PEEK

Buzz, perspectives, insight and news from AlterNet

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »