run in '08. That's a shame, because a politician as entertainingly craven as Frist deserves to have a proper outlet for his talents. I was curious to see how he'd approach a national campaign in light of the midterms. Would he, for example, start attacking the White House for the war in Iraq? Or might he announce he'd changed his mind about end-of-life decisions and go and personally pull some plugs? It promised to be good, whatever it was. But I guess he felt it was going to be too hard to zig after the political winds had abruptly zagged. He's probably right, but I wish he'd have given it a try all the same. For my sake.

I will admit, it was fun to kick the cat killer around, but at least we still have Newt.

Gingrich recently pushed for a campaign finance bill originally introduced in Congress as . Mark Schmitt wonders, "Now that the first of those is under indictment, the third has copped a plea, and the middle one is under serious investigation, one has to wonder: What should you call a piece of legislation when all of its cosponsors are in jail?"

See? 2008 will still be entertaining.

[Political Animal, TAPPED]

Bush snaps at Senator with son in Iraq
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 30, 2006 at 10:31 AM.

Wouldn't you know it? George Bush caused a scene at a White House reception for incoming members of congress. The president approached Jim Webb, the newly-elected Democratic senator from Virigina whose son is serving in Iraq.

Webb tried to avoid the boorish Commander In Chief at the reception, probably fearing exactly what happened next...

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- Democratic Sen.-elect Jim Webb avoided the receiving line during a recent White House reception for new members of Congress and had a chilly exchange with President Bush over the Iraq war and his Marine son.

"How's your boy?" Webb, in an interview Wednesday, recalled Bush asking during the reception two weeks ago.

"I told him I'd like to get them out of Iraq," Webb said.

"That's not what I asked. How's your boy?" the president replied, according to Webb.

At that point, Webb said, Bush got a response similar to what reporters and others who had asked Webb about Lance Cpl. Jimmy Webb, 24, have received since the young man left for Iraq around Labor Day: "I told him that was between my boy and me."

Webb, a leading critic of the Iraq war, said that he had avoided the receiving line and photo op with Bush, but that the president found him. AP]

Webb declined to be photographed with Bush at the reception.

"“I’m not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall," Webb later told reporters.

[Pensito Review]

Feds hunt giant rats in Florida
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 30, 2006 at 9:53 AM.

Florida officials are launching a major offensive against an imported strain of 3-pound rat that threatens to become a major disease vector and pest.

Baker-Hamilton: Road to peace leads through Iran
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 30, 2006 at 8:15 AM.

With regard to the troops, the Baker-Hamilton commission's early reports remain about as safe as you can be and still have words combined to make sentences: "[the report] will call for a gradual pullback of the 15 American combat brigades now in Iraq but stop short of setting a firm timetable for their withdrawal."

Or: they have to go eventually. The Times also specifies that the report hints at withdrawal beginning "sometime next year."

To my thinking, the much more potent part of the report is this:

As described by the people involved in the deliberations, the bulk of the report by the Baker-Hamilton group focused on a recommendation that the United States devise a far more aggressive diplomatic initiative in the Middle East than Mr. Bush has been willing to try so far, including direct engagement with Iran and Syria. Initially, those contacts might be part of a regional conference on Iraq or broader Middle East peace issues, like the Israeli-Palestinian situation, but they would ultimately involve direct, high-level talks with Tehran and Damascus.

This would directly interfere with neocon wet dreams involving regime change in Iran and Syria, regardless of the fiasco in Iraq. It's another stage of the battle for the administration's future, with Cheney on the one side and Bush Sr.'s fellas on the other, urging the president to be more, well, conservative.

Seymour Hersh has essentially said that it comes down to whether Rumsfeld's replacement Robert Gates (no knight in shining armor, him) can resist Cheney's demands for bombing Iran.

Bomb Iran or negotiate with Iran. The commission has spoken and the internal Civil War begins.

Or is it a scuffle between factions?

New Bond urges gay scene
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 30, 2006 at 8:02 AM.

Kudos to new James Bond Daniel Craig for suggesting the next logical step in the Bond universe:

Daniel Craig is urging movie bosses to revolutionize the James Bond franchise by including a gay scene involving the superspy in the follow-up to Casino Royale.

