PEEK

Buzz, perspectives, insight and news from AlterNet

Sex Workers Offer Freebies for Climate Change Delegates in Copenhagen
Posted by Tara Lohan, AlterNet on December 7, 2009 at 5:30 PM.

Finally, a sexy story about climate change. As the big talks have finally kicked off, here's one of the lighter stories I've read about what's happening over there.

This is from AFP:

Prostitutes of a Danish sex workers association will offer their services for free to delegates of the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, an association official told AFP Saturday.

Susanne Moeller said the move was meant to protest an anti-prostitution initiative undertaken by Copenhagen city hall.

The city, host of the December 7-18 UN climate summit, distributed postcards in Copenhagen's hotels that said "Be sustainable: Don't buy sex." It also sent letters to hotel managers inviting them to take measures to avoid prostitutes meeting clients in their establishments.

This is a bit odd considering that sex work in Denmark is legal. And surely, if you're involved in the difficult work of trying to save the planet from doom, you may want to engage in adult activities to relieve some stress, right?

Apparently, sex workers there agree and are fighting back against this discrimination. Here's more about their plan:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Nelson's Stupak-like Amendment Expected to Fail
Posted by Daniela Perdomo, AlterNet on December 7, 2009 at 4:21 PM.

Ben Nelson (D-NE) is moving forward with his attempt to include anti-abortion language in the Senate health care bill, and his amendment could be voted on as early as today.

The full text of the Nelson amendment confirms that it includes much of the same language as the one penned by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-NE) and included in the final House health care bill.

The key piece in both the Nelson and Stupak amendments is that absolutely no funds appropriated by health care reform can be used for abortion services. This would directly affect all women covered by the proposed government insurance plan, but as I wrote a couple weeks ago, we have good reason to believe that this effect would spillover to women covered by private insurance plans. If the Stupak/Nelson language makes it into the final health care bill, industry-wide abortion coverage could very well be phased out in the longer-term, endangering access to safe abortion services for all who can't afford to pay out of pocket.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Michael Tomasky v. Michael Moore: Whose Afghanistan View is More Imperialist?
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on December 7, 2009 at 3:00 PM.

As I've said before, are no good solutions for the mess that is Afghanistan. But there are some that are less bad than others.  That's why I offer qualified, tentative support for the U.S. military's surge in Afghanistan. The U.S. has done a lot to make that mess, going back to the CIA's role in creating the radical madrassahs -- the religious schools -- that gave birth to the militarized religious extremism one finds in Afghanistan today.

In his open letter to President Obama last week, filmmaker Michael Moore all but accused the president of imperialist designs in his plan to add an additional 30,000 troops to the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. When The Guardian's Michael Tomasky took issue with that characterization, Lindsay Beyerstein blogged (in a Majikthise post picked up by AlterNet), that Tomasky had it all wrong, and accused him of sneering at the presumably earnest Moore. (Well, Tomasky did accuse Moore of producing a gas-filled missive.)

Before I go further, allow me some full disclosure: Tomasky is a friend and my former bossman from the days when I was a columnist and blogger for The American Prospect. Beyerstein is a friend and colleague from my stint at The Media Consortium. Michael Moore is an acquaintance with whom I interviewed for a job some 20 or so years ago.  Don't really know him, but I loved Roger and Me.

Now that that's out of the way, I'm throwing in with Tomasky.

First, I think that the knee-jerk, anti-Afghanistan-war reaction of many on the left is no less imperialistic -- perhaps even more so -- than the case for staying in. I mean, really, how progressive is it to mess with the internal politics -- to the point of arming various factions the better to vanquish one's own enemy -- of an impoverished nation for 30 years, and then leave it broken and abandoned for the second time in three decades?

When progressives make the case that American dollars would be better put to use feeding Americans than helping Afghanistan create a nation out of the wreckage the U.S. helped to create, aren't we just saying that, despite the fact that we suck up more of the world's resources than we deserve, we're better and different than the Afghans? That they somehow deserved their fate? And now that our leaders have so screwed up the global economy that we're feeling it at home, we don't want to spend the money to fix what we broke?

Anti-war progressives are acting as if the U.S. had no history in Afghanistan prior to the 2001 invasion. In his open letter, Moore invokes the disastrous end met by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan as a parallel to the U.S.'s present involvement. He leaves out the part where the end met by the USSR came at the point of Stinger missiles provided by the U.S. to the religious warriors who formed the Soviet Union's opposition, and the U.S. abandonment of Afghanistan after the Soviet defeat.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Right-Wing Billionaire Funding Swift Boat Campaign Against Global Warming Science
Posted by Lee Fang, Think Progress on December 7, 2009 at 2:04 PM.

Right-wing billionaire David Koch, who along with his brother Charles owns the oil and gas empire Koch Industries, constantly presents himself as a champion of science. Next year, a wing of the Smithsonian will be named after him because of his generous donations. Indeed, in accepting Koch’s donations, the Smithsonian Human Origins Program director Rick Potts attempted to whitewash Koch’s philanthropist history:

POTTS: What we find in David Koch is a person who’s committed to doing things for the American public that has no relationship to politics

Koch apparently relishes this perception that his money buys. In an interview earlier this year, Koch pretended that he opposes organizations which politicize and distort science:

Q: What role do you think politics should play in educating the public about evolution?

KOCH: That’s an interesting question. I think politicians should really stay out of it and allow scientists to present the facts and discoveries. I hate to see it politicized.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Shorter Ross Douthat: Europe Wasn't Racist Enough, So Now It Should Worry About Brown Hordes
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on December 7, 2009 at 1:00 PM.

Shorter Ross Douthat: Europe wasn't racist enough, and so now they should be worried about the brown hordes. After arguing that European nations should have done more to restrict Muslim immigration, he concludes that while the end of the West is not near, there is still much to be fearful of:

This is cold comfort, though, if you have to live under the shadow of violence. Just ask the Swiss, who spent last week worrying about the possibility that the minaret vote might make them a target for Islamist terrorism.

They're right to worry. And all of Europe has to worry as well, thanks to the folly of its leaders -- now, and for many years to come.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Thomas Friedman Can't Stop Comparing Afghanistan to a "Special Needs Baby"
Posted by Liliana Segura, AlterNet on December 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM.

If you haven't heard -- and that's a big "if," considering it's everywhere -- New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has come up with a neat new way to understand the situation in Afghanistan. As Friedman metaphors go, it's sure to be a classic, a true stand-out even alongside his most mangled, ridiculous stabs at using figurative language to describe foreign policy. (Consider the time he wrote, about Iraq, “It’s OK to throw out your steering wheel, as long as you remember you’re driving without one.")

Friedman, anyway, is very proud of it. So proud, in fact, he has rolled it out at least twice in the past week.

"I tried to put this in a broader strategic context," he told Chris Matthews on "Hardball" on December 3rd. And where did that lead him?

Chris, as a country, we're like two out-of-work parents who just adopted a special-needs baby.

... Yikes.

So, maybe it a poor choice of words. Maybe after the segment, someone took Friedman aside and whispered that comparing whole countries to disabled infants is just a wee bit offensive -- especially when it comes from a supposed foreign policy expert from the country currently occupying it, a man whose ideas are so Important and Influential, he recently played a round of golf with the president of said occupying country.

Then again, maybe not.

Appearing on the Sunday news programs, Friedman again rolled out his Afghanistan-as-special-needs-baby metaphor, telling CNN's Fareed Zakaria:

I feel like we're like an unemployed couple who just went out and decided to adopt a special needs baby. You know, I mean, that's really kind of what we're doing. And that's like, whoa, you know. That terrifies me.

Yes, Friedman apparently gave it some thought after his "Hardball" episode and decided his metaphor is just right, it IS "kind of what we're doing."

Later, appearing on "Meet the Press" with David Gregory alongside another much-respected journalist, the Bush-chronicling Bob Woodward, Friedman gave the metaphor a rest, instead engaging in a little bit wordplay about the 2011 so-called withdrawal date.

MR. GREGORY:  Does a withdrawal date give the enemy an advantage?  Your analysis on what you've heard the answer on that.

MR. WOODWARD:  But I think, I mean, it's pretty clear that's a non-withdrawal withdrawal date.  Other words, they were talking about...

MR. GREGORY:  A non-denial denial.

MR. WOODWARD:  A non-denial denial.

MR. FRIEDMAN:  It's a known unknown.

MR. WOODWARD:  It, it's a starting point.

MR. GREGORY:  Yeah.

Two Pulitzer Prize winners at work here, folks. Be amazed.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Now for the Moment We've All Been Waiting For ... Copenhagen Talks Officially Begin
Posted by Brian Merchant, TreeHugger on December 7, 2009 at 10:35 AM.

And now, the moment we've all been waiting for--after months of anticipation, speculation, and debating, the global climate talks have officially begun in Copenhagen. TreeHugger is on the ground there, and will be bringing you breaking updates as news unfolds there. But for now, here's a quick primer on what's to be expected at COP15.

As you likely know, the intention of COP15 (the 15th Conference of the Parties) is to construct a framework for a global agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The original goal was to create a legally binding successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, but difficulties in negotiations have rendered that option infeasible. Now, the representatives from 180 nations around the world will instead work on trying to find a viable way forward.

One of the biggest hurdles has been the chasm between rich and developing countries--developing nations want aid and strong carbon reduction targets, and rich countries want them to agree to their own reduction targets before they do so.

But some positive news from the biggest developing nations--China, India, and Brazil--have encouraged the proceedings. Each has pledged to reduce carbon emissions on some level, and Obama has put forward an emissions reduction target based on the climate bill that passed the House of Representatives last summer. At 17% below 2005 levels, it's hardly what the international community was looking for--but it's progress nonetheless. Most importantly, hope seems to be in the air--real progress can be made in the coming days.

To get a better grasp of what's going on at COP15, here's some highly recommended reading:

Getting Up to Speed on COP15
If you've only got a few minutes, read COP15 : What's at Stake in Under 5 Minutes.

To get a sense of the urgency behind the proceedings, see COP15 : What It Means If We Fail to Prevent Climate Change

Paul Krugman's column An Affordable Truth is a well-reasoned call to climate action.

This Guardian editorial ran in 56 newspapers in 20 languages around the world, prodding world leaders to act. It's well worth a read.

Climate Progress's Copenhagen 101 is a useful primer and refresher as well.

And here's how you can help: 7 Best Ways to Help the World Fight Climate Change at COP15

Finally, watch live video of the events at the COP15 website. Gear up, it's going to be an eventful couple weeks.

Uganda's "Kill the Gays" Bill Tied To Rick Warren Mentor
Posted by Bruce Wilson, AlterNet on December 7, 2009 at 8:30 AM.

Critics have called the Anti Homosexuality Bill due to come before "Purpose Driven" Uganda's parliament in early 2010 a "kill the gays bill." As detailed in a new report from a religious right watchdog group, networks tied [1, 2,3] to Rick Warren's mentor and doctoral dissertation advisor have played a major role in organizing and inspiring Ugandan legislators who have spearheaded the legislation, which would mandate the death penalty for homosexual acts.

Homosexuality is already legally a crime in Uganda that can lead to lifetime prison sentences, but the new bill would require the death penalty for something termed "aggravated homosexuality" and might even lead to the execution of HIV positive Ugandan citizens. Rick Warren has refused to denounce the new bill.

As described in the report, Rick Warren's Dissertation Advisor Leads Network Promoting Uganda Anti-Gay Bill, both Rick Warren and C. Peter Wagner have called on their followers to take dominion over the globe, and Rick Warren's efforts in Uganda closely parallel those of his academic mentor Peter Wagner. Mainstream media has glossed over Rick Warren's political extremism but, as shown in a video at the end of this post, in April 2005, before thousands of his church members assembled at California's Anaheim Angels sport stadium, Rick Warren described a "stealth" program for global Christian dominion and encouraged his supporters to embrace the level of dedication shown by followers of Hitler, Lenin, and Mao. [see here for a partial transcript of Warren's April 17, 2005 speech at California's Anaheim Angels Stadium]

In March 2008 Rick Warren designated Uganda as the world's second officially "Purpose Driven" nation. The other is Rwanda. Rick Warren's doctoral thesis adviser C. Peter Wagner leads globally influential religious networks that include, as a prominent "prophet," Founder of TheCall Lou Engle - whose organization played a substantial role in passing California's anti-gay marriage Proposition Eight.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Hey Dems, That Senate Bill You Just Blocked Isn't Something to Celebrate
Posted by John Nichols, TheNation.com on December 7, 2009 at 7:45 AM.

Senate Democrats are celebrating the fact that, in their rush to come up with a scheme to pay for health-care reform, they have blocked an effort to preserve payments to home health agencies that provide nursing care and therapy to homebound Medicare beneficiaries.

Dumb move.

Medicare is one of the most popular, and well-run, health care programs in the world.

It may not be as efficient as it should be.

But this public program is dramatically better run than private insurance firms. And it produces far better results for Americans.

Perhaps most significantly, the Americans for whom Medicare produces results for those older Americans who remain the steadiest voters in off-year elections.

Of course, Saturday's attempt by Republican senators to restore about $42 billion in funding to Medicare's home health-care programs was cynical.

The Grand Old Party has a long history of wanting to slash rather than expand Medicare.

But the Democratic "strategy" of paying for health-care reform by nickle-and-diming Medicare is a fool's errand.

There is no question that Medicare programs can and should be improved. And, yes, efficiencies can be achieved -- especially if profiteering by the private-sector recipients of Medicare money is controlled. Senate Finance Committee chair Max Baucus, D-Montana, may even be right when he says of the assault on home health benefits that: "We are getting the waste out."

But, somehow, that just not have the same ring as the declaration by Senator Mike Johanns, R-Nebraska, that: "The cuts will hurt real people."

Np matter which side is right about the details of these particular cuts, a plan to pay for health-care reform by squeezing Medicare makes no sense when there are so, so, so many better places -- such as the bloated Department of Defense budget or allocated-but-as-yet-unused funds for "rescuing" financial-service industry speculators -- to find money to pay for expanding access to health care.

To begin the health-care debate in the Senate with Democrats celebrating their successful defense of Medicare cuts is madness. What next? Reform education by slashing day-care funding? Address the mortgage crisis by bailing out big banks? (Oops.)

After the GOP amendment failed -- having gained just 41 votes from Republicans and four centrist Democrats -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, tried Saturday to put things in the best light, saying, "The fact is that our bill will, in short, save lives, save money, and save Medicare," Reid said. "It will make it possible for each and every American to afford to live a healthy life. We can't afford not to do this."

But that the GOP television ads in next year's tightest Senate races -- including Reid's reelection race in Nevada -- will talk about Democrats cutting Medicare.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Glenn Beck's Holiday Film is a Box Office Flop
Posted by Space Cowboy, Shakesville on December 7, 2009 at 6:55 AM.

At $20 per ticket, Glenn thought he could get all of his fans and 9/12'ers to buy him a new condo by rallying to the movie theaters to see the film adaptation (i.e. a stage performance with one actor) of his book The Christmas Sweater -- A Return To Redemption. It looks like most people have better things to spend their money on:

In New York, Beck sold 17 tickets. In Boston, another 17. And in Washington, D.C., the hotbed of political activism, his tearful film drew only 30. [...]

The viewing in Lynnwood, WA -- the closest one to Beck's Mount Vernon hometown -- sold out several hours before the show began. Ten miles south, 70 out of 415 seats had been snagged in Seattle, a better turnout than other cities.

Excuse me for a second while I laugh hysterically.

OK. I'm back.

In case anyone is curious what kind of performance art Glenn is capable of, here's a review excerpt:

The Christmas Sweater may seem to be the same kind of run-of-the-mill holiday tale of redemption and hope that we see every year about this time. But considering that the climax involves right-wing talk-show host Glenn Beck, in the guise of a 12 year old version of himself, crying on the stage floor in the fetal position while a large black woman sings hymns to him, I think it might leave viewers with a few more questions than the usual family fare. [...]

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama Advisers Backpedal on Afghanistan: "There Is No Timetable;" "We're Not Talking About an Exit Strategy"
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on December 7, 2009 at 5:45 AM.

In his Afghanistan policy address last week, President Obama said we would "begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011." In a series of in-depth profiles of the behind-the-scenes conversations that took place in the lead-up to this pronouncement, the Washington Post and New York Times report that the President wanted a strategy to get in and get out.

"The military was told to come up with a plan to send troops quickly and then begin bringing them home quickly," the Times writes. “He had asked for a plan to deploy and pull out troops quickly,” writes the Post. Looking at a bell curve that laid out the timetable for the deployment and withdrawal of U.S. troops, Obama reportedly told his advisers: "I want this pushed to the left." The Times writes, "wIn other words, the troops should be in sooner, then out sooner."

But as administration officials touted the President's Afghanistan strategy this morning on the Sunday political talk shows, they underscored that the U.S. troops may not be coming home in 2011:

Gen. David Petraeus: "There's no timeline, no ramp, nothing like that." [Fox News Sunday]

National Security Adviser James Jones: "It is not a cliff. It is a glide slope. And so certainly, the President has also said we are not leaving Afghanistan." [CNN State of the Union]

Defense Secretary Robert Gates: "Well, first of all, I don't consider this an exit strategy. And I try to avoid using that term. I think this is a transition." [ABC This Week]

Watch a compilation:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Get Off John McCain's Lawn!
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on December 7, 2009 at 4:27 AM.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), his near-constant media attention notwithstanding, doesn't seem to be having any fun.

Yesterday, the senator was all worked up about Medicare cost-savings, claiming not to know what "the deal is." Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) rose to explain it to him, and McCain didn't take it especially well.

Note in the video that McCain is incensed by all the lobbyists in the halls of Congress. I guess he liked lobbyists better when he hired dozens of them to run his campaign operation last year.

The confrontation came a day after Senator Hothead told Don Imus, "I'm madder than I've ever been." The comment came in response to a question about the economic recovery package, which McCain called an "outrageous use of taxpayers' dollars."

McCain, whose temperament has always been disturbing, is angrier now than he's ever been because of a recovery package that rescued the economy from collapse? That seems odd.

I'm reminded of something Sen. Thad Cochran (R) of Mississippi said about his long-time colleague last year: "[McCain] is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

Sarah Palin's Own Father Reportedly Said She'd Been "Uncomfortable Around Asians"
Posted by Oliver Willis, Oliver Willis.com on December 6, 2009 at 10:31 PM.

Did Asians Scare Sarah Palin Away From Hawaii?

The evidence sure points in that direction.

Ramesh Ponnurru: Defender of Blastocyst-Americans
Posted by Tintin, Sadly, No! on December 6, 2009 at 6:22 PM.

Blastocyst-worshiping radical Catholicist Ramesh Ponnurru is over at America’s Shittiest Website™ in full-metal-chasuble mode, slinging his rosary at everyone in sight, because the Center for American Progress had the utter temerity to suggest that legislation that would make health care more available might actually be consistent with Catholic theology. Apparently when Jesus healed the sick, he asked for an insurance card first and extracted a promise from all women that he healed that they wouldn’t run out and get an abortion afterwards.

Naturally Ponnuru’s biggest concern is that health care reform might facilitate access to abortions, and he is perfectly willing to see actual human beings die to protect the lives of some innocent blastocysts. In order to get to that result he’s willing to say just about anything, including this splendidly retarded piece of incomprehensibility:

And when the bishops say that all people should have “ready access to quality, comprehensive, and affordable health care,” that doesn’t even mean that they have endorsed universal coverage, let alone a specific legislative attempt to come closer to it. Still less does it mean that Catholic social teaching requires us to support that attempt.

Don’t bother reading that again and trying to make more sense of it on the second go-round. It’s just as preposterous on subsequent readings. According to Ramesh, just because the Bishops say that all people should have health care doesn’t mean that the Bishops are arguing for universal coverage. This might make sense, I suppose, if the universe in universal coverage includes pets and farm animals. Moreover, according to Ramesh, just because Bishops might say that health care is good doesn’t mean that Catholics need to support health care. Of course, when the Bishops say that abortion is bad that is a mandate to oppose abortion. It obviously can be confusing at times to be a radical Catholicist.

