Be Proud: Geek Pride Day Is May 25th from Geekologie - Gadgets, Gizmos, and Awesome

http://www.geekologie.com/2009/05/be_proud_geek_pride_day_is_may.php

That's right folks, Geek Pride Day 2009 is rapidly approaching. We must make plans. I'm thinking beer and ticker tape. With maybe some comics and video games thrown in for good measure.

Nerd Pride Day, or Geek Pride Day, is an initiative which claims the right of every person to be a nerd or a geek. Of Spanish origin ("día del orgullo friki" in Spain), it is celebrated nowadays among Spanish frikis (an equivalent of geeks and nerds). This day is celebrated on May 25 since 2006, celebrating the premiere of the first Star Wars movie in 1977.

So, what do you all want to do? Parade? If so, I want to be on a float -- I've never gotten to do that before. Anybody good with paper papier-mâché? I'm thinking me riding a dinosaur crushing a robot. Also, if the dinosaur could have realistic orifices that would be, you know, the only reason I suggested this project in the first place. WikipediaThanks to matty, who stands proudly as a geek. Also, a little hunchbacked from sitting in front of the computer all day and night.

House Price Puzzle: Mid-to-High End from Calculated Risk by CalculatedRisk

from http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/05/house-price-puzzle-mid-to-high-end.html
Click on puzzle for larger image in new window.

I've linked to a few pieces of the puzzle below.

But this adds up to more supply (in the mid-to-high end) because of rising foreclosures - and limited demand because sellers at the low end are mostly banks or short sales (so there are no move up buyers), and tight financing.

To me, this suggests prices will fall much further in many mid-to-high end areas.

Surging prime delinquencies.

See: OCC: More Seriously Delinquent Prime Loans than Subprime

and Fannie, Freddie Report Surge in Prime Delinquencies

and S&P: Delinquencies Surge for HELOCs and Jumbo Prime Loans

Option ARM Loan Recasts are coming.

See: Loan Reset / Recast Schedule

Limited Jumbo Financing

See: More Jumbo Financing Coming

Few Move up buyers

See: Home Sales: One and Done

And even more shadow supply, see: High Percentage of Homeowners Waiting for a Market Turnaround

Conservatives For Patients Rights Lies, Claims Comcast Pulled Down ‘Misleading’ HCAN Ads from Think Progress

from http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/15/hcan-comcast-cpr/

Since March, Conservatives for Patients Rights (CPR) — headed by disgraced hospital CEO Rick Scott and represented by the same public relations firm that brought us the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth — has been actively distorting the health care reform debate.

While the health industry is trying to remain at the negotiating table, CPR is attacking the reform effort in a somewhat schizophrenic media campaign. The group has linked to progressive health care proposals from its website before running ads arguing that Democrats had no health care plan, conflating the budget resolution with health care reform legislation, and claiming that President Obama seeks to import Britain's health care system into America.

Now the group that did so much research on Obama's health care reform that it ended up attacking a non-existent health care proposal is soliciting contributions on the false premise that it scored a major victory over its ideological rival, Health Care For America Now, which has been running ads criticizing the group's activities.

This morning, Rick Scott sent a letter to subscribers claiming that, "after reviewing HCAN's ad, Comcast has determined that it is misleading and has been pulled off the air":

As you may know, the liberal group Health Care for America Now recently started running a mudslinging TV ad against me personally. After reviewing HCAN's ad, Comcast has determined that it is misleading and has been pulled off the air. …But they were taught a lesson. … Unfortunately, this surely won't stop HCAN and its allies from continuing their campaign to use any means necessary to achieve government-run healthcare. In fact, HCAN reportedly plans to spend $40 million for big government healthcare. That's why I need your help. Your contribution of $25, $50, $100, $250, $1000 or more to CPR Education*, our charitable affiliate, will help us to continue to get our message out and fight the misleading tactics of the advocates of government-run healthcare.

The letter came as a surprise to Health Care For America Now, who told me they had purchased a week of ads from May 6 to May 13 and assumed that their ad buy had just expired. The group contacted Comcast, who issued the following clarification: "Comcast has not pulled any ads produced by HCAN off our systems. The media buy for the ad in question expired on May 13." HCAN has bought another week of airtime and the ad will soon return to the airwaves, Jason Rosenbaum of HCAN told me.

So CPR either never contacted Comcast or knowingly misrepresented — in fact, lied about — their statement. Either practice is emblematic of the group's approach to the health care debate.

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Coal, Electric Industries Big Winners in Climate Bill Deal from The Washington Independent

from http://washingtonindependent.com/43264/coal-electric-industries-big-winners-in-climate-bill-deal

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) (WDCpix)

Even as House Democrats are celebrating their deal with conservative-leaning colleagues on climate change legislation, the real winners under the compromise have been the coal, electric and auto industries, who are largely the source of the nation's carbon emissions to begin with.

Details of the compromise are still emerging, but already the chief sponsors of the measure — Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) — have been forced to lower carbon-reduction targets, cut renewable fuel standards and dole out billions of dollars in benefits to the nation's largest polluting industries. Many environmentalists say the compromise comes at the too-high cost of undermining the bill's very purpose, which is to slash emissions dramatically enough to prevent a warming planet from heating further. Some are asking Democrats either to bolster the environmental protections or to scrap the proposal altogether.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

"We are not prepared to 'give away the farm' just so that we can say that we helped to get legislation passed," Janet Keating, executive director of the West Virginia-based Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, said in a statement Friday. "There are some costs that are too high to pay when it comes to the environment, clean air and clean water. We urge Congress to either fix the Waxman-Markey bill or dump it and start over."

The saga highlights the thorny congressional climate change debate, where partisan politics takes a backseat to regional interests, and the influence of the energy lobby is king. Indeed, the concessions from Waxman and Markey to this point have been made to satisfy conservative Democrats representing regions heavy with coal, oil and automaker interests.

The resulting dynamic is one of multi-layered tension that pits industry against environmentalists, regional interests against national and global interests, and congressional lawmakers against emission reforms that might help the planet, but could also cost jobs in their districts.

"I'm just trying to take care of the principal concerns that would impact my region, in particular my district," Rep. Charles Gonzales, a Houston-based Democrat who's pushing for more benefits for oil refineries in the House bill, told Politico Thursday.

In the eyes of many environmentalists, that brand of regional protectionism might yield short-term gains for some areas of the country, but will come at the cost of a deteriorating globe. They're asking what good is it to protect polluters in a world where you can't drink the water or breath the air, and the oceans are swallowing the coasts?

Erich Pica, director of domestic policy programs at Friends of the Earth, said the moderate Democrats are "holding hostage" the reforms necessary to tackle the problem in a way that reflects its urgency. "They have every right to protect their constituents," Pica said. "But as members of Congress they also represent the entire country, and they should know when to sacrifice their regional interests for the sake of the larger common good. All they see is protecting oil or protecting coal. That's not helpful."

Indeed, the United Nations issued a report Thursday indicating that the world's poorest countries, which are expected to suffer the brunt of the floods, draughts and storms associated with climate change, already require as much as $2 billion to adjust to the warming conditions. The UN is asking for donors to raise the funds.

Faced with similar reports, Waxman and Markey introduced a draft climate change bill in March — diluted significantly in the more recent compromise. And from an industry perspective, there's something in there for nearly everyone.

For the coal and electric utility industries, for example, the compromise bill requires that U.S. emissions be reduced 17 percent by 2020, down from the 20 percent reduction promoted in the initial draft. The new bill also tamps down an earlier provision that states get at least 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025, instead dropping that floor to 15 percent.

Additionally, although President Barack Obama had campaigned on a platform of selling 100 percent of so-called pollution permits to industry — a strategy he said would generate $646 billion to fight global warming over the next decade — the House compromise gives all but 15 percent of those permits away for free.

The changes were enough to gather the support of several key members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, including Rep. Rick Boucher (Va.), a coal-country Democrat who had threatened to oppose the stronger draft. But the bows to industry also bring into question whether lawmakers resigned to shield their provincial industries are even capable of passing the reforms scientists say would be required to stem America's contributions to the warming planet.

The changes, said Tyson Slokum, director of the energy and climate program at Public Citizen, "threaten to render this bill ineffective for a long period of time."

There were other concessions as well. To satisfy Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), another powerful member of the committee, Waxman and Markey have agreed to give 3 percent of pollution permits to the nation's automakers to fund research for more fuel efficient vehicles.

The compromise also waters down the so-called cash-for-clunkers program, which ostensibly encourages drivers to turn in their gas guzzlers in exchange for a federal subsidy on more fuel efficient models. Yet under the compromise proposal, the new fuel efficiencies are hardly dramatic. For example, drivers trading in trucks between 6,000 and 8,500 pounds would be eligible for a $3,500 voucher for purchasing the same-sized vehicle that's more efficient by just 1 mile per gallon.

Daniel Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, said the program does much more to help struggling automakers sell large, unpopular models than it does to reduce greenhouse emissions.

"It's a $4 billion giveaway to move gas guzzling vehicles that nobody wants off the lots," Becker said.

Also, to get oil-friendly Democrats like Gonzales on board, the House compromise will give 2 percent of the pollution permits to oil refineries.

And these changes have arrived before the amendment process begins. House Republicans have vowed to dilute the environmental protections even further during debate in the Energy and Commerce Committee or on the House floor. Indeed, Sen. Joe Barton (Tex.), the senior Republican on E&C, has predicted that Republicans will succeed in altering the bill to consider nuclear energy and so-called "clean coal" renewable fuels.

"The president and his allies have decided that man-made carbon dioxide is a witch's brew that's killing the planet," Barton said in a statement, "and they think that just because the cap-and-trade cure stings doesn't mean we shouldn't have to swallow it."

The Energy and Commerce Committee, headed by Waxman, is expected to take up the bill next week, with House Democratic leaders hoping to pass the bill before the August recess.

Influencing the debate, the nation's largest carbon emitters have contributed enormous sums of money to lobby Congress this year. The oil and gas industries, for example, have already spent $44.6 million and the electric utilities have tallied an additional $34.4 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. By contrast, the renewable energy sector has spent only $14.4 million on lobbying over the same span, and environmental groups have tallied just $4.7 million.

It's not just Waxman and Markey who are struggling against the current of regional protectionism in the fight against climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency last week proposed new renewable fuel standards that, for the first time, would factor things like worldwide deforestation when calculating the environment impacts of biofuel production. The proposal was hailed by environmentalsist who have long argued that production of ethanol, for example, has depleted global food supplies, forcing farmers elsewhere to clear forests — a major source of carbon emissions — to make up the difference.

Yet, after eight years of Bush-era regulators who didn't believe in regulation and environmental protection officials who didn't believe in environmental protection, congressional lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are suddenly feeling the sting of an EPA living up to its name.

Indeed, since the EPA unveiled its proposal, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) has blasted the proposal as "very detrimental to ethanol." Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) charged that the changes "would effectively kill renewable fuels in South Dakota and across the country because of environmental extremism within the EPA." And Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), who heads the House Agriculture Committee, has already introduced legislation to prevent the so-called "indirect land use" provision from ever taking hold.

The message is clear: If climate change reforms are ever to clear Congress, they can't confront industry too severely — even if those industries are responsible for same carbon emissions creating the problem.

Some lawmakers appear to recognize that. Next week the Senate environmental panel will host a hearing entitled "Business Opportunities and Climate Policy."

StratCom and the Domination of (Cyber) Space from AfterDowningStreet.org

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/42651

StratCom and the Domination of (Cyber) Space
By Tim Rinne | State Coordinator, Nebraskans for Peace | Submitted by Bruce Gagnon | http://space4peace.blogspot.com/

It seems an unlikely place from which to try to dominate the world.

A remote Air Force base in rural Nebraska, twelve miles south of Omaha.

There's even a cornfield across the road.

But it's where George Bush was rushed for safekeeping on 9/11. And today, it's where the White House continues to wage its international 'War on Terror' and to pursue its goal of dominating space.

And, as it now turns out, cyber space.