The heart-throb actor has also reportedly told studio chiefs he is prepared to film a full frontal nude scene to please both his male and female admirers.

He says, "Why not? I think in this day and age, fans would have accepted it."

"I mean, look at (British TV series) Doctor Who - that has had gay scenes in it and no one blinks an eye."

A gay bond scene is excellent idea because A) It would be totally hot, and B) The mere thought of Bond-on-man love is freaking out the wingnuts at the Free Republic.

[Pandagon]

"The National Guard just tried to recruit my 9 year old nephew"
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 30, 2006 at 6:31 AM.

John Aravosis's brother just got a very disturbing phone call from Uncle Sam:

Seriously. Dad took the call. The person on the other end wanted to talk to my 9 year old nephew. Dad asked why. Because they wanted him to consider enlisting in the reserves or the National Guard. Dad said there's only one problem, the kid is 9. Person on the other end said oh, well I should probably remove his name from our lists. They said that my nephew probably signed up for something online and that's why they called.

Yeah, sure.

The reassuring explanation is that they're totally incompetent. The explanation that's too horrifying to contemplate is that they're planning to stay in Iraq until the kid is legal.

[AMERICAblog, MyDD]

Boston Herald duo take swipe at Jill Carroll
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 30, 2006 at 5:38 AM.

Classy...

NEW YORK Okay, it's not meant to be Pulitzer-level journalism, but Boston Herald columnists Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa may have set a new low in their report today on an attempt to interview Jill Carroll, the Christian Science Monitor reporter held hostage in Iraq for nearly three months earlier this year after watching the murder of her driver. Carroll is now a fellow at the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University.

The column item on the former hostage opened this way: "Being held hostage in Iraq can catapult a gal from a pedestrian UMass pedigree to the hallowed halls of Harvard. But it also apparently makes one rather full of oneself!"

It seems that a local Fox TV reporter spotted the very low-profile Carroll in a pub and chatted her up. She was friendly enough until he asked her to talk about her post-Iraq life. Imagine this: She did not agree to a TV interview. “No,” said Jill (rather "snootily," as they claimed). “I’m not doing any press.” And then she did not respond to the Herald pair's email query.

They ended the item with "File Under: A Captivating Gal."

[Editor and Publisher]

US says no iPods for Kim Jung Il
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on November 30, 2006 at 5:34 AM.

For the first time in history, the United States is using trade policy to personally aggravate a foreign leader.

According to the Secretary of Commerce, the plan was "carefully considered and carefully targeted" to piss North Korean dictator Kim Jung Il: no iPods, no plasma TVs, no cognac, and no Segway scooters.

It's far from clear what good these one-man sanctions are going to do.

It's also a sad commentary on the economy of North Korea that there's exactly one person in the whole country who can afford an iPod.

[Crooks and Liars]

The torture president
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 30, 2005 at 1:03 PM.

In the wake of Abu Ghraib, Rush Limbaugh was heard to have oozed the observation that it was just fratboy hijinks. In light of this Doonesbury comic maybe it isn't quite the fatuous turd of an argument most of the vertebrate world took it for....

"Was this past Sunday's 'Doonesbury' -- which had George W. Bush defending the burning of Yale University fraternity initiates with a brand in 1967 -- fact or fiction?" asks Dave Astor.

"Bush's comment in panel seven is a direct quote, which is why I put it in quotation marks," responds Doonesbury creator Garry Trudeau.

Here's the offending strip... larger version [HERE]:



(Editor&Publisher)


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

Attacking our allies
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 30, 2005 at 9:20 AM.

Referring to the Bush proposal to bomb Al Jazeera, insomnia_lj asks: "What kind of an idiot would call for an attack on our ally Qatar?"

One of the Project for a New American Century neocons, Frank Gaffney Jr., of course; 6 months before Bush brought the proposal to the table to discuss with Tony Blair.

insomnia_lj continues: "[Gaffney] served as Reagan's former Undersecretary for Defense, is the President of the influential neocon Center for Security Policy... and apparently serves an advisor to the Pentagon. He called for al-Jazeera to "be taken off the air, one way or another" six months before Bush's meeting with Blair, and clearly had the connections needed to put policy into action within the Bush administration."