UPDATED: Defense Contractor Makes Up Wild Islamic Terrorism Fantasy; Right-Wingers Act Like it's 9/11 All Over Again
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on December 6, 2009 at 11:34 AM.

True story. A right-winger who obviously reads too many of those really hard-core Islamophobic blogs emailed around a detailed account of how he had heroically thwarted a terrorist attack on a flight from Atlanta to Houston.

According to the story, which proliferated on conservative blogs and rose as high up the wingnut food chain as Glenn Beck's website, Ted Petruna was on the AirTrans flight waiting to taxi when he saw a bunch of "Muslims" acting suspiciously. They spoke to each other covertly on their cell phones from different locations within the plane. In Arabic, of course. They refused the crew's orders to turn off the phones; instead, they started watching pornographic films (this is what religious fundamentalists tend to do before launching suicide attacks, according to Petruna). When the group stood up and started walking towards the flight deck, Petruna and a brave fellow Texan who had also noted the suspicious doings of the men took action. They manhandled the outclassed young Muslims into compliance and secured them until Air Marshals boarded the plane and took the group into custody.

Then, shockingly, the airline -- no doubt entirely staffed by PC liberals -- tried to allow the men to board again and resume their journey. But Petruna and a bunch of other fine upstanding Americans had had enough. They threatened airline personnel with violence if they weren't re-booked on other flights. The airline relented, and the flight was canceled.

All of this was of course covered up, as usual, by the terror-loving liberal media.

BradBlog offers a sampling of that feverish meme from Debbie Schlussel, who, when referred to at all, is almost ubiquitously dubbed the "poor man's Ann Coulter":

... she notes that she's spoken to Petruna, so she now knows that [her bold] "it's all true. WAKE. UP. AMERICA. We are under siege."

"As we know," the delightful Schlussel informs us, "authorities think we shouldn’t know about these things. They don’t want us to panic or to be suspicious of Muslims, when they’re busy doing outreach over shawarmeh at 'Ahmed’s Falafel Hut.'"

You know where this is all going, right?

Petruna was never on the airplane in question. He had had a reservation, but missed a connection and couldn't make the flight. There was in fact a group of brown people on the flight Petruna missed. But they were speaking Spanish. One of them didn't understand the crew's instructions to turn off his cell-phone. Crew members asked him and a companion to step off the plane and speak to security personnel, which they did without fuss. There was no altercation. No other passengers had to get involved. No air marshals boarded the plane.

Everything got straightened out, the men got back on and the flight continued to Texas without incident after a 2-hour delay.

Detailed story here, here and here.

It's a typically funny tale of conservative bravery! And I want to highlight a couple of what I think are key chunks  ...

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Krauthammer: My Pants Don't Tingle When Obama Gets On His War-Talk!
Posted by Brad Reed, Sadly, No! on December 5, 2009 at 11:33 AM.

Shorter Chuckles Krauthammer:

Uncertain trumpet

• Obama was insufficiently enthusiastic about escalating a war. Now brown people will laugh at the size of the American penis.

‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™

This is, in a lot of ways, the quintessential neoconservative column. It isn’t enough that Obama send 30,000 troops over to fight the Taliban. No, Obama must provide the neocons with emotional gratification in the form of wanton blood lust. Look at this:

Nonetheless, most supporters of the Afghanistan war were satisfied. They got the policy; the liberals got the speech. The hawks got three-quarters of what Gen. Stanley McChrystal wanted — 30,000 additional U.S. troops — and the doves got a few soothing words. Big deal, say the hawks.

But it is a big deal. Words matter because will matters.

And this is why the neocons will never warm to Obama, no matter how many wars he eventually decides to start. It’s a personality thing, really — Obama likes to give off the air of someone who makes decisions only after careful deliberation and weighing the costs and benefits. The neocons, however, only respect fellow travelers who get funny feelings in their pants when they think about war, people who really get off on the idea of watching other people get blown up. For them, war isn’t merely an act of national defense but an emotional gratification and a validation of their personal strength.

To be fair, I can sympathize with them in some ways. When I used to play StarCraft back in the day, I’d really enjoy sending in a platoon of siege tanks to blow up Zerg encampments. But mercifully for the rest of the world, I learned to get out my primordial thirst for blood through computer games and not through becoming a member of the American foreign policy establishment. If only I’d applied to work at the American Enterprise Institute instead, I could have made quite a name for myself. What could have been and so forth.

Unfriendly Fire: Michael Tomasky Attacks Michael Moore on Afghanistan
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein, Majikthise on December 5, 2009 at 10:00 AM.

Micahel Tomasky accuses Michael Moore of being a fatuous blowhard for criticizing the war in Afghanistan as a doomed imperial adventure. Now, Moore can be a fatuous blowhard, but Tomasky doesn't make the charge stick this time. 

In his open letter to President Obama, Moore warns that Afghanistan has been nicknamed "the graveyard of empires."

Tomasky sneers:

I really don't see what America's mission in Afghanistan has to do with what the British did or what the Soviets did. People love lazy historical parallels, and have a tendency to have over-learned the famous Santayana maxim and believe that invoking it makes them sound smart. But every historical situation is different. Why wouldn't someone with Moore's lefty politics be righteous in the conviction that we owe it to the Afghan people to try to help them establish a proper nation-state for the first time in their history?

Moore doesn't spell out the historical analogy, but the common threads seem obvious to me: The Afghan people have historically been implacably opposed to foreign occupation of any kind and they've been very good at resisting it.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Cops Taze Disturbed, Unarmed Naked Man to Death for "Walking Toward Them'
Posted by Steven D., Booman Tribune on December 5, 2009 at 7:23 AM.

It's simply dreadful how these communist propaganda mouthpieces, like the Salt Lake City Tribune continue to attack our law enforcement officials from using tasers to protect themselves from unarmed naked people. So what if a bipolar guy who could have been taken into custody without the use of deadly force died after being shocked twice by the police because he was "walking toward them?" Mentally disturbed people should know better than to fail to obey a lawful police order immediately. Guy had it coming to him, is what I say.

In June, [Brian Cardall] 32, was returning to Arizona after visiting Utah when he experienced a manic episode brought on by his bipolar disorder. He pulled his car to the side of the road, got out, removed his clothes, and began flagging down vehicles on State Road 59 outside Hurricane.

Cardall's wife gave him medication, called the police, informed the dispatcher of her husband's psychotic condition and the fact that it would take a while for the medicine to take effect. But Cardall ran out of time.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Why the Incoherence of Palin and the Tea-Party Right Is a Logical Outcome of Movement Conservatism
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on December 4, 2009 at 4:55 PM.

"Crunchy" conservative columnist Rod Dreher has discovered to his dismay that many of his fellow righties simply aren't rational:

Whether they realize it, ordinary people have become more comfortable with the idea that truth is relative and that emotion is a reliable and sufficient guide to finding it....

Relativism in this sense is no longer a specialty of the left. Here's the nut of an exchange I've had many times over the past year with fellow conservatives:

"Barack Obama is a Muslim."

"No, he's not."

"You have your opinion; I have mine."

There is no way to argue with this....

I'll ignore the swipe at the left (noting only that I don't know any lefties who really don't believe in the existence of objective truth). I'm deeply amused at Dreher's despair -- from which he moves on to Sarah Palin:

Her mind isn't geared toward resolving basic philosophical contradictions like her observation that corporations and politicians often collude against the common good, and her dogmatic belief in the sanctity of free enterprise. Well, which is it? You can't hymn the majesties of capitalism's "creative destruction" on one page, while proclaiming yourself a staunch defender of traditional families and institutions on another.

Well, Rod, you righties are reaping what you sow.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

December Is National Buy a Book by a Black Author and Give It to Somebody Not Black Month
Posted by Tara Lohan, AlterNet on December 4, 2009 at 3:14 PM.

Just when you thought there was a month for everything! Blogging for Poets & Writers, author Carleen Brice explains why she created National Buy a Book by a Black Author and Give It to Somebody Not Black Month last year:

After all, it's hard for anyone--of any color--to make it as a novelist without the support of a wide audience, which, for black authors, means the support of white folks. That's why I, a black author, started the blog White Readers Meet Black Authors and launched this annual awareness campaign. Whether it's because of a lack of media exposure or the absence of word of mouth, I don't think white readers hear much about black novelists, except for Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, Colson Whitehead, and a few others, so they don't know which of our books they may like.

She's even created a handy guide. If you like Toni Morrison's A Mercy, then try The Book of Night Women by Marlon James. Or if you're a fan of Haruki Murakami's Kafka on the Shore, check out Big Machine by Victor LaValle.

You can find more info on her blog here.  And here's her mission:

Because if you like to read, you should know about all the good books that are out there. I'm telling you: You like it, we write it! I'm not interested in doing any "favors" for authors who write bad books. This isn't about quotas or affirmative action or liberal guilt. This blog isn't about begging for attention from white people. My mission is to spread the word that there are plenty, PLENTY, of great books that not enough people are hearing about. That's my reason.

I'm all for finding great new books and supporting amazing authors. Anyone have other suggestions?

'Demonstrable Idiot Conservative Liar' Pushes Climate Science Pseudo-Scandal
Posted by Thers, Whiskey Fire on December 4, 2009 at 1:51 PM.

In a startling and indeed shocking development, Jonah Goldberg -- of all people! -- writes a pompous column full of stupid lies.

In a long string of embarrassing e-mail exchanges, CRU scientists discuss with friendly outside colleagues, including Penn State University's Michael Mann, how to manipulate the data they want to show the world, and how to hide the often flawed data they don't. In one exchange, they discuss the "trick" of how to "hide the decline" in global temperatures since the 1960s.

That's just a pack of dumb lies. First, global temperatures have not dropped since the 1960s, as highly advanced thermometer technology and sophisticated mathematics of the "this number is higher than that other number" class reveal. Second, the trick was not an attempt to deceive, but to do with an attempt to consider an anomaly in tree ring temperature data. Third, fuck you Jonah Goldberg, you ass.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Sad News: Tom Tancredo Will not Run for Colorado Governor
Posted by Andrea Nill, Think Progress on December 4, 2009 at 12:27 PM.