Ten years ago, U.S. Strategic Command was a weapon in search of a foe. The collapse of the Soviet Union had left the headquarters for the U.S.'s nuclear arsenal without any real purpose. Things had reached such a dismal state for the Pentagon's 'doomsday machine' that the command's name was even popping up on some base-closing lists.

But 9/11 changed that. Virtually from the moment President Bush was shuttled to StratCom's underground command center, its role and mission began to morph.

By the time the first anniversary of the attack rolled around, "U.S. Space Command" had been moved under StratCom's control. Over the next three years, the command picked up the missions for "Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance," "Information Operations," "Full-Spectrum Global Strike" and "Missile Defense" (a misnomer if there ever was one, given it's offensive capability). In 2005, "Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction" was added to its mission quiver. And finally, in 2007, it was given the hazily defined task
of "Cyberspace."

In the space of five years, the command had gone from just one mission (its half-century-long responsibility of "Nuclear Deterrence") to a total of eight.

It had gone from being nominally defensive to offensive: from being a purported weapon of last resort that hopefully would 'never be used'-to 'being used for everything.' If before, Strategic Command had represented an end-of-the-world nightmare straight out of "Dr. Strangelove," this 'New StratCom' (with now conventional as well as nuclear war-fighting powers) was 'Dr. Strangelove on steroids.' Never in the history of the world had there been a military instrument of such power and global reach.

In testimony before Congress in February 2008, the current StratCom Commander (four-star Air Force General and former astronaut Kevin Chilton) went so far as to suggest that the name actually be changed from "Strategic Command" to "Global Command" to better reflect the scope and nature of the command's new duties.

If what these eight missions have in common, though, is their 'global' scope and nature, what knits them together is 'space.'

Fifteen years ago-during the Clinton Administration-the Pentagon began systematically 'wiring' the U.S.'s entire military infrastructure around the use of space technology. Today, space has become medium through which the U.S. now wages war, whether we're talking satellite-guided drones piloted from a trailer 7,000 miles away or foot soldiers on the frontlines in Afghanistan.

And U.S. Strategic Command-as the mission agent for space-has become the linchpin for virtually every military action the U.S. now undertakes.

As the chair of the Colorado Springs-based "Space Foundation" bluntly expressed it at the "Strategic Space and Defense 2006" conference in Omaha, "StratCom is a laboratory for the future of warfare."

Right this instant, StratCom is flying those Predator and Reaper drones over Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's in charge of the missile 'defense' installations proposed for Poland and the Czech Republic. Through its "Component Command" of the National Security Agency (NSA), StratCom is eavesdropping on our phone calls, monitoring our emails and textings and tracking our financial activities. It's shooting down errant satellites, lobbying for new generations of nuclear weapons and actively planning the next war-whether against
so-called 'rogue states' like Iran and North Korea or a geo-political rival like China. With a simple 'go-ahead' from the White House, StratCom is now authorized to attack any place on the face of the earth in one hour - using either conventional or nuclear weapons - on the mere suspicion of a threat to the U.S. national interests.

Sixty minutes from now, StratCom could have started the next war, and the first Congress would hear about it would be on CNN.

Unlikely as it sounds, the military command center for America's global empire is buried out on the Nebraska prairie six stories down. It's from here that the U.S. flexes its global muscle and seeks to enforce its will. And it's why we say that StratCom is the most dangerous place on the face of the earth.

But there's an Achilles heel in this imperial design, for which StratCom acts as the hub.

Strategically, the U.S. has pursued a policy of space dominance because space is the ultimate 'high ground.' Whoever controls space can control the earth beneath.

As StratCom is quickly discovering, however-in today's world-to 'control space' you also have to be able to control 'cyberspace.' If you can't protect your space assets and communication network from cyber attack, you can't control space.

And to hear Commander Chilton tell it, at present, the U.S. can't.

The most powerful war machine ever assembled is vulnerable-not from incoming ICBMs, some looming chemical-biological attack or a terrorist insurgency-but from hackers. Nowadays, enemies and rivals don't need to match the U.S.'s $740 billion annual military budget to be a viable threat. They just need a good computer.

And the specter of an attack that could hack into military battlefield systems or blind aerospace defense networks is now haunting StratCom and Pentagon officials' sleep.

In an interview with reporters on May 8, 2009, Chilton disclosed that the Pentagon's unclassified networks are probed thousands of times a day, as hackers try to steal information on military programs or planning. And the number of intrusions is on the rise. "I worry," he said, "when I see important information is taken from
our networks."

The Pentagon itself disclosed in April that it had spent more than $100 million in just the last six months responding to and repairing damage from cyber attacks and other computer network problems.

But the military information 'grid' is just half of the problem.

The civilian information grid is equally at risk.

Former Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, warned last year that "the ability to threaten the U.S. money supply is the equivalent of today's nuclear weapon." A successful attack on a single large U.S. bank, he said, would have an "order-of-magnitude greater impact on the global economy"

than the attacks of 9/11. Earlier this spring, the National Intelligence Director (NID) reported that it had evidence that the electrical grid itself had been compromised. "Do I worry about those grids, and about air traffic control systems, water supply systems and so on? You bet I do," said Joel Brenner, who oversees
counter-intelligence operation for the NID office.

In response, StratCom has come out swinging.

Commander Chilton asserted in his interview that the U.S. would consider using military force against an enemy who attacks and disrupts the nation's critical networks. "A good defense also depends on a good offense" he told a reporter with the AP. "'I don't think you take anything off the table when you provide options' to the defense secretary or president, in the wake of an attack, whether the weapon is a missile or a computer program."

At this point though, StratCom's "Cyber Command" is more virtual than real.

Although the NSA's headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland, has been proposed as the new command's new home (and its director, Air Force General and StratCom Component Commander Keith Alexander, as the new head of operations), Secretary of Defense Robert Gates hasn't yet given his approval and no timeline has been set.

That will change. Soon.

With the Pentagon having put all its network eggs in the basket of space, no expense will be spared to seek to gain dominance in cyberspace (just as none was spared to dominate space).

Count on StratCom, accordingly, becoming bigger, more powerful and even quicker on the trigger.

And expect the command center for the U.S. military empire to be in Nebraska for a long time to come.

Repugs to Cheney: Shut Up Already! from Pensito Review

In this week's National Journal poll of Washington Beltway insiders, 57 percent of Republican said that former vice president and current torture industry spokesperson Dick Cheney has hurt the party with his current round of press appearances. Only 33 percent thought he had helped the cause, while 5 percent said he'd had no effect and another 5 percent gave a cryptic "don't know" answer.

Here are some comments Cheney's fellow party members made about his media blitz and its negative effects:

"The message on interrogation techniques is right. The messenger is not."

"He seems determined to vindicate his decisions and policies even if it damages the GOP's recovery. And it has."

"Anything that reminds the public of the Bush administration harms the party's ability to turn the page. If he'd had any concern for his public image when he was in office, he wouldn't have to worry as much about defending his reputation now."

"There is nothing Dick Cheney can say or do to help the Republican Party today. The best thing he can do is disappear for the next 10 years."

"Let's face it: The guy doesn't know anything about winning elections outside of Wyoming."

"Not even a close call. With Cheney out there, Obama doesn't even need to remind the American people about the mess that was the Bush years."

"Cheney represents the grumpy intolerance that has come to characterize the GOP. Get off the stage!"

Optical illusion explains the curveball

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/15/optical-illusion-exp.html

Here's a sweet little flashtoy (click through to see it in motion) that illustrates the optical illusion behind a curveball: "In baseball, a curveball creates a physical effect and a perceptual puzzle. The physical effect (the curve) arises because the ball's rotation leads to a deflection in the ball's path. The perceptual puzzle arises because the deflection is actually gradual but is often perceived as an abrupt change in direction (the break). Our illusions suggest that the perceived "break" may be caused by the transition from the central visual system to the peripheral visual system. Like a curveball, the spinning disks in the illusions appear to abruptly change direction when an observer switches from foveal to peripheral viewing."

The break of the curveball (Thanks, Fipi Lele!)

Fake DHS "photography license" for fake no-photos laws

from http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/15/fake-dhs-photography.html

All around the world, cops and rent-a-cops are vigorously enforcing nonexistent anti-terrorist bans on photography in public places. If you're worried about being busted under an imaginary law, why not download these templates and print yourself an imaginary "Photography license" from the DHS? Who knows if it's legal to carry one of these -- probably about as legal as taking away your camera and erasing your memory card for snapping a pic on the subway.

In the event you're stopped by overzealous law enforcement or security officials attempting to enforce fictitious laws, I've designed these fictitious and official-looking Photographer's Licenses. If you have Adobe Illustrator, you can download the EPS vector art file and print your own. You'll need a photo of yourself, and OCR (or a similar font) to fill in your personal information.

Muni Don't Take My Kodachrome (via JWZ)

Scouts training to fight immigrants and terrorists

from http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/15/boy-scouts-training.html

A new Scouting program teaches children to fight immigrants, Arab terrorists:

"United States Border Patrol! Put your hands up!" screams one in a voice cracking with adolescent determination as the suspect is subdued...

The Explorers program, a coeducational affiliate of the Boy Scouts of America that began 60 years ago, is training thousands of young people in skills used to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence -- an intense ratcheting up of one of the group's longtime missions to prepare youths for more traditional jobs as police officers and firefighters...

Their hearts pounding, Explorers moved down alleys where there were hidden paper targets of people pointing guns, and made split-second decisions about when to shoot. In rescuing hostages from a bus taken over by terrorists, a baby-faced young girl screamed, "Separate your feet!" as she moved to handcuff her suspect.

In a competition in Arizona that he did not oversee, Deputy Lowenthal said, one role-player wore traditional Arab dress. "If we're looking at 9/11 and what a Middle Eastern terrorist would be like," he said, "then maybe your role-player would look like that. I don't know, would you call that politically incorrect?"

Scouts Train to Fight Terrorists, and More (Image: Todd Krainin for The New York Times)

Bank Of America: Proof That We Shouldn’t Give Wal-Mart A Bank from Wal-Mart Watch

Our wallets are getting sore these days. After billions already in taxpayer handouts, it turns out that Bank of America executives will need another $34 billion dollars from us.

Do they deserve it? Are they grateful for the billions they've already received? Are they trying to use the money judiciously?  Not unless you count corporate jets and bloated executive salaries as responsible spending.

Bad corporate behavior by Bank of America is nothing new. They have a long history of doing things that put America at risk.

So with everything we know about Bank of America, it seems like Americans should be wary of letting a company like Wal-Mart anywhere near financial services.  Everyone knows of Wal-Mart has a long history of putting its own interests ahead of anyone else.  We know Wal-Mart doesn't pay its taxes, it steals time from its workers by violating simple laws like lunch breaks, and it sells unsafe products that hurt or even kill people.  So how can we trust it with a bank?

A couple years ago, Americans decided they couldn't and thousands wrote the FDIC to petition the agency to block a Wal-Mart bank application.  But since then, Wal-Mart has been trying to edge their way back into the money game through the back door.

Over the last few years, Wal-Mart has developed an interest in providing alternative financial services - including check cashing, general purpose prepaid cards, money order purchase and bill payment - to unbanked and underbanked consumers. Among regular check cashing store customers, 92% shop at Wal-Mart at least once per three-month period. Still, less than half of the surveyed population cash checks at Wal-Mart stores, with most preferring traditional check cashing centers due to a perceived convenience.  Wal-Mart sees this potential to expand their business.

'Alternative' financial services are a lucrative market these days; a study by First Data, a financial transaction technology company, found that 78 million Americans either use no financial services, or are underserved. Given that many of these customers are lower-income and many shop at Wal-Mart, it's no wonder the retailer sees an opportunity.

Another report from Aite Group, an industry research and advisory firm, puts Wal-Mart's current market share of 'alternative' financial services at 11%. Some analysts, including Seeking Alpha, claim that the retailer has distinct advantages in offering financial services: in-store convenience, and potentially lower costs than check-cashing or money wiring businesses.

Right now is a time for better, more accountable banks. Not Wal-Mart banks.