Any questions as to who fashions our astonishingly successful foreign policy? (Metafilter)


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

Hey anony nonny
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 30, 2005 at 8:05 AM.

The crap is piling up around the outing of Valerie Plame.

The latest attempt to stuff the genie back into the bottle goes a little something like this: sure they robbed the liquor store, but there really wasn't much of anything in the till.

NBC's Andrea Mitchell went on Hardball and claimed: "I happen to have been told that the actual damage assessment as to whether people were put in jeopardy [as a result of Valerie Plame's covert status having been compromised] did not indicate that there was real damage in this specific instance."

Jane Hamsher writes: "Wow, Andrea, that's amazing. You GO GIRL!!! Where exactly did she get this exclusive, insider information? Well, maybe she watched Bob Woodward the night before on Larry King" who made almost the same claim verbatim. Ditto Tucker Carlson, but he claimed Andrea Mitchell as his source...

"So where is this mysterious assessment? According to the Washington Post and the CIA, it doesn't exist..."

So where are Woodward and Mitchell getting the info that potentially benefits Woodward whose reputation is swirling around the proverbial toilet? Anonymous officials? (Firedoglake)


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

Sign us up!
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 30, 2005 at 7:43 AM.

Bill O'Reilly's pipin' mad about all the false information spread by "far left websites" and the media that reads them. So he's made a list: Media Operations that Traffic in Defamation described as:
"The following media operations have regularly helped distribute defamation and false information supplied by far left websites:

• New York Daily News
• The St. Petersburg Times
• MSNBC

"These are the worst offenders. In the months to come, we expect to add more names to this list. We recommend that you do not patronize these operations and that advertisers do the same. They are dishonest and not worth your time and money."

Like Atrios, Peek is pissed about being overlooked. We humbly submit our blog for "Falafel Bill"'s list. If we don't get put on, we'll have to start our own list of bigots, charlatans and blowhards who do not acknowledge our hard work and dedication. (Eschaton)


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

The house of 'no'
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 30, 2005 at 7:32 AM.

Sure they rigged up a fancy campaign to brand the Dems the "party of no" (my suggestion back then was for the Dems to take it back and start calling themselves the "party of know"... it didn't take), but is there any real truth to that charge?

Here's a shot of the GOP-speak from RNC Communications Director Brian Jones (back from the dead and completely estranged from the Stones): "President Bush’s State of the Union presented a positive agenda for keeping America safe and preserving Social Security, but the Democrats have defined themselves as the party of 'no' in responding with obstruction and pessimism..."

Sure, if you don't look at the facts, at the votes, which Bob Geiger has conveniently done. Geiger writes: "if you want to talk about a downright un-American agenda, here's what the Republican party has said 'no' to since the middle of October:

• Money to provide for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (Twice)
• Increasing the maximum Federal Pell Grant award by $200
• Providing additional funding for title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
• Increasing appropriations for Head Start programs
• Additional funding for part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
• Funding for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program within the Health Resources and Services Administration.
• Increasing appropriations for after-school programs through 21st century community learning centers.
• Providing a 6-month transition period for coverage of prescription drugs under Medicaid for the elderly whose drug coverage is to be moved to the Medicare prescription drug program.
• Amending title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide the authority for negotiating fair prices for Medicare prescription drugs.
• Establishing a national commission on policies and practices on the treatment of detainees since September 11, 2001.
• Providing enhanced eligibility for retirement pay for non-regular service members in Iraq
• Amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax benefits for areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.
• Repealing certain tax benefits relating to oil and gas wells intangible drilling and development costs.
• Reinstating for millionaires a top individual income tax rate of 39.6 percent, the pre-May 2003 rates of tax on capital gains and dividends, and to repeal the reduction and termination of the phase out of personal exemptions and overall limitation on itemized deductions, until the Federal budget deficit is eliminated.
• Sense of the Senate amendment concerning the provision of health care for children before providing tax cuts for the wealthy.
• Tax increase on incomes in excess of $1 million to eliminate child poverty.
• Providing an additional $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010, to be used for readjustment counseling, related mental health services, and treatment and rehabilitative services for veterans with mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, or substance use disorder.

"And that's just the damage they've done in the last 45 days." (YellowDogBlog)


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