Despite never officially announcing a run for the Colorado governorship, former congressman and presidential candidate Tom Tancredo (R-CO) indicated in early November that he “fully intend[s] to run.” Earlier this week, former 2008 GOP delegate and Tom Tancredo supporter Crista Huff sent a message to the “Tom Tancredo for Governor” private Facebook group indicating that Tancredo will not be running for governor of Colorado and has instead launched a new project called the American Legacy Alliance:

When contacted by ThinkProgress, Huff stated, “I can’t divulge original sources, but I’m sure it’s also on google.” She declined giving an official statement confirming Tancredo’s decision.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Sen. Ben Nelson Asks Bishops' Blessing on His Anti-Choice Health-Care Amendment
Posted by Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check on December 4, 2009 at 11:21 AM.

Just in case you had any doubt about the direct--and I mean direct--intervention of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in curtailing women's rights in US health reform legislation, here is the latest evidence of how some representatives are working at what appears to be the behest of the bishops.

Congressional Quarterly reports: 

Ben Nelson hardened his stance on abortion language Thursday, stating he would not vote for a health care overhaul unless the bill’s proposed restrictions on insurance coverage for abortions are tightened.  [Though] he had said earlier in the week that abortion language was not a make-or-break proposition in the debate.

If the Stupak Amendment is not passed, Nelson has stated he will join a Republican filibuster against the bill.

Without Nelson, Reid will need at least one Republican to reach the 60 votes he needs to limit debate on the health care overhaul and bring it to a vote. The likeliest candidate is Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, who voted for a version of the legislation approved by the Finance Committee.

But to win their votes Reid will have to:

yield to Snowe’s demands on another contentious issue in the health care debate: the government-run insurance plan, known as the “public option,” that many Democrats want to create to compete with private insurers. Snowe is skeptical of the proposal and has said she will support a public option only if it is structured as a fallback, triggered solely in the event that private insurers fail to offer coverage considered affordable.

Discussions are underway to reach a compromise position in creating a public option similar in some respects to the plan Snowe has outlined.

Nelson and Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) appear to have engaged in a sort of pissing match on who owns the strategy of taking away women's rights in the Senate bill.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Sherrod Brown Calls GOP's Bluff on Health Reform; Ruins Cheap Partisanship of Vitter, Coburn
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on December 4, 2009 at 10:06 AM.

Watching the Senate debate health care reform this week has been pretty frustrating. We've seen enough obstructionism, lying, and grandstanding to last quite a while, and the chamber is just getting started.

But for all the annoyances, there's been at least some entertainment. Take this story, for example.

Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and David Vitter (R-La.) are preparing an amendment to force members of Congress into any public option health plan that becomes law, frustrating at least one Senate Democrat who wants to join the effort.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (Ohio) said he is trying to co-sponsor the amendment -- but that Coburn and Vitter won't let him.

Apparently, Coburn and Vitter, two of the most right-wing members of the chamber, think they have a clever scheme to stick it to those rascally Democrats. "They want a public option so bad?" the argument goes. "We'll show them -- we'll force them to get coverage through a public plan!"

Brown thinks that's a great idea, which basically takes away all of Coburn's and Vitter's fun.

"They've not said yes to allow me to be a co-sponsor," Brown told The Hill on Thursday. "I've called their office four times. I'm proud of the public option, I think it would be great and we ought to join it and show the country how good it is. I think my interest may be more genuine than theirs, but I'd like to work with them if they'll let me. If they just want to score partisan points, I still want to work with them."

So, How Much Do You Have to Pay Someone to Kill Off a Basketful of Cute Little Puppies?
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on December 4, 2009 at 9:30 AM.

This is my new girl, who, at present, is going by the working-title "Daisy":

Cute, huh? 10 weeks old, and she's pretty much got me wrapped around her little paw -- just forget about resisting the Power of the Puppy!

I hadn't planned on getting a baby, but a local animal rescue group came up with a brilliant strategy to get Daisy and her 6 sisters and brothers placed. They invited me to come down to a pet store where they were having an "adoption fair" to meet a 2 year-old mutt who needed a good home. When I got there, I was told that the dog "couldn't come out" that day for some reason. But there was a play-pen brimming with puppies.

The rescue people listened patiently as I went on about how at this point in my life it would be utterly impossible -- foolish, even -- for me to even consider trying to raise a puppy on my own.

Then they asked me if I wanted to sit with them for just a minute -- and they plopped me down in the middle of this mass of wriggling little bundles of fur.

I can't be sure, but it's possible a rainbow appeared at that moment. The serotonin levels spiked. And needless to say I've been cleaning up puppy-poop ever since.

At 6 weeks, Daisy and her litter-mates were rescued from a high-volume shelter just 4 hours before they were going to be put down. As Liliana wrote back in April, animal shelters have seen a surge in new arrivals resulting from the economic crash, and Daisy was among them.

You have to wonder what it says about our society that we have both the puppy-mill, and also an equally horrific industrial process to dispose of our "best friends" by the litter.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Good News on Jobs Front but Still no Signs of a "Robust" Recovery
Posted by Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research on December 4, 2009 at 8:43 AM.

The unemployment rate fell back to 10.0 percent in November as the pace of job loss slowed to 11,000 for the month. Job loss for the prior two months was also revised downward by 159,000, bringing the average rate of job loss over the last three months to 87,000.

The improved jobs picture in the establishment data is explained by a slower rate of job loss in construction and manufacturing, accompanied by a substantial increase in temporary employment. Construction employment fell by just 27,000 in November. It had been falling at a rate close to 60,000 a month recently and a rate of more than 100,000 a month last winter. Nearly all of the decline is in the non-residential sector. This drop may accelerate in future months as non-residential construction declines further, while employment in the residential sector is likely to remain flat.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Jon Stewart on Swiss Minaretaphobia
Posted by Staff, AlterNet on December 4, 2009 at 8:22 AM.

The Jewish Telegraph Agency (Via TPM) reports that Swiss intolerance continues to grow:

A mainstream Swiss political leader is calling for a ban on separate Muslim and Jewish cemeteries.

Christophe Darbellay, president of the Christian Democratic People's Party of Switzerland, made the statement in a television interview Tuesday, two days after Swiss voters passed an initiative to ban minarets.

The anti-minaret initiative came from the opposition ultra-conservative Swiss People's Party and other right-wing political organizations. Critics say Darbellay is starting a "crusade" to attract voters by proposing similarly xenophobic measures.

For a lighter look at this dark story developing in Switzerland, here's Jon Stewart:

10 Companies to Avoid This Holiday Season
Posted by Tara Lohan on December 4, 2009 at 5:00 AM.

Air America put together a list of companies that you should think twice about before handing them your money. Their research is based on descriptions from The Blue Pages: A Directory of Companies Rated By Their Politics And Practices. This is a super handy little book that tells you about companies' environmental, human rights and labor practices and also which political parties they give money to and how much. There are probably hundreds of ‘10 worst' (or best) lists you could come up with from the book, but Air America at least got the ball rolling.

Here's a little info on what they found. You can read the whole thing on their website and you should, there's lots more there. Also check out the book. It's handy to take along shopping. Or maybe it will just be an iPhone app soon anyway (or maybe it is?).

1. Children's Place: "It gets its products from places with human rights and labor violations and had to pay $1.5 million in a settlement alleging that they violated the Securities Act.

2. Hanes: "...went the extra step to be cited for ‘egregious labor violations.'" Oh, and they have not even an attempt at an anti-discrimination policy for sexual orientation and gender identity.

3. JC Penny: "D- on Green America's scorecard and D+ from the NAACP."

4. Limited Brands (this includes Victoria's Secret and Bath & Body Works): "The now scarily common ‘sourced from countries with widespread, well-documented human and labor rights abuses' rears its head here..."

5. IBM: "It's been sued for improperly converting employee pension plans and for exposing them to toxic chemicals." Oh and also for "aiding and abetting South Africa's apartheid regime."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Mitt Romney's Bizarro-World Economic Plan
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on December 4, 2009 at 4:16 AM.

Here's Mitt Romney's "economic plan" (also known as John Galt's wet dream):

•Repair the stimulus. Freeze the funds that haven't yet been spent and redirect them to immediate, private sector job-creation priorities.[More money for me and my friends!]

•Create tax incentives that promote business expansion and hiring. For example, install a robust investment tax credit, permit businesses to expense capital purchases made in 2010, and reduce payroll taxes. These will reignite construction, technology and a wide array of capital goods industries, and lead to expanded employment.[More money for me and my friends!]

•Prove to the global investors that finance America's debt that we are serious about reining in spending and becoming fiscally prudent by adopting limits on non-military discretionary spending and reforming our unsustainable, unfunded entitlements. These are key to strengthening the dollar, reducing the threat of rampant inflation and holding down interest rates.[Less money for sick and old people. And that means more money for me and my friends!]

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Sweden Cutting Aid to Uganda Over 'Appalling' Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on December 3, 2009 at 4:55 PM.

The Ugandan parliament is currently considering an “Anti-Homosexuality Bill,” under which any person “convicted of gay sex is liable to life imprisonment.” If that person is HIV positive or has sex with a minor or a person with a disability, he or she would be found guilty of “aggravated homosexuality” and face the death penalty. Although the U.S. has not yet taken an official position on the bill, other countries are speaking out. Both UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper have called the legislation unacceptable, and now Sweden is adding its voice:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Young People Love Obama, Hate His Policies
Posted by Ari Melber, The Nation on December 3, 2009 at 3:45 PM.

A new Harvard poll finds that President Obama is holding on to his strongest supporters, voters under 30, though they overwhelmingly oppose sending more troops to Afghanistan.

About 58 percent of young voters approve of Obama's job performance, while his approval among all voters recently dipped below 50 percent for the first time. About 66 percent of young voters oppose a build-up in Afghanistan, though this survey was in the field before the President's Westpoint speech.

In fact, the most striking part of the new poll is how young voters disapprove of Obama on issues across the board, yet still support his overall job performance. A briefing from Harvard's Institute of Politics (IOP) crunches the numbers:
The IOP's fall poll indicates 18-29 year-olds are now in line with the general population: a majority of young adults approve of [Obama] generally but disapprove of his handling of major issues asked about in the poll... A majority of 18-29 year-olds also disapprove of his handling of every major issue asked about:

Afghanistan (55% disapprove, 41% approve)

health care (52% disapprove, 44% approve)

the economy (52% disapprove, 44% approve)

Iran (53% disapprove, 42% approve)

and the federal budget deficit (58% disapprove, 38% approve) (emphasis added).

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Conservative Group Expels Lou Dobbs for Loving Illegal Immigrants Too Much
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on December 3, 2009 at 2:43 PM.

Illegal-immigrant lover Lou Dobbs is no longer intolerant enough for the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, a group that used to think it'd be so awesome if Dobbs were President that they raised $660,000 in pledges to fund his run for office. ALIPAC is mad because the former CNN anchor said he endorsed legalizing undocumented immigrants -- a policy he's previously trashed as "shamnesty" -- in an interview with Telemundo two weeks ago.

"Our internal polling shows that over 70% of our supporters are upset with Mr. Dobbs's comments on Telemundo is support of legalizing illegal aliens. ALIPAC opposes any path to citizenship form of Amnesty for illegal aliens currently in the US," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "Therefore we are dropping our support for Lou Dobbs and suspending the fan sites we have created."

That includes: Lou Dobbs for President.org, a website previously used to pull funding for Dobbs' Presidential ambitions, which now sports the same shaming press release featured on the AILPAC site; and the Draft Lou Dobbs for President or Senate Facebook page, where former fans can grieve the latest betrayal of regular hard-working Americans. Here are a few:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

What to Make of Feingold's Nay on the Women's Health Care Amendment
Posted by Daniela Perdomo, AlterNet on December 3, 2009 at 1:44 PM.

Earlier today, the Senate passed an amendment to its health care bill that would ensure insurance companies provide women an extensive package of preventive services. The vote for the clause, introduced by Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), was 61-39.

The New York Times wrote that it passed "with three Republicans joining 56 Democrats and the two independents in favor" -- so the first thing I thought was, "If even two GOP senators voted for it, who the hell were the two Dems that nayed it?"

Considering his threat to introduce a "Stupak-like amendment," pro-lifer Ben Nelson (D-NE), was the first name that came to mind. And I was right. The second, however, was a little puzzling -- Russ Feingold (D-WI). According to OpenCongress, Nelson is one of the senators Feingold votes with least often.

It's not as easy for me to gloss over Feingold's votes as those of most of his colleagues, because he does strike as me as one of the more reasonable members of the Senate. After all, he was among the few that voted against the war in Iraq and the only one to vote against the PATRIOT Act, the legislative antonym of civil liberties.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Troop Withdrawals "Etched In Stone"?
Posted by BarbinMD, Daily Kos on December 3, 2009 at 12:31 PM.

An interesting tidbit from the Political Wire:

Chip Reid asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs if senators were correct calling the July 2011 date for beginning to withdrawal troops from Afghanistan a "target," meaning there was some wiggle room.

Writes Reid: "After the briefing, Gibbs went to the president for clarification. Gibbs then called me to his office to relate what the president said. The president told him it IS locked in -- there is no flexibility. Troops WILL start coming home in July 2011. Period. It's etched in stone. Gibbs said he even had the chisel."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

A Friend of Mine Once Knew a Guy Who Was a Welfare Queen
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on December 3, 2009 at 11:31 AM.

As a good conservative, I understand that programs like food-stamps, which purportedly help the poor, aren’t really about providing nutrition to 1 in 4 American children. Being Americans, these kids obviously don’t lack for nutrition in the first place.

The bleeding-hearts might buy all that mushy stuff about “poor” people “suffering” at the bottom of the economic ladder, but as anyone who's read this influential comic book knows, it’s ultimately about dependency. Hungry children, if such a creature existed in the U.S., would have no incentive to go out and find a job -- to develop themselves and their vocational-skills, as long as the nanny-state just keeps filling up their stomachs for free.

This is basic economics, people.

I know I will be charged with callousness by the PC-crowd for saying as much. And perhaps the accusation would have some merit if a very large share of those receiving food-stamps actually increased their nutritional intake.  

But as anyone who hasn’t been indoctrinated into the liberal media’s poverty narrative knows quite well, if you give a poor person a dollar to buy food, they’re just going to use it to buy fancy sneakers or those gold teeth the inner-city types like to sport.

And because we know this is not only true for a small number of food-stamp recipients, but is in fact very, very common — perhaps bordering on universal — it’s more than enough reason to oppose the program altogether. Heartlessness doesn’t even enter into the equation.

Obviously, whenever one makes a commonsense observation like this, those pointy-headed ivory-tower-liberals start blathering about “evidence.”

But that there is in abundance!

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Warmest Temperatures in Decade: Good News for Immediate Future, Bad News for Not-So-Distant Future
Posted by Steven D., Booman Tribune on December 3, 2009 at 11:02 AM.

Good News: Warmest temperatures in a decade in the northeast mean that millions of people will pay less for heating their homes.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - This is turning out to be the warmest day in parts of the U.S. Northeast in more than a decade, according to weather forecasters.

The Northeast is the world's biggest heating oil market.

DTN Meteorlogix said the mercury in New York City, the biggest population center in the Northeast, would reach 61 degrees F Wednesday, well above a normal high of 48 degrees for this time of year.

You know, my heating bills have been lower than the last several years so far. So what's the bad news? It's only going to get hotter in the years to come because the proposed green house gas emissions cuts are far too low to prevent global warming from rising at an ever faster rate:

WASHINGTON — Promises by the U.S. and other industrialized countries to cut the emissions causing global warming are insufficient to avoid the worst effects of climate change, the United Nations climate chief said Wednesday. [...]

"The air and the oceans are warming, mountain glaciers are disappearing, sea ice is shrinking, permafrost is thawing, the great land ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are losing mass, and sea level is rising," [John Holdren, the top scientist at the White House] said in the testimony he submitted for the hearing of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

"We know the primary cause of these changes beyond any reasonable doubt. It is the emission of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants . . . and from deforestation and other forms of land-use change that move carbon out of soils and vegetation and into the atmosphere."

The vast majority of scientists who've studied the climate judge that failure to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases quickly "is overwhelmingly likely to lead to changes in climate too extreme and too damaging to be adequately addressed by any adaptation measures that can be foreseen," Holdren said.

Hey, even the Governator agrees with them deceitful, lying eco-terrorist climatologists:

In 2100, Fisherman's Wharf would become Fisherman's Bay, the baseball diamond at AT&T Park would flood and two major Bay Area airports would better serve seaplanes under a climate change model unveiled Wednesday by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Google.

The governor released a new report determining that global warming, left unabated, would lead to higher sea levels, greater wildfire risks and less water supply over the next century, based on research compiled by the California Energy Commission.

You know that story about the ant and the grasshopper? We are all grasshoppers now, my friends, when it comes to global climate change. But hey, I'm saving money this year so who cares? Right?

Oh, and Ahnold? Prepare to be teabagged buddy.

GOP Congressman Opposes Timeline Because Afghanistan Extremists 'Wait Centuries to Get Even'
Posted by Zaid Jilani, Think Progress on December 3, 2009 at 9:43 AM.

Earlier this week, President Obama announced that he will be sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. While many on the right praised him for deciding on a troop surge in the central Asian country, others attacked him for suggesting that American troops will begin drawing down from the country within 18 months. The Orlando Sentinel reports that one GOP congressman, Rep. John Mica (R-FL), had a particularly absurd attack on the the idea of a timetable, claiming that setting a withdrawal timeline would be a mistake because militants in Afghanistan patiently “wait centuries to get even“:

“I’m taken aback by his deadline,” said U.S. Rep. John Mica, R-Winter Park. “These guys wait centuries to get even. Eighteen months is nothing for them.”

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Memo to Tom Hayden: Obama Said He'd Escalate in Afghanistan During the Election
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on December 3, 2009 at 8:40 AM.

I can excuse some college kid for this but it is completely absurd coming from a man of Tom Hayden's age and experience:

Tom Hayden, the liberal activist best known for his work in the 60's, when he helped found Students for a Democratic Society, was once pretty enthusiastic about Barack Obama. Back in March of 2008 he had the first byline on an article in the Nation -- also attributed to Bill Fletcher Jr., Danny Glover and Barbara Ehrenreich -- that began, "All American progressives should unite for Barack Obama."

 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

It's Not About the Deficit, It's About Jobs
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on December 3, 2009 at 8:00 AM.

The White House jobs summit kicks off today, though expectations for major breakthroughs are fairly low. The event will reportedly feature "130 corporate executives, economists, small-business owners and union leaders to the White House to sound out ideas for accelerating job growth during the worst labor market in a generation." It can't hurt to kick some ideas around, but it's hard to imagine meaningful new policy proposals emerging from the forum.

The Washington Post report on the summit, however, noted that Obama administration officials are "unwilling to make any investments that would add significantly to the nation's ballooning deficit." Labor leaders have put forward ideas -- aid to cash-strapped states, more funding for infrastructure projects -- but "taken together, those initiatives could cost hundreds of billions of dollars -- a tab Obama seems unwilling to shoulder."

It reminded me of something Dean Baker said via email this week. (I'm republishing his note with his permission.)

Remember the Bush vs. Clinton debates in 1992? The highlight of the townhall debate was when a young woman asked President Bush how the debt affected him personally. He gave the normal answer about how he worries about his grandchildren blah, blah, blah.

The woman looked at Bush like he was from Mars. Then Clinton stepped up and asked the woman whether she knew people who lost their jobs. She said yes. Then Clinton went on to say that as governor of a small state, when there were layoffs, he almost certainly knew some of the people affected.

This was the sort of answer the woman was looking for. She had asked a question about the debt, but she was really asking about the economy. I think that discussions of the debt are often a placeholder for concerns about the economy.

I looked up the transcript of that '92 debate, and Dean's description is spot-on. The specific question was, "How has the national debt personally affected each of your lives. And if it hasn't, how can you honestly find a cure for the economic problems of the common people if you have no experience in what's ailing them?"

Bush started talking about interest rates, and then transitioned to talking about his grandchildren. He eventually said, "I'm not sure I get it. Help me with the question and I'll try to answer it."

The moderator intervened: "I think she means more the recession, the economic problems today the country faces rather than the deficit."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

A Look at the Shady Morals of NY State Senator Hiram Monserrate Who Opposed Marriage Equality
Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe on December 3, 2009 at 3:02 AM.

I’ve made my views on Ruben Diaz fairly clear. One jackass I’ve focused less on is Hiram Monserrate, a New York state senator who was one of eight Democrats to vote “no” on the marriage equality bill that failed today. Mr. Monserrate was too cowardly to speak on the senate floor about marriage equality, and instead chose to cast his “no” vote without explanation. So while Mr. Monserrate is projecting his “moral values” onto the rest of us, it’s worth pointing out that those morals include slashing his girlfriend’s face with a broken beer bottle, which required 20 to 40 stitches to close. That was before he violently dragged her, while she was bleeding, through the lobby of their building to take her to the ER. What a guy. (Did you catch that it’s their building? That is, they live together. Unmarried. I think my grandma calls that “in sin.” Just sayin).

Because he was only found guilty of misdemeanor assault, he was able to keep his senate seat. Because he was able to keep his senate seat, he was able to vote against marriage equality today.

You can call Mr. Monserrate’s district office at (718) 205-3881, and his Albany office at (518) 455-2529. Tell him that your moral values embrace equality and deplore violence.

And when it’s re-election time, throw a few dollars toward Jose Peralta. I know I will.

Ben Nelson Will Introduce Stupak-Like Amendment, Threatens Filibuster
Posted by mcjoan, Daily Kos on December 3, 2009 at 1:08 AM.

Ben Nelson plans on introducing a bill "as identical to Stupak as it can be," according to CongressDaily (sub. req.). The amendment will receive the support of Bob Casey, according to CongressDaily's Anna Edney, who had a brief conference call with bloggers Tuesday afternoon.

The Hill also reported on Nelson's intentions.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bernie Sanders Puts Official Senate Hold on Bernanke Nomination
Posted by David Sirota, Open Left on December 2, 2009 at 7:23 PM.

Per Chris's whip count on the Bernanke nomination, this is pretty huge news from my old boss:

WASHINGTON, December 2 - Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today placed a hold on the nomination of Ben Bernanke for a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

"The American people overwhelmingly voted last year for a change in our national priorities to put the interests of ordinary people ahead of the greed of Wall Street and the wealthy few," Sanders said. "What the American people did not bargain for was another four years for one of the key architects of the Bush economy."

Ya know, with Republicans and corporate Democrats happily using the Senate power of obstruction so much to stop progressive priorities, it's about time progressive Senators start using that same power of obstruction for progressive ends.

Erik Prince Quitting Blackwater to Teach High School History and Economics
Posted by Alex Seitz-Wald, Think Progress on December 2, 2009 at 4:26 PM.

 Xe (formerly Blackwater) founder and CEO Erik Prince is cutting ties with the company. A spokeswoman for the company said today that Prince will relinquish involvement in its day-to-day operations and give up some of his ownership rights. The company has been shelling out $2 million a month in legal fees to cope with a slew of federal investigations and civil lawsuits stemming from, among other incidents, the “unprovoked and unjustified” killing of 17 Iraqi civilians. Prince told Vanity Fair that after years of serving his country, “someone threw me under the bus”:

Prince has become a scapegoat for some of the Bush administration’s misadventures in Iraq. … Congressmen and lawyers, human-rights groups and pundits, have described Prince as a war profiteer, one who has assembled a rogue fighting force capable of toppling governments. … “I put myself and my company at the C.I.A.’s disposal for some very risky missions. … But when it became politically expedient to do so, someone threw me under the bus. … I’m an easy target.”

Prince said he is instead “going to teach high school.” “History and economics,” he said. “I may even coach wrestling. Hey, Indiana Jones taught school, too.”

NY Senate Votes Down Same-Sex Marriage, Anti-Gay Group Declares Victory For God (And Asks For Money)
Posted by Liliana Segura, AlterNet on December 2, 2009 at 2:40 PM.

No sooner did the New York State Senate vote down same-sex marriage (against promising odds) than the self-appointed morality police declared it a victory for God, one that "will reverberate up and down America, putting the fear of God -- and the American voter -- into the hearts of weak-kneed and weak-willed politicians everywhere."

Those are the triumphant words, anyway, of the National Organization for Marriage, the non-profit organization that, among other projects, created the much parodied "Gathering Storm" TV ad whose self-consciously multicultural cast warned of the looming menace of terrifying! freedom-robbing! same-sex marriage, with all the maturity and lyrical depth of a middle school poetry contest. ("There's a storm gathering / the clouds are dark / the winds are strong / and I am afraid.")

Yes, the NOM has a way with words. In a message to its supporters -- "Dear Friend of Marriage" -- Executive Director Brian S. Brown could barely contain his glee that gay New Yorkers will continue to be denied the right to marry the people they love. "The New York state senate just rejected gay marriage 38 to 24," he cried. "Praise God!"

And thank you. NOM spent $600,000 reaching out to voters through phone calls and television and radio ads to make sure politicians heard from ordinary voters like you.

Gay marriage inevitable? Don’t believe the lie! You can make a difference and we at NOM are so proud to work with you and millions of other ordinary Americans who know in their hearts that marriage IS the union of husband and wife.

Brown continued his letter as any good victory speech would, by thanking the various individuals who made it all possible, reserving special mention for Bronx Republican Ruben Diaz "who was in his office praying before the vote and has been a true leader on this issue."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Can You Say Irony? Glenn Beck Offers Insight Into Conspiracy Theories
Posted by Simon Maloy, Media Matters for America on December 2, 2009 at 1:32 PM.

Stephen Colbert: Why Doesn't Obama Listen to Glenn Beck and My Little Pony?
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on December 2, 2009 at 1:00 PM.

Clearly, Obama should listen to the military advice of "My Little Pony," who, like Glenn Beck, believes Obama should commit more troops to Afghanistan. 

NY Times: Af-Pak Speech Pitched to "Rank-and-File Americans" ... WTF?
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on December 2, 2009 at 12:15 PM.

NY Times reporter Jeff Zeleny knocked this out on the Times' blog last night, soon after Obama's Af-Pak speech:

The words from the president, which at times were soaring, seemed to do very little to settle the discontent from the left ...

As for the most important audience – rank-and-file Americans – it will take a few more days to get a reliable read from opinion polls of how people viewed the speech.

So we have "the left", juxtaposed against a very odd construct: "rank-and-file Americans." The latter, apparently non-ideological, are themselves part of the war effort.

As a citizen, I don't even know my rank, and I guess that's what makes me a leftist.

Now here's a very interesting fact. You could, if you so desired, go down to your local major university and enroll in an international relations program. You could sign up for a class called something like: Foreign Policy Analysis 110 -- the basics. In it, a learned professor would explain that in foreign policy, conservatives are, above all, "humble." Foreign policy conservatives believe "hubris" is the ultimate trap. They don't believe in nation-building, launching adventurous expeditions to stabilize the basket-cases of the international system or using military might to advance human rights.

Liberals, you'd be told, are the internationalists. They believe in humanitarian intervention -- in using force to prevent governments from egregiously violating their citizens' human rights. They believe in democracy's power to bring peace and reconciliation to war-torn, traumatized populations, and would, when the circumstances require, use force to impose it (or they'd say to impose an environment in which democracy can grow).

By the way, these ideological tendencies were more or less evident in U.S. foreign policy until recently -- the rise of the neocons, and the ideological reshuffling about war and peace that followed Vietnam, have obscured the philosophical differences between liberal and conservative approaches to international relations.

And contra Zeleny's narrative, traditional foreign-policy conservatism still exists in a segment of the right. Think Ron Paul, Paul Craig Roberts, Pat Buchanan, etc. -- where do they fit?

Anyway, that's neither here nor there. One could argue that it's unfair to take a reporter to task for a late-evening blog post -- that's first-draft publishing, and perhaps Zeleny would have chosen his words more carefully. But this is not a semantic point -- the labels reporters choose for a story guide the way readers receive it. "Rank-and-file Americans" suggests hard-working "real" people, as distinct not from rational thinkers who have calculated that the Afghanistan conflict is an unwinnable mess, but "leftists" -- presumably non-real Americans, elitists, weirdos from San Francisco, etc.

This kind of subtle framing is commonplace. Part of the reason I highlighted this little nugget is that I'd just read this post by Jamison Foster over at Media Matters yesterday, taking a WaPo reporter to task for similarly bizarre labeling:

Last week, Washington Post reporter Perry Bacon suggested GOP Sen. George Voinovich would vote against health care reform because he is a "strong fiscal conservative."  As I noted at the time, that's an odd use of the label "fiscal conservative," given that health care reform would, according to the Congressional Budget Office, reduce the deficit.

Well, today, a Post reader asked Bacon about that:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

NY Set to Legalize Gay Marriage
Posted by Kos , Daily Kos on December 2, 2009 at 11:02 AM.

Afghanistan and Pakistan: Not Just About Al Qaeda Any More
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on December 2, 2009 at 9:49 AM.

Listening to the president's speech last night, you may have come away thinking that the U.S. mission in South Asia was largely about depriving al Qaeda its bases of operation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "Our overarching goal remains the same:  to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future," said President Barack Obama.

This is the mission Congress authorized President George W. Bush to pursue in 2001.

Yet if you listened to the subtext of the speech, you might find that the mission has changed. In fact, you might say that the mission in Afghanistan is as much about creating stability in Pakistan -- a nuclear power that NBC's Andrea Mitchell yesterday referred to as a nearly failed state -- as it is about Afghanistan. Last night, a senior administration official confirmed to AlterNet that the U.S. mission to Pakistan has broadened.

From the president's speech:

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly.  Those days are over.  Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear.  America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development.  We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting.  And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

In truth, the largest threat to the U.S. from Pakistan is not al Qaeda, or even, as the president suggested, the "cancer" of extremism spilling over the Pakistan border from Afghanistan. The real threat is Pakistan's homegrown extremists, who have always been there, and with the shakiness of Pakistan's democracy, have been emboldened. Bomb attacks on civilians by Pakistani Taliban and its allies in cities across Pakistan reached a fever pitch in October and early November.  Yet the attacks appear to have been fueled, in part, by U.S. military policy in the region.

Drone attacks on villages in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Provinces -- attacks that appear to be part of a covert U.S. program -- have enraged local Pashtun leaders. After a bomb attack in a Peshawar bazaar killed more than 100 on October 28, a Pashtun-language banner was unfurled that condemned the purchase of a local luxury hotel by the U.S. for use as a consulate by equating the U.S. government with the mercenary force that provides security for U.S. aid projects in the region. "Handing the Pearl Continental to Blackwater is a grave injustice," the banner read, according to Assam Ahmed of the Christian Science Monitor.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Who Is Wiser, Thomas Friedman or a Dead Crustacean?
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on December 2, 2009 at 8:13 AM.

I'm sure you either read it - sorry! -- or already heard about the latest by the New York Times' Thomas Friedman, AKA the "Mustache of Understanding":

Yes, after two decades in which U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny — in Bosnia, Darfur, Kuwait, Somalia, Lebanon, Kurdistan, post-earthquake Pakistan, post-tsunami Indonesia, Iraq and Afghanistan — a narrative that says America is dedicated to keeping Muslims down is thriving.

But you may have missed the Medium Boiled Lobster, writing on Fafblog:

Indeed, it remains America's solemn duty as the leader of the free world to bring freedom and security to the Afghan people by hunting down and eliminating the Afghan people... But we must also remember that the Afghans, menaced even though they are by the evil of the Afghans, are not blameless here. Have they sufficiently appreciated our efforts to kill them? No, they have not. Have they effectively and efficiently rebuilt their nation whenever we've had cause to blow it up? No, they have not. Have they become full and effective participants in the ongoing mission to kill them? No, they have not. It is long past time for the people of Afghanistan to step up their efforts to kill themselves, and not merely rely on American generosity to finish the job for them.

Both are qualified to be leading public intellectuals in the U.S., but the second author tastes better with drawn butter.

More GOP Hypocrisy on Health Care (Video)
Posted by Victor Zapanta, Think Progress on December 2, 2009 at 6:15 AM.

On the Senate floor yesterday, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made a request on behalf of Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) that senators proposing amendments to the health care bill place the text of their amendments online. Immediately following Reid’s request, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) took to the floor to object to the transparency proposal. Enzi’s argued that, although the bill appears to lead to greater transparency, “we can also see ways that this can limit the ability for the minority to offer amendments.” Watch it:

Lincoln “issued a statement chastising Republicans for blocking efforts at government transparency.” Just weeks ago, the Republican Party lined up to accuse Democrats of opposing greater transparency. In October, the RNC and the House Republican Conference churned out YouTube videos to attack Democrats for working “behind closed doors.” A week later, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) attacked Democrats, saying that “instead of listening to the American people, Democrats hid behind closed doors.” Similarly, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell recently complained that the health care bill was “drafted behind closed doors.”

DC Council Passes Marriage Equality, 11-2
Posted by Adam Bink, Open Left on December 2, 2009 at 5:00 AM.

This morning the DC Council passed legislation legalizing marriage equality. The vote was 11-2. The two against were former Mayor Marion Barry and Yvette Alexander. Neither vote was surprising, and both had been active in trying to weaken the bill or put it to a ballot vote. What is heartening is how many Councilmembers stood up for equality today, and stood firm in the face of the Washington Archdioecese's recent disingenuous blackmail threats to cut off charity services.

On the religious note, even better was that the lead sponsor, Chairman Mendelson, adopted a proposed amendment by GLAA, one of the local LGBT activist groups, and other supporting organizations. It would delete the words "same-sex" from the following bill text (bolding mine):

"a religious society, or a nonprofit organization which is operated, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, facilities, or goods for a purpose related to the solemnization or celebration of a same-sex marriage, or the promotion of same-sex marriage through religious programs, counseling, courses, or retreats, that is in violation of the religious society's beliefs."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Beat the Pundits
Posted by Staff, AlterNet on December 1, 2009 at 6:19 PM.

Remarks of President Barack Obama—As Prepared for Delivery

The Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan

United States Military Academy at West Point

December 1, 2009

Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan – the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here – at West Point – where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban – a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them – an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 – the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Updated: Corporate Grinch: GE Threatens to Kill Christmas Rather than Negotiate with Workers in Good Faith
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on December 1, 2009 at 4:27 PM.

So, it's a liberal War on Christmas, is it?

Press release:

NBC’s failure to bargain fairly with the union that represents nearly 3,000 of the network’s producers, writers and technicians has put the lighting of the world's most famous Christmas tree at serious risk. In an attempt to save the annual “Christmas in Rockefeller Center” special, the union launched a new website today – http://NBCStoleChristmas.com – that highlights the “Grinch” within NBC.

National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (NABET-CWA) Local 11 president Ed McEwan said the union is angry about stalled negotiations for a new contract. NABET-CWA’s prior contract expired in March, and there has been very little progress since talks began more than a year ago. In the meantime, management has grown increasingly hostile, ignoring the concerns of the union’s membership.

“We can’t let the Grinch at NBC steal another Christmas from thousands of honest working people,” said McEwan. “This charade must stop. Christmas is supposed to be a time of goodwill, but the network’s management is trying to hide behind their fancy lights while leaving their employees in the dark.”

Hoping that further contract negotiation dates can be set without a full strike during NBC’s Christmas tree lighting, the broadcast technicians are using online advertising and text messaging to promote their efforts. Updates on NABET-CWA’s campaign are available by texting “Grinch” to 228466 or by registering their cell phone numbers at the new website.

The union’s principal goal is to protect job security from the network’s attempts to dismantle how technical work is assigned, so that NBC’s employees who primarily perform those tasks are allowed in the bargaining unit.

In an earlier life, I used to do film and video production and post-production in New York. Union crews are good, fast, know their shit and cost a lot. We'd always work with them, and we'd build their highly skilled labor costs into the budget. We'd make money, the crew would make money, and our clients would not only get good product but, ultimately, whether they knew it or not, better value for their dollar than if we had paid peanuts to hire some monkeys.

Update: This is American; the union caved, and issued a press release about how its members had "saved Christmas." PR victory, I suppose.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Why Is Politico Coddling Dick Cheney Again?
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on December 1, 2009 at 3:45 PM.

CHENEY STENOGRAPHY.... By some accounts, White House aides aren't especially impressed with Politico. It's understandable.

Take this morning, for example, where the lead Politico story, kicking off coverage of President Obama's speech on the future of U.S. policy in Afghanistan, is a lengthy chat with the corrupt, incompetent clown who helped create the mess the president is trying to clean up.

On the eve of the unveiling of the nation's new Afghanistan policy, former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed President Barack Obama for projecting "weakness" to adversaries and warned that more workaday Afghans will side with the Taliban if they think the United States is heading for the exits. [...]

Cheney rejected any suggestion that Obama had to decide on a new strategy for Afghanistan because the one employed by the previous administration failed.

Cheney was asked if he thinks the Bush administration bears any responsibility for the disintegration of Afghanistan because of the attention and resources that were diverted to Iraq. "I basically don't," he replied without elaborating.

And in response, Politico didn't elaborate either. Sure, the piece does a fine job of publishing all of the various, baseless attacks against the White House trying to clean up Cheney's messes, but the article makes no meaningful effort to tell the reader why the depraved rhetoric falls somewhere between literally unbelievable and hopelessly insane.

During the interview, Cheney laced his concerns with a broader critique of Obama's foreign and national security policy, saying Obama's nuanced and at times cerebral approach projects "weakness" and that the president is looking "far more radical than I expected."

"Here's a guy without much experience, who campaigned against much of what we put in place ... and who now travels around the world apologizing," Cheney said. "I think our adversaries -- especially when that's preceded by a deep bow ... -- see that as a sign of weakness."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Texas Toy Drives Check the Immigration Status of Families Before Handing Out Gifts
Posted by Ryan Watkins, Think Progress on December 1, 2009 at 2:27 PM.

Several charities in the Houston area are checking the immigration status of needy families before giving out toys this holiday season. The charities claim that given the jump in demand this year — over 30,000 children have registered with the Salvation Army’s Angel Tree program, an increase of over 20 percent from last year — they want to be “good stewards” and get the donations to people who are in the country legally. From the Houston Chronicle:

In a year when more families than ever have asked for help, several programs providing Christmas gifts for needy children require at least one member of the household to be a U.S. citizen. Others ask for proof of income or rely on churches and schools to suggest recipients.

The Salvation Army and a charity affiliated with the Houston Fire Department are among those that consider immigration status, asking for birth certificates or Social Security cards for the children. [...]

The Outreach Program requires parents to show photo identification and birth certificates or Social Security cards for the children. [The Outreach Program's Lorugene] Young said she makes an exception if parents can show they have applied for legal status or that a child is enrolled in school.

2011: Obama's Plan for Escalation and Withdrawal in Afghanistan
Posted by Meteor Blades, Daily Kos on December 1, 2009 at 1:59 PM.

In a background-only White House briefing – no names for publication - administration officials this afternoon provided some details on what Barack Obama, in his role as Commander in Chief, will say in his speech on Afghanistan in a few hours.

He will reaffirm his core goal as announced in March – to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" al Qaeda and prevent their return.

To carry out the policies the President has chosen, 30,000 more U.S. troops will be sent, adding to the 33,000 sent since March, and setting the full deployment at 98,000. By week’s end, NATO’s secretary-general is expected to announce a still-undecided troop increase from that organization. As there are 42,000 NATO troops already in place, the increase is likely to bring the full array of Western forces in Afghanistan close to 150,000.

The U.S. troops will be in place by summer 2010. It was pointed out that this is faster than any of the options the President was presented with by General Stanley McChrystal in his strategic assessment presented in late August.

These troops will focus on defeating al Qaeda and reversing the momentum of the Taliban, which has been steadily growing ever since the Bush administration moved resources to the Iraq war in 2003. They will seek to secure key areas in the southern portion of the country, train Afghan military forces and try to build a new partnership with the government.

The plan is to begin transferring authority for security to Afghan forces by July 2011. But it was made repeatedly clear that this is only the starting date for such a transfer. The speed of the transfer, and its completion date, will depend on progress on the ground. While some have said that three years is the goal, an administration official that no such number will be included in the speech. After July 2011, how fast the process runs will be the President's call.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Why Do Mainstream Media Suck Up to Pastor Rick Warren?
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on December 1, 2009 at 1:27 PM.

One of the most maddening things about covering the religious right as a progressive journalist is watching the mainstream media suck up to the leading figures of the religious right, as if, because they are self-declared men of God, they are somehow beyond reproach. Nowhere was this phenomenon more on display than this weekend's edition of NBC's Meet the Press, in host David Gregory's interview of Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, and author of the Purpose-Driven Life.

The premise for the interview was not anything newsworthy that Warren had done, but rather the True Meaning of Thanksgiving, which Warren was happy to illustrate with examples of his own generosity. Warren even compared himself, with no challenge from the host, to King Solomon. And MTP producers gave Warren a full half of the program, without any balance offered by a liberal religious figure.

In fact the one newsworthy thing Warren has done recently -- lend tacit support to a proposal for the criminalization of homosexuality in Uganda -- never came up in Gregory's interview. This controversy has been around for a while. At Religion Dispatches, Sarah Posner reported it on November 3, and the think tank Political Reseach Associates issued an October 29 press release calling on Warren to denounce the draconian law, which would include the death penalty for HIV-infected people who have sex of any kind, and would "authorize...life imprisonment for gay sex," according to Posner, who called Warren for comment on the law. What she got back was a statement from Warren saying he took no position on the Uganda law, which would also criminalize organizing for LGBT rights.

The closest Gregory came to this issue was to ask Warren if his AIDS-mitigation work had altered his views of gay people:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

GA Jail Goes Pink to Deter Repeat Offenders
Posted by Tara Lohan, AlterNet on December 1, 2009 at 12:45 PM.

This may be one of the most asinine things I've heard yet, but the sheriff of Georgia's Ben Hill County jail has decided to make everything in the jail pink:

Pure Pepto Bismol Pink will cover every wall inside the jail.

"We are also going to have pink shower shoes, pink wash clothes, pink towels, pink sheets and pink blankets," said jail administrator Martin Hough.

If you're wondering why:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Someone Is Finally Taking Our Busty Bikini-Clad Barista Crisis Seriously
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on December 1, 2009 at 12:25 PM.

Like most straight dudes, I simply hate breasts on attractive young women. 

So this comes as quite a relief to me:

Laws aimed at shielding the public from X-rated behavior by employees and customers at drive-through espresso stands are scheduled for a possible vote at a Snohomish County Council hearing this week.

A licensing ordinance would brand businesses adult entertainment if baristas bare too much flesh. The county also is considering a tougher version of its criminal law on lewd conduct. The new rules would apply to all businesses, not just the ones peddling cups of Joe.

[Hat-tip to Oliver Willis, who often offers sober dispatches from the hot-chick newsbeat.]

It's interesting how our perspectives shape the way we read a story like this one. I approached it with the assumption that it was going to be about just the usual 'won't somebody please think of the children!' conservative hypocrisy about sexual morality.

But then I realized that only one of the two measures described in the story really fits that description, and I actually have no truck with the other.

This first one, expanding the definition of "lewd behavior" in the criminal code, seems superfluous (there are already laws against indecent exposure). And if it's not an abridgment of citizens' 1st Amendment rights, it at least provides a slippery-slope in that direction:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Protesters Drown Out Hate-Mongering Arizona Sheriff With Pro-Immigration Version of "Bohemian Rhapsody"
Posted by Byard Duncan, AlterNet on December 1, 2009 at 11:14 AM.

The racist follies and unabashed media whoredom of Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio have been thoroughly documented (see here and here), and are certainly no joke. The man has been the target of more than 2,700 civil rights complaints and has neglected around 40,000 felony warrants so as to better “crack down” on illegal immigration. Just last February, he paraded a group of shackled people through Phoenix in order to promote his reality TV program.

Clearly a bad dude. The type of super-villain, it so happens, who deserves to be drowned out by a pro-immigrant take on Bohemian Rhapsody, sung by around 100 protesters at an ASU event. Via the Phoenix New Times:

The following are some of the lyrics sung by about a half-dozen warblers, lyrics that ultimately caused both the esteemed journalists and Arpaio to rise from their seats and call it a day. Play the Queen song in your head as you read:

Is this legitimate? Is this atrocity? Caught up in politics. No sense of reality. Open your eyes. Look down to the south and see...The border stops brown folks, they cannot cross the line. But its easy come, easy go, for the rich, n' their cargo. Anyway the migrants flow, doesn't really matter to me..To me...

Now jump to the big finish, double-time:

So you think you can jail me and spit in my eye. So you think you can hate me and leave me to die. Oh Arpeeo-cant do this to me Arpeeo. Just gotta get out-just gotta get out of Tent City. Media only matters, Anyone can see. Attention only matters. Ego only matters to he...

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Positioning for Re-Election, Many Dems Have Begun Criticizing Obama's Afghan Escalation
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on December 1, 2009 at 10:00 AM.

Even before President Obama formally announces his plan to surge more than 30,000 additional U.S. troops into Afghanistan, Democrats who want to win elections are campaigning against it.

The next big election for Democrats is the Massachusetts primary organized to fill the U.S. Senate seat of the late U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy.

The leading candidates in next Tuesday's primary are scrambling to appeal to the party's base voters in a state that gave overwhelming support to Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election.

But the candidates are not presenting themselves as enthusiastic backers of the president's military adventuring abroad.

In fact, they are doing the opposite.

Congressman Mike Capuano, who has attracted the support of anti-war activists in groups such as Progressive Democrats of America, is up on television with a commercial that trumpets his anti-war stance.

In it, the congressman recalls his vote against authorizing the war in Iraq and then says: "Now there's a call for more troops in Afghanistan, but the questions remain: What's our mission? How do we define success? And what's our exit strategy? Without the right answers to those questions, I will never vote to send more of our sons and daughters to war. Never!"

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Harlem Gospel Choir Pulls Out of Glenn Beck Event
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on December 1, 2009 at 8:40 AM.

The renowned Harlem Gospel Choir was scheduled to perform the opening act for the simulcast film of Glenn Beck’s novel “The Christmas Sweater — A Return to Redemption,” which premiers Thursday in theaters nationwide. But the choir has pulled out of the event, citing financial reasons. However, the New York Daily News reports that the likely motivation for the choir’s decision has more to do with Beck’s hateful statements:

James Rucker, executive director of Color for Change — which has helped persuade more than 80 advertisers to ditch Beck’s show — said the group did an about-face after he called the choir.

“We wanted to make sure they understood who Beck was,” Rucker said. “We believe their mission is about spreading the Gospel and and promoting harmony, and we thought Beck was the antithesis of that.” […]

Rucker sent the choir excerpts from some of Beck’s shows, including one where he said President Obama “has a deep-seated hatred for white people.”

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Enjoyed the Health-Care Debate? We'll Keep Chasing Our Tails Until We Start Taking American Democracy Seriously
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on December 1, 2009 at 6:30 AM.

If you talk about campaign finance reform or the clean elections model, or decry how corrupt the relationship between lobbyists and lawmakers has become, people's eyes glaze over. It's boring.

When you point out that Americans would never for a second accept a choice of only two flavors of ice cream, and ask why in the world we can let these two not-terribly-responsive parties have a stranglehold on our government and call ourselves a democracy -- if you suggest we might consider a parliamentary system, so people who don't fit neatly into one of two "big tents" can be represented -- you obviously belong to the fringe.

Instant runoff voting to eliminate the 3rd-party "spoiler" problem? That's not a serious policy proposal. Restoring voting rights for felons who've served their debt to society? That's right up there with 'Free Mumia!' as a rallying cry for most mainstream progressives. And if you want to see people give you a funny look, as if you're not quite right in the head, tell them that it'd really take a Constitutional Amendment getting rid of the ridiculous notion of "corporate personhood" to establish a true democracy in the U.S.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Birther Ad Claims Obama Is British 'Usurper'
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on December 1, 2009 at 5:30 AM.

You probably thought the Birther nonsense couldn't get any weirder, dumber or more racially charged, right? Wrong.

From Think Progress:

This latest national edition of the Washington Times features a full-page ad that claims that President Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. The ad was purchased by the anti-Obama website ProtectOurLiberty.org. While the group has placed several birther ads in the Washington Times in recent months, the version that ran this morning contains far more inflammatory imagery — three monkeys, apparently intended to represent the U.S. Congress, courts, and the media:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Poll: Americans Consider Rush Limbaugh Nation's Most Influential Conservative
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on December 1, 2009 at 4:45 AM.

They must be so proud:

By a wide margin, Americans consider Rush Limbaugh the nation's most influential conservative voice.

Those are the results of a poll conducted by "60 Minutes" and Vanity Fair magazine and issued Sunday. The radio host was picked by 26 percent of those who responded, followed by Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck at 11 percent. Actual politicians -- former Vice President Dick Cheney and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin -- were the choice of 10 percent each.

It's true, they are the most influential conservative voices. But if anyone still thinks the Republicans are the party of ideas they probably need to think again.

The fight for dominance in this influential sphere is on, with all the above battling for supremacy. Here's the latest from Beck, via Think Progress:

In recent days, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has indicated that she may be open to a conservative presidential dream ticket in 2012: Palin-Beck (or Beck-Palin). "I can envision a couple of different combinations, if ever I were to be in a position to really even seriously consider running for anything in the future, and I'm not there yet," Palin told Newsmax. "But Glenn Beck I have great respect for. He's a hoot." Fox and Friends plugged the idea yesterday morning and asked Palin whether she would run with Beck. She kept the door open, saying, "I don't know. We'll see, we'll see."

But just a few hours later on his radio show, Beck shot down the idea, saying he was "absolutely" ruling out a Palin-Beck ticket. He explained that if he had the number two job, Palin would always be "yapping" like they were in "the kitchen":

BECK: I don't think things are hoots. I don't. I don't think it's a hoot. I would never use the word hoot, and I respectfully ask that every time my name is brought up she would stop using the word "hoot." [...]

No, no I'm just saying -- Beck-Palin, I’ll consider. But Palin-Beck -- can you imagine, can you imagine what an administration with the two of us would be like? What? Come on! She'd be yapping or something, and I'd say, "I'm sorry, why am I hearing your voice? I'm not in the kitchen."

These people are so confused.