EEOC Files Lawsuit On Behalf Of Latino Employees from Wal-Mart Watch

A new lawsuit has been filed by the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) against Wal-Mart.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims some Hispanic employees at a Fresno Sam's Club were subjected to a hostile work environment. The suit filed yesterday in U.S. District Court against parent company Wal-Mart Stores Inc. alleges that managers failed to stop repeated verbal harassment, including the use of derogatory words, against employees of Mexican origin.

The EEOC attempted to reach a settlement, but when an agreement could not be reached, a lawsuit was filed. The EEOC filed two lawsuits against the company in 2008, and settled two more. The current suit is seeking compensatory and punitive damages and the creation of a formal complaint procedure.

EEOC sues Fresno Sam's Club on behalf of Latinos [San Jose Mercury News]

Mike Duke Still Not Winning Any Friends On The Internet Or In The Gay Community from Wal-Mart Watch

It's been almost two weeks since the news broke that Mike Duke signed an anti-gay petition in Arkansas. And unsurprisingly, the internet community isn't forgetting. The scandal doesn't appear to be going anywhere.

The right wing, socially conservative agenda of Wal-Mart's executive management and controlling family is no secret. But as Wal-Mart moves in to the 2ist century is it clearly trying to project a softer, more friendly image. Its spending millions to portray itself as a progressive "green" company. Likewise, it is banking on entering dense urban centers like New York, L.A. and Chicago—all cities with high LGBT populations.

We'd venture to say that this publicity isn't helping those efforts.

(In related news, a conservative group in Arkansas is trying to push a law to block petition-signers information being revealed in the future after knowthyneighbor.org posted the list of anti-gay adoption signers two weeks ago.)

Check out a sample of what's been flying around the blogosphere over the last week:

Another Reason to Skip Wal-Mart [L.A. Progressive]
The CEO of Wal-Mart, just like Mormons, can exercise his right to free speech and expression however he sees fit. I too have that right — and will exercise it by refusing to give the company that pays him my business and by saying so.

It's Been A While Since I've Railed On Wal-Mart [Begging 4 Attention]
We also now know the new CEO of Wal-Mart, Mike Duke, has signed an anti-gay marriage petition in his residence state of Arkansas. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and everyone else is entitled to not shop at Wal-Mart. Here's how I fight back: I shop at Target.

The Long, Strange Trip That Has Defined Wal-Mart Health Clinics Continues from Wal-Mart Watch

Last year, Wal-Mart made a grand announcement - a plan to open hundreds of in-store medical clinics with the goal to have 400 clinics up and running by 2010. That plan crashed and burned, but from the ashes a new plan has been reborn. Behold the Wal-Mart Health Plan phoenix, reborn anew to live again.

Early last year, the company spoke of having 400 walk-in clinics by 2010. But later in 2008, that plan went into reverse. Of the 78 clinics Wal-Mart had in operation at the beginning of 2008, all but 17 were closed. Now it is rebuilding that business, this time largely in partnership with hospitals.

The timeline goes pretty much like this: Early last year, Wal-Mart announced a plan to open hundreds of in-store medical clinics, aiming to have 400 clinics up and running by 2010. That announcement came less than a month after twenty three - almost a third - of Wal-Mart's walk-in clinics unexpectedly closed after Wal-Mart's choice of partners (the CheckUps company) fell behind on payroll payments and other expenses. Strike one.

The CheckUps fiasco led to a partnership with RediClinics, which was going to run 200 of the 400 new units. That endeavor, however, did not end well either:

Originally, H. Lee Scott Jr., the Wal-Mart chief executive who retired this year, had assigned a big role for the clinic project to RediClinic, a privately held company backed by Steve Case, the AOL co-founder. But last December RediClinic, citing the poor economy, abruptly shut down its 15 Wal-Mart centers.

Strike two. Who would have guessed that medical clinics run by the AOL dream team would struggle? Weird.

So now Wal-Mart is hoping that the third time really is the charm - this time the retailer is moving forward largely in partnership with hospitals. Probably a wise mood, since, you know, hospitals like, take care of sick people and stuff all the time. In fact, if this goes well, I see a Grey's Anatomy: Wal-Mart spin-off happening in the very near future.

Wal-Mart Begins to Rebuild Health Clinic Business [New York Times]

Hospitals Begin to Move Into Supermarkets [New York Times]

Barack Obama's Key Climate Bill Hit by $45 Million PR Campaign from Truthout - All Articles

    Surge in oil, gas and coal industry lobbying against Democratic leadership on "cap and trade" legislation.

    America's oil, gas and coal industry has increased its lobbying budget by 50%, with key players spending $44.5m in the first three months of this year in an intense effort to cut off support for Barack Obama's plan to build a clean energy economy.

    The spoiler campaign runs to hundreds of millions of dollars and involves industry front groups, lobbying firms, television, print and radio advertising, and donations to pivotal members of Congress. Its intention is to water down or kill off plans by the Democratic leadership to pass "cap and trade" legislation this year, which would place limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

    A defeat for the bill would have global consequences. The international community is depending on America, as the world's biggest per capita polluter, to set out a firm plan for getting off dirty fuels in the months before crucial UN negotiations in Copenhagen in December.

read more

Senate Shoots Down Rate Caps on Credit Cards from The Washington Independent

To no one's surprise, the Senate on Wednesday killed a proposal to cap credit card rates at 15 percent. The count was 33 to 60 on a procedural vote to allow the bill to proceed.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), who sponsored the amendment, said the proposal would "end usury in the United States of America."

"This amendment is very simple," Sanders said just before the vote. "It says that now, when the American taxpayer is spending hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out Wall Street, they should not be lending the American people their own money at usurious rates."

Afterward, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) speculated that the measure failed, not because lawmakers oppose the concept, but because they thought that 15 percent was too low a cap. Dodd vowed to offer a separate amendment asking federal regulators "to give us a comprehensive review of what national rates their ought to be."

"I don't think we're going to resolve that matter on this bill," Dodd said. "But we ought to have some clear idea as to how we can put some restraints on national usury laws."

Rotten Apple Award Goes to ... Army Doctor Who Forged Study, Got Gig With Medical Company from Crooks and Liars

This is so much worse than your typical conflict-of-interest case. This guy pushed a less-effective drug because he was the manufacturer's minion? I wonder how those Iraq veterans with the busted-up legs feel about this. I hope a few of them track this guy down and let him know what they think of him.

But let's not ignore the manufacturer in all this. After all, it was probably their idea:

A former surgeon at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, who is a paid consultant for a medical company, published a study that made false claims and overstated the benefits of the company's product in treating soldiers severely injured in Iraq, the hospital's commander said Tuesday.

An investigation by Walter Reed found that the study cited higher numbers of patients and injuries than the hospital could account for, said the commander, Col. Norvell V. Coots.

"It's like a ghost population that were reported in the article as having been treated that we have no record of ever having existed," Colonel Coots said in a telephone interview on Tuesday. "So this really was all falsified information."

The former Army surgeon, Dr. Timothy R. Kuklo, reported that a bone-growth product sold by Medtronic Inc. had much higher success in healing the shattered legs of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed than other doctors there had experienced, according to Colonel Coots and a summary of an Army investigation of the matter.

Dr. Kuklo, 48, now an associate professor at the Washington University medical school in St. Louis, did not respond to numerous e-mail messages and telephone calls to his office and home seeking comment over the last two weeks. Walter Reed officials say he did not respond to their inquiries during their investigation.

Army investigators found that Dr. Kuklo forged the signatures of four Walter Reed doctors on the article before submitting it last year to a British medical journal, falsely claiming them as co-authors. He also did not obtain the Army's required permission to conduct the study.

"This was a real letdown for us to have one of our former members do something like this," one of those doctors, Lt. Col. Romney C. Andersen, wrote in an e-mail message Tuesday. Dr. Andersen, now posted at a combat hospital in Baghdad, said he could not comment further without the permission of his commanders.

It was Dr. Andersen who brought the problem to the Army's attention last year, prompting the inquiry. In its March edition, at the Army's request, the journal retracted the article — something that has gone largely unnoticed outside orthopedic circles.

Senate Caves to Banks: 21 Dems Join GOP to Kill Credit Card Rate Limit from Pensito Review

Last Wednesday, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the majority whip and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, said this:

DURBIN: And the banks — hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.

Flash forward to today:

The U.S. Senate blocked consideration of a 15 percent cap on credit-card interest rates, as lawmakers continued debating ways to limit lenders' fees and changes to contracts with consumers.

Senators voted 60-33 to invoke budget rules that killed the proposal, by Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent. Sanders said the action was needed to stop banks from routinely charging 25 percent to 30 percent on credit cards.

"When banks are charging 30 percent interest rates, they're not making credit available, they're engaged in loan- sharking," Sanders said.

They'll pass a treacly thing instead that will be difficult to enforce:

The bill would require credit-card companies to give 45 days' notice before increasing an interest rate. It would prohibit retroactive rate increases on existing balances unless a consumer was 60 days late with a payment. Companies would have to restore the original, lower rate if a cardholder stayed current six months after a late payment.

Here's a list of the Democrats:

Hour 3: Professor Limbaugh: CO2 Not Bad For Environment Because "We Exhale CO2"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200905130024 This hour of the Limbaugh Wire brought to you by Professor Limbaugh's CO2 theory By Karl Frisch and Greg Lewis Rush started the final hour of his show by discussing an AP article headlined, "Charge your iPod, kill a polar bear? Energy watchdog says gadgets pose environmental threat." He wondered why everyone would be worried about this since Obama is going to create tons of green jobs and save the environment. Limbaugh then noted how many polar bears we'll be killing when we have to plug in our electric cars. The Wire would like to point out to Rush that switching to electric cars will have a net effect of decreasing carbon emissions because they'll be used instead of traditional gasoline-powered cars. The article notes a study tracking the effect of the increasing use of consumer electronics in our society, which isn't the same as tracking automobile emissions -- though Rush didn't bother to make this known to his listeners. Rush then brought up a recently released White House document that argued against regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Rush said the memo came out of the Obama White House, and it has seriously undermined the cause. However, Rush wasn't entirely accurate in describing the memo. It's important to point out that Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag said the document did not reflect the administration's position; moreover, the memo reportedly came from the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, which is an independent entity currently headed by acting chief counsel for advocacy Shawne McGibbon, a Bush appointee. Rush finished off the segment noting the memo is "not a surprise to me, because we exhale CO2. If it were a poison, if it were something, we would -- it wouldn't be part of the way we stay alive." Thanks for the science lesson, Professor Limbaugh! After the commercial, El Rushbo took another caller, this time from a dittohead who wanted to know when she would be able to call Obama a dictator. "Well," Rush explained, "there are a lot of words being tossed out out there -- Marxist, statist, fascist, incompetent, conniver. The problem, you know, when you use these words -- the idea here and the objective is to persuade people who don't yet see this. And if you start calling him a dictator, they're just going to tune you out. They don't think a dictator is possible in the United States. They don't see evidence of it." We wonder what Limbaugh thinks of the Republican National Committee's reported plans to rename the Democrats the "Democrat Socialist Party." After the caller asked if there were a way to snap her fingers and "make these people snap out of it," Rush responded: "Obama wishes he could push a button to socialize the country. And he's got a lot of buttons he can push." Then Limbaugh read another New York Times article, this one about a potential overhaul of compensation practices in the financial services industry. As Rush referred back to his rant on Monday about Geithner saying he didn't want anymore economic booms. The Wire would like to take this opportunity to refer back to our response to his rant on Monday, in which we noted Rush was leaving out some important context from Geithner's remarks. El Rushbo then took a call from a disgruntled Illinoisan, who was following the right-wing talker's lead of leaving New York City by moving her family to Arizona, where taxes would be lower. Rush seemed rather excited that somebody would actually follow his advice, and warned the caller that the Chicago and Illinois tax authorities might follow her. Back from another break, Rush read a Reuters story which reported on Delaware Senator Thomas Carper's attempts to keep a Delaware-located General Motors plant open. This led Rush into another rant against unions: "General Motors had to be saved strictly for Ron Gettelfinger and the UAW. That's why GM had to be bailed out. Chrysler, ditto. That's why. Save unions -- 'cause they're Democrats, Democrat voters, Democrat contributions through dues, that help elect Democrats all over the country. So the purpose of General Motors and Chrysler is to keep Democrat union players employed. And then when that's threatened, oh, then that's when they get really -- that's when the problem sets in." Rush then took the final caller of the program, who explained to Rush how she was "berated" by a customer at her store for being a Limbaugh listener. He and the caller then spent a few minutes discussing how this person was living in a "cocoon" where everything she believes is right and allows nothing to challenge her beliefs, and Rush wondered what is was like to wake up angry and live your entire life angry, as they presumed this person did. Limbaugh then informed the caller that he would be sending along some flowers to make up for her lost business. It is not clear, however, if Rush will also be sending the pot and keeping the kettle or vice versa. And so another exhilarating edition of the Limbaugh Wire has come to a close. We'll surely spend the next 21 hours pondering how we live our lives being in constant anger all the while breathing out CO2. In the meantime, check out our increasingly vast Limbaugh Wire archives. Highlights from Hour 3 Marxist, fascist, and statist watch: CALLER: The reason I was calling is I saw on Fox News a small blip -- it wasn't much -- that the White House is now investigating how they can be the persons in charge of giving out bonuses to Wall Street CEOs, even those that haven't accepted TARP money. And my question is when are people going to start using the D-word in association with this president? You know, dictator. That's what he wants to be. LIMBAUGH: Well, there are a lot of words being tossed out out there -- Marxist, statist, fascist, incompetent, conniver. The problem, you know, when you use these words -- the idea here and the objective is to persuade people who don't yet see this. And if you start calling him a dictator, they're just going to tune you out. They don't think a dictator is possible in the United States. They don't see evidence of it. You start calling him a communist, a Marxist, a fascist -- if you call him Marxist, depending on their education level, they might be happy about that. I mean, they've been taught by Marxists -- CALLER: Right. LIMBAUGH: -- in universities, and they may think it's a good thing. So it's a very, very, very, very, very delicate thing to go about persuading the cult-like here, who are totally in the tank. America's Truth Rejector: LIMBAUGH: I don't know how this got out, I don't know how Senator Barrasso from Wyoming got it, but he put it to Lisa Jackson. This is -- again, not a surprise to me, because we exhale CO2. If it were a poison, if it were something, we would -- it wouldn't be part of the way we stay alive. At any rate, a brief time out, we'll come back, your phone calls are next, right after this. Outrageous remarks: LIMBAUGH: You are asking -- you are asking irrational people to look at something rationally. CALLER: OK. LIMBAUGH: You're asking the insane -- as an analogy here -- you're asking the insane to snap out of it and be sane. You know, snap your fingers. CALLER: Well, I wish there was a way we could snap our fingers and make these people snap out of it and see what's happening. LIMBAUGH: Well, Obama wishes -- Obama wishes he could push a button and socialize the country. And he's got a lot of buttons he can push. CALLER: Yes, he does. [...] LIMBAUGH: General Motors had to be saved not in order that it -- or not so that it can make cars people want to buy. General Motors had to be saved strictly for Ron Gettelfinger and the UAW. That's why GM had to be bailed out. Chrysler, ditto. That's why. Save unions -- 'cause they're Democrats, Democrat voters, Democrat contributions through dues, that help elect Democrats all over the country. So the purpose of General Motors and Chrysler is to keep Democrat union players employed. And then when that's threatened, oh, then that's when they get really -- that's when the problem sets in.

You can help support our work; become a volunteer media monitor, or donate to Media Matters for America.

'The terms "welfare," "food stamps," and "reparations" are all code words for "undeserving black people." ... Limbaugh is attempting to use the politics of racial fear to appeal to the lowest common denominator of racial anxiety"

Maddow deconstructs Limbaugh: 'There is a black man in the White House! Be very afraid!'

from Crooks and Liars by David Neiwert

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOAD (330)

PLAY (2719)

Rachel Maddow last night pondered the deep wisdom of Rush Limbaugh as the Ruling Demigod of the GOP -- particularly his latest ugly meme:

The objective is unemployment. The objective is more food stamp benefits. The objective is more unemployment benefits. The objective is an expanding welfare state. And the objective is to take the nation's wealth and return it to the nation's 'rightful owners.' Think reparation. Think forced reparations here if you want to understand what is actually going on.

Limbaugh has in fact pitched this line frequently already, minus the "reparations" line:

So I think we've got a guy -- I think the best way to understand Obama -- and I can't say this enough -- he really believes it his job to return the nation's wealth to its rightful -- quote unquote, rightful owners. And that means he believes the people who have wealth have stolen it, from those who have no wealth. It's been unfair achieved and accrued. And it's his job to take it and redistribute it. And that's what he means by sacrifice. When he talks about sacrifice, he's talking about raising your taxes, taking your assets, and giving them to other people who he thinks you stole them from, who are thus more deserving.

Maddow quotes the response from Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a poli-sci professor from Princeton:

The terms "welfare," "food stamps," and "reparations" are all code words for "undeserving black people." ... Limbaugh is attempting to use the politics of racial fear to appeal to the lowest common denominator of racial anxiety in this country. ... Clearly, Rush is not saying anything that even vaguely, substantively true. He is simply screaming, "There is a black man in the White House! Be very afraid!"

That sums up so many Limbaugh rants that we ought to just encase it in amber and trot it out every time the man speaks.

Fox News pushes GOP horror story of Obama setting Gitmo terrorists loose in U.S.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200905120034 Since President Obama announced on January 22 that he will close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Fox News hosts and contributors have repeated or uncritically aired Republicans' claim that the administration intends to release terrorists held there into the United States. This uncritical reporting takes on added significance because, as Media Matters for America has documented, several media figures -- including some at Fox News -- have recently described Republicans' attempts to stoke fears about relocated Guantánamo detainees endangering Americans as possibly being a "winning issue" for the GOP. In several instances, Fox News hosts or contributors either explicitly or implicitly referred to a group of ethnic Uighur detainees, at least some of whom the administration is considering releasing into the United States, as Defense Secretary Roberts Gates told the Senate Appropriations Committee during an April 30 hearing. In response to questioning by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Gates said: "What I have heard people talking about is our taking some of the Uighurs, probably not all, because it's difficult for the State Department to make the argument to other countries they should take these people that we have deemed in this case not to be dangerous if we won't take any of them ourselves." However, the policy the administration is considering with regard to this group does not indicate that the administration intends to release "terrorists" into the United States. As a May 1 Los Angeles Times article noted, "The Uighurs, part of a movement that seeks independence from China, had received weapons training at a camp in Afghanistan, but are not considered a threat to the U.S.," and the Bush administration reclassified this group of detainees as "no longer enemy combatants." At the April 30 Senate hearing where Gates made his comments about plans to release the Uighurs, Gates referred to them as "people that we have deemed in this case not to be dangerous." Moreover, the administration has consistently maintained that terrorists will not be released into the United States. At a January 27 hearing before the House Armed Services Committee, Gates responded to a comment by Rep. John McHugh (R-NY) about the administration's detainee policy by saying, "I can't imagine a situation in which detainees at Guantanamo who were considered a danger to the people of the United States would simply be released here." Similarly, during a May 7 hearing of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) asked Attorney General Eric Holder: "Do you have the authority under the law to do this, to bring terrorists into this country and bring them into the community?" Holder responded, "[W]ith regard to those who you would describe as terrorists, we would not bring them into this country and release them, anybody who we consider to be a terrorist, as I think you're using the word." Nevertheless, Fox News hosts and contributors have repeatedly advanced the baseless Republican charge that the administration intends to release terrorists held at Guantánamo Bay into the United States, including: On the May 10 edition of Fox News Sunday, during a discussion with Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich, host Chris Wallace allowed Gingrich to suggest that releasing the Uighur detainees would set a "precedent" for how the United States handles the transfer of all detainees: WALLACE: Meanwhile, the Obama administration says that it will close Guantanamo by next January and that some detainees who are judged not to be security risks will be released in this country. Question: If you're going to try to get other countries to accept these detainees, don't we have to do our share? GINGRICH: This is nuts. I mean, this is just crazy. These are -- these are not American nationals. We have no obligation to keep them here. They ought to go home. Now, are their home countries saying, "I won't take my own citizen?" The idea we're going to put alleged terrorists on welfare and have you pay for them and me pay for them, so they get to be integrated into American society -- remember, all these people were brought in on the grounds that they were trained in terrorist camps. So we're now going to take a guy who we don't have conclusive proof and we're going to put him in American society paid by the American taxpayer because his home country won't accept him? Why is his home country not accepting him? WALLACE: Well, let me get -- let's take one example, the Chinese Uighurs, Chinese Muslims -- GINGRICH: Right. WALLACE: -- who were arrested in Afghanistan, brought to this country. The Pentagon says they're not enemy combatants. At least one federal judge has said they're not a threat. But if they go back to China, they're going to be prosecuted. GINGRICH: Why is that our problem? I mean, why -- what -- if the -- if the -- what -- what is it -- why are we protecting these guys? Why does it become an American problem? WALLACE: So what, send them to China and -- GINGRICH: Send them to China. If a third country wants to receive them, send them to a third country. But setting this precedent that if you get picked up by Americans -- I mean, the Somalian who was recently brought here who's a pirate -- I mean, if you get picked up by the Americans, you show up in the United States, a lawyer files an amicus brief on your behalf for free, a year later you have citizenship because, after all, how can we not give you citizenship since you're now here, and in between our taxpayers pay for you -- this is, I think -- verges on insanity. Later, Wallace asked Fox News contributor and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol: "You saw this week some Democrats as well as some Republicans pushing back and saying -- you know, the famous NIMBY, not in my backyard -- not only not in my backyard to release them on the street, not in my backyard to put them in a prison. What's the fallout?" On the May 10 edition of America's News HQ, reporter Shannon Bream claimed that "we're also, of course, focused this week on Guantánamo Bay, where the detainees are going to go that are going to be released. There are financial concerns there as well because there's talk of spending money to resettle them here in the U.S." She then failed to challenge an assertion by Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) that "[t]here is no reason in the world, in my opinion, we should be closing down Guantánamo and sending those people to the United States, many of whom would be released in this country, and the taxpayers of this country would be taking care of them. This is insane, in my opinion." At no point during the interview did Bream mention that the administration has explicitly stated that it will not release detainees who are considered to pose a threat to the United States into the country. As Gates said: "I can't imagine a situation in which detainees at Guantanamo who were considered a danger to the people of the United States would simply be released here." On the May 7 edition of Happening Now, host Jane Skinner introduced a report by asking: "Some lawmakers are concerned that if the Guantánamo Bay detainees are released and released into the United States, could they actually end up qualifying for benefits in this country, like welfare?" Skinner then noted that "the GOP is launching something called the Keep Terrorists out of America Act." Though the report that followed, by reporter Molly Henneberg, concluded with a clip of Holder stating that terrorists would not be released in the United States, on-screen graphics accompanying the report stated "GOP Lawmakers Want To Keep Gitmo Detainees Out Of U.S." and "GOP Trying To Make Sure Gitmo Detainees Don't Get Welfare." On the May 6 edition of On the Record, host Greta Van Susteren introduced an interview with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) by stating: "Do you want detainees from Guantanamo Bay prison released into the United States? Attorney General Eric Holder says it is a possibility, but Republican Senator Jeff Sessions questions whether our government has the legal authority to do that." Van Susteren later asked Sessions about a letter he had written to Holder: "And in the letter, you tell him that you're concerned about a number of things, including you quote him as saying that detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may end up being released in the United States. Has he confirmed or denied that that's the intention?" When they later discussed the Uighurs, Sessions suggested they were "some of the toughest, most dangerous" detainees, and Van Susteren did not mention that the government does not consider them a threat to the United States. Similarly, a graphic featured during the segment misleadingly asserted that "suspected terrorists" could be "released on American soil": On the May 1 edition of On the Record, Gingrich stated of the Uighur case, "[T]here's a report out that the administration's actually going to release people who've had terrorist training into the United States and then charge the American taxpayer to take care of these people so that they could have a transition into becoming American." Van Susteren subsequently asked Gingrich: "So what can we do? I mean, in light of the fact that the president's made a decision that Gitmo is going to be shut down, I mean, what are our options?" After Gingrich mentioned that other countries would not take the Uighurs, Van Susteren called that "sort of interesting because I think there was one clip a short time ago when I think it was said that they aren't dangerous, that the ones we were going to send are safe, and they said, If they're safe, you keep them." At the end of the segment, Gingrich generalized the issue: "I think we're suddenly learning the difference between campaigning, when you can have a great speech and great rhetoric and a great quip, and the reality of governing, where suddenly, it turns out most of the people at Guantanamo are really bad people." On the April 1 edition of his program, Glenn Beck introduced a segment regarding the Uighur detainees at Guantánamo by saying: "We're going to talk about the Gitmo prisoners that might be moving into your backyard, allegedly trained by terrorists in Afghanistan." Beck subsequently said of the detainees: "These are Chinese terrorists that we picked up over in Pakistan, right? Brought them over and they were in Gitmo. In 2004, they were cleared. They were not - what do you call them? Enemy combatants. And they were free to go, but nobody wants them. And we don't really think that people who are training in al-Qaeda training camps maybe should be released in, oh, let's say, America." On the March 18 edition of Special Report, host Bret Baier claimed of comments reportedly made that day by Holder: "The attorney-general says it is possible that some terror suspects now at Guantanamo Bay could be released on to the streets of American cities." During homeland security correspondent Catherine Herridge's subsequent report, she stated, "In a briefing with reporters at the Justice Department a short time ago, the Attorney General Eric Holder left open the possibility that some of the detainees from Guantanamo could be released inside the United States." Later, she said, "Clearly, the administration wants to try as many detainees as practical in the U.S. criminal courts. Others, Holder said could be released inside the United States. 'There are a variety of options that we have,' Holder told reporters, 'and among them is the possibility that we would release them into this country.' " Neither Herridge nor Baier mentioned that the administration has said it would not release anyone into the United States who it considers a threat. Indeed, The New York Times reported that at the briefing, Holder "said it was possible that some detainees like the Uighurs held in Cuba could be released into the United States." From the May 10 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday (this and all following transcripts are from the Nexis database unless otherwise noted): WALLACE: Meanwhile, the Obama administration says that it will close Guantanamo by next January and that some detainees who are judged not to be security risks will be released in this country. Question: If you're going to try to get other countries to accept these detainees, don't we have to do our share? GINGRICH: This is nuts. I mean, this is just crazy. These are -- these are not American nationals. We have no obligation to keep them here. They ought to go home. Now, are their home countries saying, "I won't take my own citizen?" The idea we're going to put alleged terrorists on welfare and have you pay for them and me pay for them, so they get to be integrated into American society -- remember, all these people were brought in on the grounds that they were trained in terrorist camps. So we're now going to take a guy who we don't have conclusive proof and we're going to put him in American society paid by the American taxpayer because his home country won't accept him? Why is his home country not accepting him? WALLACE: Well, let me get -- let's take one example, the Chinese Uighurs, Chinese Muslims -- GINGRICH: Right. WALLACE: -- who were arrested in Afghanistan, brought to this country. The Pentagon says they're not enemy combatants. At least one federal judge has said they're not a threat. But if they go back to China, they're going to be prosecuted. GINGRICH: Why is that our problem? I mean, why -- what -- if the -- if the -- what -- what is it -- why are we protecting these guys? Why does it become an American problem? WALLACE: So what, send them to China and -- GINGRICH: Send them to China. If a third country wants to receive them, send them to a third country. But setting this precedent that if you get picked up by Americans -- I mean, the Somalian who was recently brought here who's a pirate -- I mean, if you get picked up by the Americans, you show up in the United States, a lawyer files an amicus brief on your behalf for free, a year later you have citizenship because, after all, how can we not give you citizenship since you're now here, and in between our taxpayers pay for you -- this is, I think -- verges on insanity. [...] WALLACE: Let me turn to a related subject, Bill, the closing of Guantanamo Bay. You saw this week some Democrats as well as some Republicans pushing back and saying -- you know, the famous NIMBY, not in my backyard -- not only not in my backyard to release them on the street, not in my backyard to put them in a prison. What's the fallout? From the May 10 edition of Fox News' America's News HQ (from Media Matters video): BREAM: And we're also, of course, focused this week on Guantánamo Bay, where the detainees are going to go that are going to be released. There are financial concerns there as well because there's talk of spending money to resettle them here in the U.S., possibly paying other countries to take them, a third party. What do you make of that situation? BURTON: Well, first of all, only one country has agreed to take any of them, and that was France, and they've only agreed to take one. There is no reason in the world, in my opinion, we should be closing down Guantánamo and sending those people to the United States, many of whom would be released in this country, and the taxpayers of this country would be taking care of them. This is insane, in my opinion. These people, many of them are terrorists -- we've had some of them that were released and went back to their home countries and became terrorists again. So I think it's extremely important that we think about this one more time. I don't agree with President Obama on this. The security of the United States abroad and at home is very important, and we should not be releasing those terrorists into the United States or bringing them to the prisons in this country. You could have a terrorist attack at some point where we have some of these leaders that are terrorists, and it could cause a real problem in the communities surrounding those prisons here in the United States, so I think it's a bad policy to bring them here. BREAM: Congressman Dan Burton, we thank you so much for your time today, sir. BURTON: Thank you, Shannon. From the May 7 edition of Fox News' Happening Now (from Media Matters video): SKINNER: Some lawmakers are concerned that if the Guantánamo Bay detainees are released and released into the United States, could they actually end up qualifying for benefits in this country, like welfare? Well, the GOP is launching something called the Keep Terrorists out of America Act. Molly Henneberg is in D.C. for us. Molly, explain exactly what this is. It's all part of this complication over closing Gitmo. HENNEBERG: Certainly is, Jane. Well, for one thing, it would require the Obama administration get approval from a state's governor and a state's legislature before transferring a detainee to that state for prosecution or release. Take a listen. REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH) [video clip]: Our constituents don't want these terrorists in their neighborhoods. HENNEBERG: These lawmakers say this bill sets up a process so that constituents know if, when a Gitmo detainees is brought into their state or community, Jane. SKINNER: So Republicans would like to block any funding that would be used basically to have these people on our soil? HENNEBERG: Right. This began when House Democrats on Monday left out of an emergency war funding bill the $50 million President Obama wants to transfer detainees out of Gitmo. Since then, Republicans have added their voices on the matter. Georgia Senator -- Republican senator Saxby Chambliss, for one, is introducing a bill to block funding for the purpose of bringing any detainee here and releasing them on U.S. soil. Some of the things that are going on the Hill. SKINNER: Yeah, and things got a little heated, I understand, in the Senate over potentially brining detainees here. HENNEBERG: Yes, and it's likely, Jane, related to reports that the Obama administration plans to release more than a dozen Chinese Muslim Uighurs from Gitmo on U.S. soil. These men received training at a terror camp, but after seven years at Gitmo, they have been approved for release. And one GOP senator suggests the Obama administration can't legally do that. Listen to this. [begin video clip] SHELBY: Do you have the authority under the law to do this, to bring terrorists into this country and bring them into the community? HOLDER: What I'm saying is that with regard to those who you would describe as terrorists, we would not bring them into the country and release them. [end video clip] HENNEBERG: Maryland Democratic Senator Barbara Mikluski also pressed the attorney general there, Eric Holder, that there would be, quote, "no imminent release of prisoners on U.S. shores." SKINNER: Molly Henneberg's in D.C. for us. Thanks, Mol. From the May 6 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta Van Susteren: VAN SUSTEREN: Do you want detainees from Guantanamo Bay prison released into the United States? Attorney General Eric Holder says it is a possibility, but Republican Senator Jeff Sessions questions whether our government has the legal authority to do that. Senator Sessions has written two letters to the attorney general about this subject. Has he had a response? Let's ask. Senator Jeff Sessions is here live. Nice to see you, Senator. SESSIONS: Good to be with you, Greta. VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Have you gotten a response from the attorney general? SESSIONS: No response. VAN SUSTEREN: None at all? SESSIONS: No, we haven't. VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Now, I have a copy here dated April 2nd. Is that the second of the two letters or the first? SESSIONS: No, I believe that's the first. VAN SUSTEREN: That's the first. And in the letter, you tell him that you're concerned about a number of things, including you quote him as saying that detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may end up being released in the United States. Has he confirmed or denied that that's the intention? SESSIONS: He has not, but they made public statements indicating that they're dealing with that issue. And the secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary [Janet] Napolitano, today at the hearing admitted that she was part of a committee that was talking about it. VAN SUSTEREN: Where are they going to release them in the United States? What's their plan? SESSIONS: Well, we don't know for sure, but northern Virginia has been mentioned as one of the places. VAN SUSTEREN: And no other place? SESSIONS: That's the only place I've heard. VAN SUSTEREN: Why is there not more transparency to this issue? Because the president signed an order on January 22nd saying it's going to close within one year, we're almost halfway into that, and we're running out of time. SESSIONS: They don't know what to do with these prisoners. It's a difficult question for them. They've gotten themselves into a box, and they've got to figure their way out. But I'll tell you, under the law that we passed several years ago, a person that's been trained by a terrorist organization cannot immigrate to the United States. And so now we're taking people out of Guantanamo, bringing them and releasing them in the United States. [Director of National Intelligence] Admiral [Dennis] Blair said we've got to give them subsistence of some kind. And so this is a very direct violation of the law of the United States Congress. I do not see how they can get around this. VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Do you agree we can't hold them forever? SESSIONS: Well, as long as they represent a threat to the United States and we are in the state of war, I think they can be held. VAN SUSTEREN: Do we know every single one there, though? I mean, when we collected them and there are over 200 there now and they've never had any sort of process, I mean, how can we be certain if, you know, if 100 percent of them have bad intentions? SESSIONS: Well, we don't know. We do know -- one article recently said that when a soccer game was played for them, one of the people saw a woman with short sleeves dress on, a top, and threw the TV on the ground. So these are people that are not totally accepting of Western culture, that's for sure. VAN SUSTEREN: I mean, here's the problem. We've got over 250 sitting there, right? Some percentage of them are horrible, bad people that we never want to have them come near the United States or any U.S. interests in the world, right? SESSIONS: Right. VAN SUSTEREN: Okay. We don't know who they are, we don't know which ones of the 250. SESSIONS: Well, we have pretty good proof on the ones that are left. We had over 700, I think, at one time. It's now down to 250. These are some of the toughest, most dangerous ones, people that other countries won't take. And of course, I think China has indicated they are willing to take these people. They consider them to be threats to China, but we're apparently unwilling to give them up to China. VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Now, you're talking about 17 who are Chinese, and we won't send them back to China because we think that the Chinese government will punish them or maybe execute them. I don't know what. So we won't send that 17 back to China. We can't send them off to Western Europe because Western Europe doesn't want them. In fact, I remember one German person said, when we said they were safe, he said, if they're so safe, you keep 'em. And so now we can't put them in the United States because people don't want them in the United States. And not only that, the law prohibits them from coming in the United States, right? SESSIONS: That's the way I see it. VAN SUSTEREN: And the place has got to close down in about seven months. SESSIONS: That's correct. Now, I've been to Guantanamo -- VAN SUSTEREN: And you don't get the answers to your letters. SESSIONS: And I don't get answers. VAN SUSTEREN: Wow. (Laughs.) SESSIONS: I think he should answer that question. It's an important issue. I can't believe they're having this much difficulty with it. VAN SUSTEREN: Do you ever call up and say, how about just answering? I'm a United States senator, I've sent you twice -- SESSIONS: I should do that. I like Eric Holder, and he's been in the Department of Justice before for quite a number of years. He knows the ropes. I should probably do that. VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Well, give him a call and come on back. Let's see if he wants to explain this because I want to know. And they're in a bit of a fix. They've got themselves in a fix. Senator, thank you very much. SESSIONS: Thank you. From the May 1 edition of On the Record with Greta Van Susteren: VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Gitmo. There's news about Gitmo. GINGRICH: Well, there's a report out that the administration's actually going to release people who've had terrorist training into the United States and then charge the American taxpayer to take care of these people so that they could have a transition into becoming American. I, I think this is bizarre. If you have people who we decide to release, they ought to go back to their home country. Now, the problem with that is these particular folks I believe are from western China, and the Chinese will immediately arrest them because the Chinese think they're terrorists. And -- but the proposal that you and I and all the taxpayers of America should be paying to maintain folks we arrested as a terrorist to be out in the civilian population I think is, frankly, weird. VAN SUSTEREN: So what can we do? I mean, in light of the fact that the president's made a decision that Gitmo is going to be shut down, I mean, what are our options? GINGRICH: Well, first of all, we'll begin to learn, as everybody around the world says to the United States, Why would I take these people from you? They're dangerous. I mean, you know, the Germans and others have said, we don't want these people. VAN SUSTEREN: Which is sort of interesting because I think there was one clip a short time ago when I think it was said that they aren't dangerous, that the ones we were going to send are safe, and they said, If they're safe, you keep them. GINGRICH: Right. And I -- I just think -- I think we're suddenly learning the difference between campaigning, when you can have a great speech and great rhetoric and a great quip, and the reality of governing, where suddenly, it turns out most of the people at Guantanamo are really bad people. From the April 1 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck: BECK: Now, we're going to China - kind of. We're going to talk about the Gitmo prisoners that might be moving into your backyard, allegedly trained by terrorists in Afghanistan. So where are they going to go when they are let out into the streets? And shouldn't we have let them out a long time ago? Wait until you hear this story, next. [...] BECK: All right. The Obama administration is soon going to decide the fate of 17 Uighur Muslim detainees held at Gitmo. Are they terrorists or are they refugees? The Uighurs have been cleared for release since 2004. You can't send them back to China because of human rights concerns. They will be killed. And we don't want them because they're connected to terrorists. So what to do? What to do? Here is former CIA covert operations officer Mike Baker. You were like - were you a spy? BAKER: That's what they say, but I don't talk about it. BECK: You don't talk about it. BAKER: I don't know - although I am on your show. [crosstalk] BECK: It is kind of a bad thing for somebody who is in a foreign country going, "That guy!" OK. So Mike, the Uighurs - first of all, explain who they are. BAKER: Uighurs -- they reside in China in a place that they refer to as East Turkestan. And they are legitimately oppressed by the Chinese authorities so they have been waging a campaign for some time for autonomy. In a sense, Uighurs are to the Chinese authorities what the Chechnyans are to the Russian authorities. I almost said Soviet authorities. BECK: OK. Yes. [...] BECK: OK. Now, wait, wait, wait. In 2004, under the Bush administration, they were tried in a tribunal or -- BAKER: Well, they were cleared for release. What happened was essentially the background on these characters is so fuzzy that eventually, it was said, "OK, look, eventually we can't call them enemy combatants." And so the Bush administration even dropped that effort to call them enemy combatants. Five of them were released to Albania. The Albanian authorities agreed to take five of them. The problem is the remaining 17 who are there -- it is not as if they have been languishing there and we threw away the key and forgot about them. BECK: All right. BAKER: There's been an effort to get rid of them. BECK: OK. Hang on. I want to take this to the next step, because now, we don't know what to do with these people and they may be even living next door to you. Great? Next. [...] BECK: All right. We're talking with Mike Baker. He's a former CIA covert operations officer. We were talking about these Uighurs. These are Chinese terrorists that we picked up over in Pakistan, right? Brought them over and they were in Gitmo. In 2004, they were cleared. They were not - what do you call them? Enemy combatants. And they were free to go, but nobody wants them. And we don't really think that people who are training in al-Qaeda training camps maybe should be released in, oh, let's say, America. So they have been sitting in jail now in Guantanamo. And I find myself -- the more I look into this, I find myself more and more pissed off at both sides. I'm really upset at the Bush administration. You can't keep people in jail if they've been cleared, but what are you going to do with them? BAKER: Well, being pissed off on both sides is actually a very sane response, I think, in this case. But to be fair, the Bush administration has been trying or did try to get rid of them. Over 100 countries put their hands up and said, "We don't want them. Sorry." We can't give them to the Chinese. And everybody, including the Obama administration, is realizing how difficult this case is. BECK: What happens to these people? BAKER: Well, they've got to keep on doing what they're doing. They've got to find a country willing to take them. From the March 18 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier: BAIER: The attorney-general says it is possible that some terror suspects now at Guantanamo Bay could be released on to the streets of American cities. National correspondent Catherine Herridge has this story -- hi, Catherine. HERRIDGE: Thanks Bret. In a briefing with reporters at the Justice Department a short time ago, the Attorney General Eric Holder left open the possibility that some of the detainees from Guantanamo could be released inside the United States. With the Obama administration just two months into its sweeping review of Guantanamo, the key question for Attorney General Holder is where the 250 detainees will go. Each detainee has a file at the military prison and each file is being reviewed on an individual basis. Clearly, the administration wants to try as many detainees as practical in the U.S. criminal courts. Others, Holder said could be released inside the United States. "There are a variety of options that we have," Holder told reporters, "and among them is the possibility that we would release them into this country." The Obama administration is clearly hoping the Europeans will help on the detainee question. This issue was raised on Tuesday by Secretary of State Clinton with her counterpart, Irish Foreign Minister Michael Martin. A source who has advised the Obama administration on the issue tells Fox that releasing some of the detainees into the U.S. may ultimately be necessary so that European leaders can make the case to their own people that they supported closing the military prisons so now they must do their part and take some of the detainees as well. A justice department official agreed with that assessment late this afternoon -- Bret. Contact: Glenn Beck Glenn Beck Contact: Chris Wallace FNS@foxnews.com Contact: Fox News Channel FOX News Channel 1-888-369-4762 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Contact: On The Record with Greta Van Susteren On The Record with Greta Van Susteren Contact: FOX News Sunday Fox News Sunday

You can help support our work; become a volunteer media monitor, or donate to Media Matters for America.

Conservatives Party Like It's 1992: "The Government Is Giving All Your Money to Welfare Recipients!"

By Tana Ganeva, AlterNet
Posted on May 8, 2009, Printed on May 11, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/139934/

Uh oh! Looks like the government is sneakily spending your hard-earned cash to shower welfare moms with Cadillacs again!

One of the GOP's all-time favorite talking points — the racist, classist (and non-existent in real life) specter of welfare recipients living large on the government's dime — appears to be making a comeback, this time inspired by a Massachusetts car ownership program for welfare recipients.

A Fox Nation headline proclaims in outrage:  "What?? Free Wheels for Welfare Recipients!"

Clicking through to the actual article, or course, reveals that the program's beneficiaries are hardly awash in luxury. And, despite the fact that the article itself is laughably biased — one brief quote by an advocate of the program, sandwiched between three quotes by Republicans bloviating about government waste — it's pretty easy to figure out that the program is not exactly a harbinger of socialism.

The state does not pay for the cars, but rather "... the car's insurance, inspection, excise tax, title, registration, repairs and a AAA membership." (The cars are supplied by non-profits.) Applicants have to show that they are either employed, or are actively looking for work. In order to get the cars, they have to prove that it is impossible for them to reach work using public transportation. Only families with children are eligible. And on and on.

You may have already surmised much of this, because you're not an idiot. The same cannot be said for Fox Nation readers.

The comments that follow the headline are as racist, classist, and generally fucked up as one would expect. I feel gross re-posting samples, but it's probably important to do so in order to get a true sense of the chilling vitriol and idiocy on display.

Fumes soimanextremist? (if you have to ask ... ):

Wow! We sure do give these people motivation to get the arses off the public dole, don't we? Free or cheap: rent, electricity, food stamps, daycare, phone service, healthcare, paychecks...and now cars! Well I feel much better now that I know that DeShawn won't have to WALK down to the street corner to sell the crack and that Niquisha won't have to haul her 6 kids (all with no babies daddies) down to the FREE health clinic on the bus.

(Yes, believe your eyes. Despite the fact that neither the headline nor article mention race, the commenter felt the need to use stereotypically African-American names.)

Anonymous cleverly writes:

I'm one of these welfare recipients. I plan on selling my car for 3 pounds of crack.

Anonymous 2 says:

Gee, why don't we just pay them to sit home and eat bon bons! Oh, I forgot, we already tried that -- it's called Welfare.

(these are 3 of the first 6 comments. I didn't even have to dig to find the really screwed up crap).

Anyway, one of the more mystifying Republican strategies to regain relevance seems to be to trot out old, largely irrelevant scare tactics. Exhibit A, of course, is the Conservative outcry over the impending advent of socialism. And here now, is another oldie but goody: vilifying welfare recipients and spazzing out about our government's all-consuming obsession with helping the poor.

Let's see how well this tack works out for the GOP, as more and more Americans come to depend on government assistance to survive the econocopolypse.

© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/139934/

Banks Successfully Lobbied Fed to Make 'Stress Tests' Less Stressful

By Faiz Shakir, Think Progress
Posted on May 9, 2009, Printed on May 11, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.thinkprogress.org//139935/

This week, the government released the results of the stress tests performed on the nation's 19 largest banks. According to the report, Bank of America's $34 billion hole was the largest. The Wall Street Journal reports, however, that the Fed Reserve initially estimated Bank of America's figure at more than $50 billion. Over the last few weeks, a number of banks successfully lobbied the Fed to make the stress tests less stressful:

The Federal Reserve significantly scaled back the size of the capital hole facing some of the nation's biggest banks shortly before concluding its stress tests, following two weeks of intense bargaining.

In addition, according to bank and government officials, the Fed used a different measurement of bank-capital levels than analysts and investors had been expecting, resulting in much smaller capital deficits.

The Wonk Room's Pat Garofalo notes that one interesting element of the announcement last week is that the banks will now have the opportunity to convert government debt into equity if the need arises, leaving the taxpayer on the hook for a larger bailout of the banks.

Faiz Shakir is the Research Director at the Center for American Progress and serves as Editor of ThinkProgress.org and The Progress Report.

© 2009 Think Progress All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.thinkprogress.org//139935/

The GOP Clings to Guns, Gays, God, and "Go-Home"

http://www.alternet.org/story/139929/the_gop_clings_to_guns%2C_gays%2C_god%2C_and_%22go-home%22/

By Roberto Dr. Cintli Rodriguez, New America Media
Posted on May 11, 2009, Printed on May 11, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/139929/

Republicans, who continue to be rejected by the U.S. electorate at the polls, have decided that the party of Lincoln needs an extreme makeover. Yet Republicans seem to think that the GOP simply needs to change its image, as opposed to fundamentally changing the party itself.

Some Republicans believe that the GOP must broaden its tent, and change its mantra of "Guns, Gays and God." Others seem to think the party should strengthen its conservative base, and that the new message should include: "Go home!"

Enter the National Council for a New America (NCNA), a series of town hall meetings launched on May 2 in a suburb of Washington, D.C. Its primary objective seems to be to determine what direction the party should take -- and to question those in the party who would like to see it become a European-style anti-immigrant party. Leading the effort of this council are Jeb Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Eric Cantor.

This council appears to be cognizant that a shift in that ultra-nationalistic direction has the potential to change not simply the GOP's narrative, but the national narrative itself.

They are up against the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, Dick Cheney and other extreme right-wing forces who fear that the nation -- not simply the GOP -- is in danger of losing its national narrative, the myths and legends that have been part of the national psyche and character since its founding.

Arguably, the more conservative wing of the American political spectrum is correct: the old America they cling to no longer exists. And yet, the narrative that the more moderate council longs for -- one that views America as the beacon of the world, as the land of truth, freedom and liberty and justice for all -- is also a myth.

That narrative has always downplayed genocide, land theft and removal, slavery, segregation and legalized discrimination. Nowadays, it downplays border walls, racial profiling and an ever-expanding racialized prison system. The narrative has also downplayed the notion of empire and militarism, instead converting these imperial projects with the notion of a God-given right to "civilize" or dominate the world. This is the idea of Manifest Destiny. It is what drove our recent president, George W. Bush in his war against the Arab and Islamic world; he was on a mission from God. This is why U.S. and international laws were easily ignored or discarded; he was answering to a higher authority.

In this sense, both wings of the Republican Party are similar; both want to promote great American mythologies. Ingrained into the national psyche is that this is a "nation of immigrants." With the browning of America, some within the GOP rightly fear that a Dobbs-immigration obsessed nation -- which clamors for 2,000 miles of militarized walls along the U.S.-Mexico border -- will drive moderates away from the Republican Party. This is where the struggle over image takes place, though it is difficult to discern a difference. The Dobbs wing is brazenly anti-immigrant, though it is always insistent that they are only anti-illegal immigrant -- not anti-immigrant.

Yet Romney's views are very similar to Dobbs. Even McCain, always touted as a moderate on immigration, buckled under extreme right-wing pressure during his 2008 presidential bid.

Whether they are conservative or moderate, Republicans seem to agree that the United States has the inherent right to wage war on the world. The only difference is that some believe that this right comes directly from God, whereas the others believe it is simply a cultural or even genetic right -- due to American exceptionalism.

The real question is whether Democrats present different views on this topic. Some observers are quick to note that on the issue of the national narrative, there is little or no difference between the parties. These same observers are quick to note that President Barack Obama is but the latest steward for the military-imperial interests that control the nation.

While it is true that change does not occur overnight, there is little doubt that whoever is at the helm does make a difference. Yet, we know that positive change generally comes from the bottom. Whether one president can change the national narrative is another matter.

© 2009 New America Media All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/139929/

Hey Miss California, How Does God Feel About Fake Breasts?

http://www.alternet.org/sex/139941/hey_miss_california%2C_how_does_god_feel_about_fake_breasts/

By Sheldon Filger, Huffington Post
Posted on May 11, 2009, Printed on May 11, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/139941/

Maybe I'm just Miss California dreaming, but it seems to me that Carrie Prejean is afflicted with a terminal case of breast envy. Just as some men may feel inadequate if they perceive a certain part of their anatomy doesn't "measure up," it could be that the actions, thoughts and words of the 21 year old beauty queen and runner up at the Miss USA pageant are merely a disguise for her own sense of not "measuring up" to her beauty queen peers in the natural state God endowed her with.

There is a reason why I inserted God into this narrative. The whole premise of Ms. Prejean's political antics has been predicated on the claim that she is a devout, Bible-believing Christian woman and her outspoken posture on the issue of same sex-marriage is an act of pious conscience. Whether or not I agree with Carrie Prejean's decision to place her celebrity persona in the service of the anti-Gay marriage organization known as the National Organization for Marriage, I could respect her decision if it was based on consistency. However, it strikes me that this devout Bible-believing Christian woman missed one verse in the Bible, no doubt unintentionally. Allow me to quote from Chapter 4, Verse 5 of the Song of Solomon: "Thy two breasts are like young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies."

If you are a conservative Christian who believes that the entire Bible, chapter and verse, is the inalterable word of God almighty, then it appears clear that God thought female breasts were quite important, or otherwise the Lord of the universe would not have bothered to reveal what is essentially an erotic ode to the bosoms of women. My interpretation of this biblical verse is that God thought breasts as they exist on each woman are beautiful, "like young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies." And for the record, young roes are somewhat on the small size.

So, it is obvious that God adores female breasts (kind of like me, or maybe it is vice versa). But more importantly, God created female breasts, along with everything else in the universe. So the essence of that verse from the Song of Solomon is that God thought his creation of the bosoms of women was perfection. Furthermore, it is a principal of conservative Christians such as Carrie Prejean that everything God created in its natural state is perfect and should never be altered, such as the institution of marriage being solely a union for a man and a woman. So Ms. Prejean, what about hiring a cosmetic surgeon to alter your breasts, and undo God's perfect creation?

According to Keith Lewis, the co-Director of the Miss California Pageant, Carrie Prejean approached his organization, and they acceded to her request to arrange the surgical insertion of implants into her breasts, so that she would be more "competitive" as she came to blows with her rival beauty queens. This may be calculating and even cynical, but is hardly a reflection of Christian values, unless I'm missing something Ms. Prejean is more attuned to.

Statistics from the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery indicate that in an average year, more than 300,000 American women have their breasts surgically enlarged. As someone who has been involved in extensive fine art photography of the female nude, this strikes me as tragic. Medical science confirms what my own eyes have observed; 60% of women in the United States have breasts that fit into bras with an A or B cup. Most breasts at maturity are of modest or small size, and historically most artists have preferred female models with bosoms on the small size as the ideal manifestation of feminine beauty.

In my book on the aesthetics of female sensuality, entitled Erotic Book, I explored the reasons why so many women have been seduced into believing that external perceptions of their state of beauty and feminine allure are solely determined by the quantity of fatty tissue contained within their mammary glands. Not only is size the least important aesthetic component of breasts; the consequences of surgical implants have often led to dire results for women.

In my opinion, Carrie Prejean did not set a sterling example by succumbing to superficial and vulgar definitions of feminine beauty and going the implant route, in a crass attempt to win a contest based on factors that have nothing to do with her character or innate human qualities. For that reason, her awkward attempt to now transition from the woman with the implants to a virtuous moral crusader lacks all credibility. A veneer of pseudo-Christian hypocrisy will not camouflage Ms. Prejean's vapid breast obsession, no matter how tightly she wraps herself with it.

© 2009 Huffington Post All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/139941/

Obama's Weird Idea of Auto Industry Rescue: Use Our Money to Build Car Factories Abroad

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/139940/obama%27s_weird_idea_of_auto_industry_rescue%3A_use_our_money_to_build_car_factories_abroad/

By William Greider, The Nation
Posted on May 11, 2009, Printed on May 11, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/139940/

So this is how the auto bailout will work. American taxpayers pump tens of billions into rescuing General Motors from bankruptcy. Then GM pays us back by shipping more jobs overseas -- the equivalent of four assembly plants. The federal money will directly subsidize more imports from abroad, enabling GM to double its car production in Mexico, South Korea and China and selling the cars into the U.S. market.

Can someone explain how this is in our national interest? If that is the best deal Obama's auto czars can come up with, then this angry taxpayer says: laissez-faire -- let GM go down. Better to settle for bankruptcy court than provide public financing to further the destruction of U.S. manufacturing.

The Obama administration has stumbled into the middle of the political train wreck known as globalization. The president is an orthodox free trader, notwithstanding his vague promises of reforming trade agreements. But the auto deal is not much of a recovery plan. It begins to look like another sly victory for the old order that has failed. The business plan the federal government is advancing for GM follows the free-trade model created by Robert Rubin and other Clintonistas during the 1990s. Do whatever you can to help U.S. multinationals succeed in the global trading system and assume this represents the national interest -- never mind the damaging consequences for U.S. production and value-added jobs. That is how America became a debtor nation with its steadily weakening industrial base and stagnant wages. That condition became the predicate that led to financial crisis.

The president was probably hoping to evade the fight on globalization -- at least for now -- since he already has a lot of other large matters on his plate. His intervention on behalf of auto producers was billed as a temporary work-out -- enough financial aid to get the companies through the collapse in consumer demand and refashion themselves for lean, mean production of smaller, cleaner cars. No one disputes that scores of thousands of jobs will evaporate in the downsizing.

But the unfolding facts demand full-throated debate and political resistance in Congress. The United Auto Workers sent a letter to Capitol Hill the other day that revealed the terms. GM's restructuring plan envisions a doubling of the vehicles it will import from overseas factories, from 372,000 to 737,000, in the next four years. GM's imported cars -- already 15.5 percent of its domestic sales -- will rise to 23.5 percent.

"The overall number of vehicles GM will be importing in 2014 represents the production of four assembly plants, the same number that GM plans to close in the United States," UAW legislative director Alan Reuther noted. People already outraged by the bank bailouts should save some anger for the carmakers. "GM should not be taking taxpayers' money simply to finance the outsourcing of jobs to other countries," the UAW insisted.

U.S. Steelworkers president Leo Gerard is joining the fight, taking the same message to the public with a traveling bus campaign that will hit thirty-six towns and cities. When the auto industry shrinks, Gerard explained, lots of steel workers will lose too because they are in the supplier chain at paper mills, blast furnaces and iron mines.

Yet this fight is not fundamentally about displaced workers. It is about the gravely weakening national economy. The U.S. government pursues a uniquely backward strategy in its approach to globalization that is unlike every other advanced industrial economy, as I explain in my new book, Come Home, America. Other nations like Germany, Japan, France and of course China impose national obligations on their producers and multinational corporations -- demanding that companies retain their highest value-added production and best-paying jobs in the home country. The U.S. gives its multinationals a free ride -- even assisting them in dispersing production and capital to low-wage economies while keeping open the U.S. market for their imports. Our own companies game this system endlessly -- producing cheaply abroad, then selling the "U.S. brands" back into the home market.

President Obama has taken an important step toward changing this system with his recent proposals for taxing U.S. multinationals more aggressively. That could be the start of something big -- a more effective strategy that defends the national interest in the global system. Or it could be just more good talk. The outlines of the auto deal suggest the president is sticking with Rubinomics. Will other Democrats be brave enough to stand in his way?

William Greider is the author of, most recently, "The Soul of Capitalism" (Simon & Schuster).

© 2009 The Nation All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/139940/

Is Whole Foods Just Another Evil Corporation?

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/139931/is_whole_foods_just_another_evil_corporation/?page=1

By Sharon Smith, CounterPunch
Posted on May 11, 2009, Printed on May 11, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/139931/

Whole Foods Market is a highly profitable corporation that far outperforms its competitors, while maintaining an aura of commitment to social justice and environmental responsibility.

Its clientele is attracted not only to its brightly lit array of pristine fruits and vegetables, organically farmed meats and delectable (yet healthy) recipes, but also to the notion that the mere act of shopping at Whole Foods is helping to change the world.

In 2007, Whole Foods launched its "Whole Trade Guarantee," stating its aim as advancing the fair trade movement -- encouraging higher wages and prices paid to farmers in poor countries while promoting environmentally safe practices.

In addition, Whole Foods announced that 1 percent of proceeds will be turned over to its own Whole Planet Foundation, which supports microloans to entrepreneurs in developing countries. Meanwhile, the company's Animal Compassion Foundation seeks to improve living conditions for farm animals, while stores periodically hold "5 Percent Days," when they donate 5 percent of sales for that day to an area nonprofit or educational organization.

Whole Foods also has a distinctive reputation for rejecting traditional corporate management models in favor of decentralized decision-making, described as an experiment in workplace democracy.

There are no departments at Whole Foods stores, only "teams" of employees. And Whole Foods has no managerial job titles, just team leaders and assistant team leaders. Nor does the company admit to having any workers, only team members who meet regularly to decide everything from local suppliers to who should get hired onto the team.

Generally, the company strives to achieve consensus at team meetings, where workers brainstorm about new ways to raise productivity. And new hires need to win the votes of at least two-thirds of team members to make the cut.

The liberal dress code at Whole Foods allows nose rings, Mohawks, visible tattoos and other expressions of individuality to help promote its stated goal of "team member happiness" for its relatively young workforce. Each team takes regular expeditions, known as "team builds," to local farms or other enterprises to educate themselves on how to better serve their customers.

When team members show extra effort on the job, team leaders award them with "high fives" that can be used to enter an on-site raffle to win a gift card. When a team member gets fired, it is sadly announced as a "separation."

For all its decentralization, the "unique culture" so beholden to Whole Foods' supporters bears the distinct stamp of cofounder and CEO John Mackey, who declared in 1992, a year after Whole Foods went public, "We're creating an organization based on love instead of fear."

The former hippie is known for shunning suits and ties and wearing shorts and hiking boots to meetings -- and for insisting that before the end of every business meeting, everyone says something nice about everyone else in a round of "appreciations." In a 2004 Fast Company article, business writer Charles Fishman favorably quoted a former Whole Foods executive calling Mackey an "anarchist" for his eccentric executive style.

* * *

But something sinister lurks beneath the surface of Whole Foods' progressive image. Somehow, Mackey has managed to achieve multimillionaire status while his employees' hourly wages have remained in the $8 to $13 range for two decades. With an annual turnover rate of 25 percent, the vast majority of workers last no more than four years and thus rarely manage to achieve anything approaching seniority and the higher wages that would accompany it. If Whole Foods' workers are younger than the competitions, that is the intention.

But another secret to Whole Foods' success is its shockingly high prices. When Wal-Mart began promoting its own organic products last year, Whole Foods' Southwest Regional President Michael Besancon scoffed at the notion that Wal-Mart could present serious competition.

"There's no way in the world that we'd win a price battle with Wal-Mart," he told the Rocky Mountain News. "I'm relatively smarter than that." On the contrary, Whole Foods orients to a higher-income clientele willing to pay significantly more for somewhat higher-quality foods. Whereas the average supermarket chain's profits traditionally hover at around 1 percent, Whole Foods was able to sustain a profit margin of 3 percent for 14 years after it went public in 1992.

After hitting a low of 1 percent in the economic downturn in late 2008, "now the margins are expanding again," according to the Cabot report's investment adviser Mike Cintolo on April 26.

Indeed, Mackey is no progressive, but rather a self-described libertarian in the tradition of the Cato Institute. He combines this with a strong dose of paternalism toward the company's employees.

Mackey complained about his unique dilemma at the helm of Whole Foods to fellow executives in an October 2004 speech: "I co-founded the company, so I'm like this father figure at Whole Foods. I'm this rich father figure, and everybody's pulling at me saying, 'Daddy, Daddy, can we have this, can we have that, can we have this, can we have that?' And I'm either like the kind, generous daddy or the mean, scrooge daddy who says 'No.' "

Using a carrot and very large stick, Mackey managed to "convince" Whole Foods workers across the country to vote in 2004 to dramatically downgrade their own health care benefits by switching to a so-called consumer-driven health plan – corporate double-speak for the high-deductible/low-coverage savings account plans preferred by profit-driven enterprises.

Mackey advised other executives in the same 2004 speech, "[I]f you want to set up a consumer-driven health plan, I strongly urge you not to put it as one option in a cafeteria plan, but to make it the only option."

There have been setbacks for Mackey, to be sure. He suffered public humiliation in 2007 when he was exposed as having blogged under the false user name "rahodeb" -- his wife's name spelled in reverse -- between 1999 and 2006 at online financial chat boards hosted by Yahoo. For seven years, he backstabbed his rivals -- including the Wild Oats franchise that Mackey later purchased as an addition to the Whole Foods empire.

The Wall Street Journal reported a typical post: " 'Would Whole Foods buy (Wild Oats)? Almost surely not at current prices,' rahodeb wrote. 'What would they gain? (Their) locations are too small.' " At one point, rahodeb even admired Mackey's latest haircut, gushing, "I think he looks cute!"

Preventing Whole Foods workers from unionizing has always been at the top of Mackey's agenda, and the company has been successful thus far at crushing every attempt. Perhaps the company's most notorious attack on workers' right to unionize occurred in Madison, Wis., in 2002. Even after a majority of workers voted for the union, Whole Foods spent the next year canceling and stalling negotiation sessions -- knowing that after a year, they could legally engineer a vote to decertify the union. Mission accomplished.

At the mere mention of the word "union," Whole Foods turns ferocious. Even when United Farm Workers activists turned up outside a Whole Foods store in Austin, Texas, where Mackey is based, the company called the police and had them arrested for the "crime" of passing out informational literature on their current grape boycott.

And Mother Jones recently reported, "An internal Whole Foods document listing 'six strategic goals for Whole Foods Market to achieve by 2013 … includes a goal to remain '100 percent union-free.' "

Mackey launched a national anti-union offensive in January in preparation for the (remote) possibility that President Barack Obama, upon his inauguration, would make it a legislative priority to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, allowing workers to win unionization when a majority of a company's workforce signs a union card.

Although union card check is standard procedure in many countries, Mackey claimed to the Washington Post that it "violates a bedrock principle of American democracy" and has vowed to fight to prevent its passage here.

"Armed with those weapons," Mackey argued, "you will see unionization sweep across the United States and set workplaces at war with each other. I do not think it would be a good thing." Workers don't want to join unions anymore, Mackey declared, contradicting every recent opinion poll: "That so few companies are unionized is not for a lack of trying but because [unions] are losing elections -- workers aren't choosing to have labor representation. I don't feel things are worse off for labor today."

Whole Foods' nationwide campaign required workers to attend "union awareness training" complete with Power Point presentations. At the meetings, store leaders asserted, "Unions are deceptive, money-hungry organizations who will say and do almost anything to 'infiltrate' and coerce employees into joining their ranks," according to Whole Foods workers who attended one such meeting.

"According to store leadership," the workers said, "since the mid-1980s, unions have been on decline because according to Whole Foods 'theory,' federal and state legislation enacted to protect workers rights has eliminated the need in most industries (and especially Whole Foods stores) for union organization. … No need to disrupt the great 'culture' that would shrivel up and die if the company become unionized."

When rumors recently began circulating that a union drive might be brewing in San Francisco, the response from the company was immediate -- including mandatory "morale meetings" to dissuade employees.

But company leaders failed to address workers' complaints that they have gone without any pay raises sometimes for more than two years because team leaders have neglected to hold "job dialogue" meetings (known as annual performance reviews in traditional corporate-speak).

* * *

There was a time in decades past when liberalism was defined in part by its principled defense of the right to collective bargaining. That liberal tradition was buried by the market-driven neoliberal agenda over the last three decades, allowing companies like Whole Foods to posture as progressive organizations when their corporate policies are based upon violating one of the most basic of civil rights: the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively. Indeed, Whole Foods has ridden its progressive image to absorb its smaller competitors and emerge as a corporate giant.

The Texas Observer argued recently, "People shop at Whole Foods not just because it offers organic produce and natural foods, but because it claims to run its business in a way that demonstrates a genuine concern for the community, the environment, and the 'whole planet,' in the words of its motto. In reality, Whole Foods has gone on a corporate feeding frenzy in recent years, swallowing rival retailers across the country. ... The expansion is driven by a simple and lucrative business strategy: high prices and low wages."

Indeed, Whole Foods now stands as the second-largest anti-union retailer in the U.S., behind Wal-Mart. Most of Whole Foods' loyal clientele certainly would -- and should -- shudder at the comparison.

© 2009 CounterPunch All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/139931/

Democratic Lobbyists Against Obama from Firedoglake

http://firedoglake.com/2009/05/11/democratic-lobbyists-against-obama/

In his weekly radio address, President Obama called on the Senate to pass the Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights. He is also on record supporting the Employee Free Choice Act and the ability of judges to write down mortgages in bankruptcy.

It's a shame that Democratic lobbyists are working overtime (and getting rich) opposing him.

We've been doing an analysis of where the lobbying money is going in the first quarter of 2009, which lays an interesting map of how power is being parlayed in the new Democratic era:

Elmendorf Strategies: Everyone's favorite lobbyist Steve Elmendorf was a senior advisor to Dick Gephardt for 12 years, and was deputy campaign manager for Kerry in 04. He's been signing clients left and right lately, including Ameren, described by Brad Johnson as "coal plutocrats" who are "spending millions on Washington D.C. so that they can continue to make billions destroying the American economy and the planet." He's also got Rush Limbaugh's employer, Clear Channel, referred to by Media Matters as "conservative-friendly media behemoth with a soft spot for right-wing radio" and " the poster child for everything that's wrong with runaway media consolidation.

But wait, there's more. He's recently signed TARP recipients Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, and hopefuls Hartford Insurance. But the big score is the Active Financing Working Group, SIFMA and Microsoft, who will be lobbying furiously to stop President Obama's recently announced plan to close offshore tax loopholes. Hedge fund managers are heavily impacted by these proposed changes, as are companies like Microsoft that have profited both by outsourcing jobs and the ability to evade taxes.

Elmendorf employees have payed out over $72,000 in political contributions to Democrats since the November election. Draw your own conclusions.

Glover Park Group: Lobbying against credit card reform for the American Bankers' Association, the organization called out by Dick Durbin in his rant about how banks "own the place." They also lobbied for Whole Foods on labor issues -- you'll recall Lanny Davis leading the trojan horse to kill Employee Free Choice on their behalf. They also represent Planned Parenthood.

• Joel Johnson is a former Senior Advisor for Policy and Communications in the Clinton White House. He's also former Staff Director for Senate Democratic Leadership, and served as Tom Daschle's chief legislative and communications advisor.
• Susan Brophy previously held positions as administrative assistant to Byron Dorgan, policy director of the DNC, and director of congressional relations for the Clinton-Gore transition office.
• Joyce Brayboy worked for 12 years as Chief of Staff to Mel Watt. Appointed by Howard Dean to serve as a Super Delegate for the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

LHD & Associates: Speaking of Daschle -- Linda Hall Daschle picked up quite a few clients after the first of the year when she hung out her own shingle, signing contracts with Lockheed Martin, Boeing, the American Association of Airport Executives, American Airlines, Norfolk Southern, the USTA and L-3. Daschle is a former FAA administrator whose lobbying career has been marked with conflicts with her husband's former position as Majority Leader.

President Obama's effort to close loopholes for foreign tax havens will be seriously affecting her clients. According to the GAO report cited by the administration, Boeing had 135 foreign subsidies and $23 billion in government contracts in 2007. L-3 has 90 foreign subsidies and $6.6 billion in government contracts.

The irony is that money is flowing into Democratic lobbying shops at unprecedented rates expressly because Obama is in the White House.

Coming up next: The Podesta Group, Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti and D+P Creative Strategies -- Democrats who take Walmart's money to kill EFCA.

Jew Haters Welcome At Facebook, As Long As They Aren’t Lactating

from http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/10/jew-haters-welcome-at-facebook-as-long-as-they-arent-lactating/

Way more countries have laws against holocaust denial (11 or so) than breast feeding (0), but guess which one is banned on Facebook? That's right. Pictures of breast feeding babies are indecent, so they're a no go.

But Holocaust denial is totally cool because it fosters open discussion. Facebook wants to "be a place where people can discuss all kinds of ideas, including controversial ones." Even, apparently, the discussion of the idea that someone might be a "Nigger faggot, Jew nosed cunt." That's just one of many hateful messages I found written on a Holocaust denial site on Facebook.

Brian Cuban is making the removal of these sites a personal mission. He's arguing the law. He's arguing terms of service. He's arguing common sense and decency. These groups are clearly little more than excuses to spew hatred towards Jews, and Facebook is too timid to do anything about it. The first amendment doesn't apply to private companies. So why is Facebook so willing to take a stand when it comes to hungry babies, but won't do a damn thing when it comes to the Holocaust.

Because they're cowards. Here's more open discussion of ideas on a Facebook Holocaust denial group:

If Facebook doesn't want to take a moral or ethical stand on the issue, they can easily make a case that the groups violate their terms of service. These groups violate multiple sections of the TOS, particularly Section 3. There's an easy way out of this for Facebook, and it also happens to be the right thing to do. Why in the world must they draw a line in the sand and then stand on the same side as Holocaust deniers is beyond me.

Update: Up for debate is whether or not this image of Romanian children in Auschwitz, victims of medical experiments, is evidence of the Holocaust, which apparently may or may not have happened. But what isn't debatable is whether or not this is pornography under Facebook's TOS. It is.

Yes, Facebook, this is the side of the line you've chosen to stand on.

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.