PEEK

Buzz, perspectives, insight and news from AlterNet

A Friend of Mine Once New 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 job-skills, if the nanny-state just keeps filling up their stomachs.

This is basic economics.

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 ... Here's the Afghanistan Speech, What Do You Think?
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.