PEEK

Buzz, perspectives, insight and news from AlterNet

Palin's Prayer Leader Hinted Terrorist Attack Could Make Her President
Posted by Bruce Wilson on November 16, 2009 at 7:28 PM.

In the final weeks of the 2008 presidential election, one of the religious leaders closest to Sarah Palin hinted that the Alaska governor might soon get an unexpected career boost... from a terrorist attack.

Independent Charismatic Christianity vexed the McCain campaign throughout the 2008 campaign, first in the debacle that followed John McCain's decision to accept a long-sought political endorsement from Texas megachurch pastor John Hagee, when an anti-Semitic 2005 sermon by Hagee surfaced, then through infighting between Sarah Palin and McCain campaign staff.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

O'Reilly Warns of a Coming 'Tax Revolt': 'Pelosi Will be Bobbing Up and Down in the Boston Harbor'
Posted by Alex Seitz-Wald, Think Progress on November 16, 2009 at 3:40 PM.

Glenn Beck had Fox News host Bill O'Reilly on his radio show today to promote their upcoming "Bold & Fresh Tour," which will take the two right-wing personalities around the country to preach "the truth -- straight up, whether you like it or not." When Beck brought up Dennis Miller's appearance on the O’Reilly Factor last week -- in which Miller warned of a coming "insurrection" -- O'Reilly predicted a "tax revolt" that will "get nasty" and end up with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "bobbing up and down in the Boston Harbor."

BECK: Last week, I head you say that -- you were on with Dennis Miller. … You two were talking about an insurrection coming.

O’REILLY: Tax revolt.

BECK: He used the word insurrection. And not in a comedic way.

O’REILLY: Yeah, tax revolt. I think people, when they figure out how badly they're going to get hurt in the next few years, there's going to be a tea party on taxes and its gonna get nasty. Nancy Pelosi's going to be bobbing up and down in the Boston Harbor.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Hundreds Converge on Goldman Sachs DC Headquarters
Posted by Staff, SEIU on November 16, 2009 at 2:41 PM.

This is a press advisory from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

Washington, D.C. -- Today, hundreds of workers, clergy members, community leaders, and other taxpayers converged on the Washington, D.C. headquarters of Goldman Sachs to demand the bank put an end to multi-billion dollar bonuses, reject the Too Big To Fail Doctrine, and use their anticipated $23 billion bonus pool to help families facing foreclosure. Taxpayers also called on Congress to take immediate action on real financial reform.

"Lloyd Blankfein and Goldman Sachs have rightfully earned the leading role in the story of 'all that is wrong with Wall Street,'" said George Goehl, Executive Director of the National People's Action. "Now is the time for them to start making amends for past transgressions. A good first step would include showing a little holiday spirit by directing a significant portion of their estimated $23 billion-dollar bonus pool to a fund to prevent foreclosure. It's the least they could do."

Today's demonstration was the latest in a series of national mobilizations launched last month as 5,000 taxpayers from 20 states converged on the American Bankers Association convention in Chicago to demand Wall Street and big banks stop fighting reforms that would protect our families from the next economic crisis.

"Companies like Goldman Sachs seem to love their company more than their country," said Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union. "And in the name of maximizing profits and their huge bonuses, they will foreclose on our homes and take jobs from our families while short selling America without a second thought. The $23 billion dollars Goldman is planning to pay out in bonuses could prevent every single expected foreclosure in America in 2010."

After sharing personal stories illustrating Goldman Sachs' continued refusal to help in America's economic recovery, taxpayers attempted to deliver a letter requesting a meeting with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein to discuss their demands. This is the third time taxpayers have requested such a meeting and their requests continue to go unanswered as Blankfein continues his media tour preaching his firm's devotion to doing "God's work."

 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Enough Crowing Over Carrie Prejean's Sex Tape "Hypocrisy"
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on November 16, 2009 at 1:35 PM.

I don't care how many tapes Carrie Prejan made of herself masturbating. I don't care how many nude or semi-nude photos she shot of herself or let other people shoot of her. I don't care if she had breast augmentation surgery. I don't care what she does with her body or what she does sexually, as long as it's consensual.

And neither should anyone else who rightfully objected to her anti-same-sex marriage sentiments.

Support for same-sex marriage is rooted in a belief that people have the rights to love and fuck and spend time with whoever they want, and to do whatever they want with their own bodies. It reflects the idea that sexuality is a private matter -- not in the sense that it shouldn't be seen in public, but in the sense that any individual person's sexuality doesn't personally affect anyone else who isn't sexually involved themselves with that person.

So what difference does it make, in terms of Prejean's bigotry, that she has a sexual life of her own? None. Because denying fellow citizens equal rights is wrong no matter what.

She was wrong when she said it before anyone knew she had a "sex tape," and she's wrong now. The existence of a "sex tape" doesn't somehow make her more wrong.

I see a lot of people, including self-identified progressives, cheering the "schadenfreude" of Prejean's being revealed as -- what? -- having a sexuality, I guess. But slut-shaming Prejean for expressing her sexuality merely perpetuates a culture in which the objection to same-sex marriage is justified with distaste for the icky, icky gay sex. Entrenching puritanical narratives about "deviant" sexuality (and let's all stop and note the hilarious irony that young women who actually express the sexuality the entire culture admonishes them to express are immediately slut-shamed and accused of aberrant behavior) does not help the cause of gay rights. Or women's rights. Which are both denied on the basis of kyriarchal control of bodies that are Othered.

So if you find yourself tempted to crow over Prejean's "hypocrisy," consider that the tapes were made privately and not intended for public consumption. To make hay out of that, when we argue sexuality is a private matter, is a hypocrisy all its own.

And worse than that: To make an issue out of these tapes, to endorse or encourage their release for any reason, is to perpetuate the rape culture. Despite our collective refusal to regard them thus, celebrity sex tapes released without the participants' consent is sexual assault. Consenting to the sex act, even consenting to its being filmed, is not implicit consent that images of the act be publicly distributed.

Prejean was wrong about same-sex marriage. She's not any more wrong if she's a moral scold with an expressed sexuality of her own. And being a bigot doesn't give other people license to victimize her.

These shouldn't be controversial statements.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Congressional Puppetry: Biotech Lobbyists Ghost-Write Health-Care Reform Speeches for 42 House Members
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 16, 2009 at 12:30 PM.

Robert Pear, reporting for the New York Times, discovered that the impassioned rhetoric aired by a fairly large number of law-makers during the health-care debate was drafted by corporate lobbyists.

In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident.

Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.

E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.

The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms, were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.

Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points — 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.

In an interview, Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, said: “I regret that the language was the same. I did not know it was.” He said he got his statement from his staff and “did not know where they got the information from.”

Members of Congress submit statements for publication in the Congressional Record all the time, often with a decorous request to “revise and extend my remarks.” It is unusual for so many revisions and extensions to match up word for word. It is even more unusual to find clear evidence that the statements originated with lobbyists.

The piece is headlined, "In House, Many Spoke With One Voice: Lobbyists’". But it might as well have read: "Sloppy Staffers Offer Peek Into Everyday, Legal and Perfectly Ordinary Washington Corruption."

Because  what makes this a featured story -- the only thing really unusual about it -- is that "so many revisions and extensions match up word for word," which left rather "clear evidence that the statements originated with lobbyists."

Otherwise, it's dog bites man. Congressional staffers constantly rely on lobbyists for information, political help and, yes, talking-points. Advocates send lawmakers draft text to be included not only in speeches delivered on the House floor, but in legislation as well -- they do it all the time. (And I should note that it's not just corporate lobbyists pushing stuff through the worst lawmakers in Congress; labor, environmental, consumer groups and other advocates do the same thing for progressive law-makers. In this case it may be a pack of lies from a biotech firm in an effort to kill health-care, but ...)

And, of course, it's unusual for this kind of endemic distortion of the legislative process to be seen as anything but routine by the political class. So it's a story that's also note-worthy simply for the fact that the New York Times decided to treat it as such.

Anyway, a little peek into the sausage-making.

Obama Considers Illinois Prison for Guantanamo Detainees
Posted by Maya Schenwar, TruthOut.org on November 16, 2009 at 11:30 AM.

The Obama administration is eyeing a practically vacant prison in western Illinois to house terrorism suspects transferred from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, following its closure.

Top Democrats, including Illinois Gov. Patrick Quinn and Sen. Dick Durbin, have announced their support for the plan, calling it an economic boon for the area, according to The Chicago Tribune.

Quinn called the prospect a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" for Illinois during a fly-around tour on Sunday.

The prison under consideration, a maximum-security facility in rural Thomson, Ill., could house 1,600 prisoners.

Bureau of Prisons official will visit Thomson this week.

Prominent Illinois Republicans have voiced vehement opposition to the Thomson proposal. Rep. Don Manzullo, who represents the district that includes Thomson, expressed strong reservations, though he admitted the economic advantages of the plan.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Guess What? Americans Don't Like Sarah Palin
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on November 16, 2009 at 10:30 AM.

As we all know, Sarah Palin really likes ordinary, America-loving Americans. That's because her appeal allegedly lies in being one of them, even though most 'ordinary' Americans are not that rich, and she is very rich. Anyway, she loves patriotic Americans so much that she has dedicated her new book to them, as she writes on her Facebook wall: 

The book tour starts this week, and I look forward to it! I'm most looking forward to meeting many of you, shaking your hands, and telling you,"Thanks for loving America." I'll give you a scoop here and tell you what's on the book's Dedication Page – it's dedicated to you – Patriots – who love the U.S.A. as much as I do.

Really, Palin should be celebrating the America-hating, liberal media that keep that stupid thing in the news. Especially since Palin's love is kind of unrequited. According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, a majority of Americans don't like her that much, and very few would vote for her if she absurdly ran for President. 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

What Will Happen to Guantanamo's "Child Soldier," Omar Khadr?
Posted by Suzanne Ito, Blog of Rights on November 16, 2009 at 9:30 AM.

With [Friday's] announcement that the Justice Department will move five of the men accused of 9/11 crimes to federal court in New York, the question still remains about one of the other high-profile detainees: Omar Khadr.

The world knows Khadr as one of the child soldiers detained at Gitmo since he was 15. (The other child soldier, Mohammed Jawad, was released back to Afghanistan after the government failed to produce enough credible evidence to bring charges against him.) Khadr is accused of throwing a grenade that killed an Army medic in Afghanistan, a charge that the U.S. government itself later threw into question by accident during one of his pre-trial hearings:

During a break in the hearing, members of the press were given copies of legal motions on the issue of whether the military commission has the authority to try Khadr, given his status as a juvenile at the time of his alleged offenses. Included in those papers was a classified attachment, which, according to military commissions officials, should have been redacted, instead of released.

The significance of the document was made clear by Khadr's military defense counsel, Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler. Asked to describe it later in the day, Lt. Cmdr. Kuebler said it dispelled what he referred to as a myth propagated by the government: that Khadr was the only person who could have lobbed the grenade that killed U.S. soldier Christopher Speer -- the basis of the most serious charge against him. The document, created in 2004, turned out to be an interview of a witness to Khadr's capture. In it, the witness describes finding two people alive in the Afghan compound in which Khadr was captured -- the witness shot and killed the first man before he saw Khadr. Then, according to Lt. Cmdr. Kuebler, Khadr, who was 15 years old at the time, "was shot on sight -- in the back -- twice -- while wounded, sitting and leaning against a wall facing away from his attackers." (emphasis ours)

Earlier [Friday], the Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments in an appeal by the Canadian government on two lower court decisions that found Khadr's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been breached when Canadian officials interviewed him at the prison in Guantánamo in 2003 and shared the resulting information with U.S. authorities. Khadr's lawyers argued that Canada was complicit in his abuse and maintain that the Canadian government is obliged under international law to demand the prisoner's return. Since Khadr was only addressed in passing at Attorney General Eric Holder's news conference this morning, Canadian news outlets are reporting the possibility that Khadr could still be repatriated to Canada and tried in a Canadian court.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Christian Bootcamp Seeks to Arm Home-Schooled Youths for "Spiritual Warfare"
Posted by Eleanor Bader, RH Reality Check on November 16, 2009 at 8:40 AM.

Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas, Assistant Director of Operation Save America, is worried. According to studies by the Barna Research Group, California pollsters specializing in tracking religious and spiritual attitudes, only nine percent of teenaged Christians believe in moral absolutes. What’s more, Barna reports that the vast majority of kids raised Christian will abandon all or part of their faith by the time they finish high school. "Assembly of God leaders estimate between 65 and 70 percent will depart, while the Southern Baptist Council on Family Life estimates roughly 88 percent will leave," Thomas writes.

To remedy this, Thomas' Elijah Ministries has started the Kingdom Leadership Institute, a weeklong ideological boot camp for home-schooled Christians between the ages of 14 and 21. His recently released book, The Kingdom Leadership Institute Manual, is a roadmap for their training and a fascinating -- if twisted -- look at the concerns of far right evangelicals, complete with a game plan for action.

There's no pussy-footing in Thomas' screed. For him the battle between God and Satan is at hand, pitting True Believers against Sinners. Common ground? Impossible since there are only two sides, one resulting in heavenly salvation and the other ending with the earth’s destruction.

"Life is not a playground," he rails. "It is a war zone -- a clash of ideas, philosophies, values, and worldviews. It demands leaders who do not shrink back in [sic] the day of battle." He calls it "spiritual warfare" and repeatedly summons images straight out of the Middle Ages, with gallant Knights protecting grateful maidens, and courtliness trumping gender equity.

Contemporary equals bad, he rants. "During Colonial times, children would be up at four in the morning to help with chores; spoke only when spoken to by an adult; and by the age of seven or eight, boys had chosen their craft or trade and were ready to become apprentices. What a contrast compared to the unruliness, laziness, and lack of direction that characterizes many in this generation."  One can only wonder about the regimen imposed on the good reverend’s 13 children and two grandchildren.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Kingdom Leadership Institute Manual. "It is a war zone."&topic=politics">

CNN Paid Lou Dobbs $8 Million to Quit
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 16, 2009 at 8:35 AM.

Although Lou Dobbs has been saying that his departure from CNN was an "amicable parting on the best of terms," the New York Post reports that CNN wanted him gone so badly that it gave him an $8 million severance package. Dobbs "had a year and a half to go on his $12 million contract." He'll be appearing on Fox News tonight to talk with Bill O'Reilly, who has called the former CNN host a "stand-up guy."

Sarah Palin's Top 10 Biggest Lies
Posted by , Media Matters for America on November 16, 2009 at 6:30 AM.

In anticipation of the release of Sarah Palin's memoir, Going Rogue, Media Matters for America has compiled a list of Palin's Top 10 falsehoods from before the book was published.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Woe, To Be a Governor
Posted by Steve Singiser, Daily Kos on November 16, 2009 at 5:33 AM.

Back in July, and using the 2009 elections as the immediate backdrop, I suggested that the greatest level of volatility in the coming election cycles would be in the gubernatorial races.

The basic thesis was that the current economic and political climate had essentially put the state's chief executives in the position of making few popular choices. The expectation was that this would transcend incumbency--even in the myriad of open seat races, the change narrative would be an enticing one.

It is now more than four months later, and the 2009 election cycle has come and gone. In the interim, little has changed to dispel the sense that the gubernatorial elections are going to be the site of the greatest turmoil.

Since then, we have had two electoral results that would seem to confirm that incumbency in the state executive's office comes with peril in this climate. The "shake up" (insert name of state capital here) meme is an attractive one, and certainly played a part in the victories of Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell (especially Christie, who was swimming upstream against the natural political tendencies of his state, plus his own campaign missteps).

While most of the traditional media (including a particularly poor analysis from the Los Angeles Times) wanted to make those elections about ascendant Republicanism, there is pretty solid evidence from the exit polling in New Jersey to suggest that an anti-incumbent mood was more prevalent than an anti-Democratic mood.

President Obama, among the electorate that voted in the Garden State this month, had a 57% approval rating. Given the partisan breakdown of the electorate (41% Democratic, 31% Republican, and 28% Independent), and a basic assumption (90% of Democrats approve of Obama, and 90% of Republicans disapprove), we find that Barack Obama's approval rating among New Jersey Independents would have been in the neighborhood of 62%.

And that segment of the New Jersey electorate went to Chris Christie by 30 points (60-30-9). In other words, there was a sizeable contingent of voters who approved of President Obama's job performance who nonetheless cast their ballots for Christie.

There is also an additional four months of polling data to reflect upon. This data also speaks to the antipathy at the state level towards the party in power.

It is rare, in the polling that is available right now (and here are a pair of excellent resources), to find an incumbent who is in comfortable position for next year's election cycle, when the majority of the nation's governorships will be up for grabs.

Indeed, a cursory glance across the nation finds just three governors who lead by ten points or more in the most recent polls released in their state. Interestingly, two of the three are Democrats (Mike Beebe of Arkansas and, extraordinarily, Deval Patrick of Massachusetts). The lone Republican is Texas Governor Rick Perry, and even in an unspectacular field he leads the leading Democratic candidate by just eleven points. Utah's newly-minted Republican Governor Gary Herbert, who just took office in August, also polled well, though the poll involving his candidacy was based on his re-elect numbers as opposed to an actual trial heat with an opponent.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Future of the Stupak Amendment
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 16, 2009 at 4:01 AM.

Earlier in the week, President Obama signaled that the Stupak amendment will have to be changed. He told ABC News' Jake Tapper that "there there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo."

The point being, the Stupak measure would change the status quo.

Sunday, David Axelrod expressed a very similar sentiment.

Axelrod also addressed the House health care bill's Stupak amendment, which would prevent federal subsidies for abortions. Axelrod said that the president doesn't believe health care reform "should change the status quo" and that "this shouldn't be a debate about abortion" -- while also acknowledging that "the bill Congress passed does change the status quo."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Takes a Serious Contrarian to Go After Captain "Sully" Sullenberger's Heroic Image
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 16, 2009 at 3:17 AM.

Russ Buettner, NY Times:

In America today, the half-life of newly minted hero status seems to end the moment that Oprah’s jaw drops. No sooner does someone amaze us than someone else seeks to diminish their splendor.

But Sully?

In a new book, “Fly by Wire,” William Langewiesche takes a run at knocking down the hero rank of Capt. Chesley B. Sullenberger III, the US Airways pilot who in January glided a powerless Airbus A320 to an emergency landing in the Hudson River, according to a review published in The New York Times on Wednesday.

Mr. Langewiesche argues that Captain Sullenberger’s landing did not display “unusual skill.” Instead, he posits that perhaps the real hero was Bernard Ziegler, a former Airbus executive credited with helping the airline develop what is known as a fly-by-wire control system, which eased the difficulties of handling an aircraft.

“Like it or not, Ziegler reached out across the years and cradled them all the way to the water,” writes Mr. Langewiesche, who is himself a former professional pilot.

I can't offer a review of Langewiesche's book -- haven't read it. And while I can't see how it could be anything other than an act of unusual skill to land a loaded jetliner without thrust on a narrow river in the middle of a densely packed city without injury, I won't try to dispute his argument. William Langewiesche is a pretty brilliant writer and, as the excerpt indicates, he, unlike myself, is a former professional pilot.

But I've got to ask why? Why bother writing a book to muddy Sully's heroic image?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »