The metaphor “The War on Christmas” can be mocked – as if Santa and his reindeer are dodging anti-aircraft fire. But many of our public schools have church-and-state sensitivity police with an alarming degree of Santaphobia. Anyone who's attended a school's “winter concert” in December with no traditional Christmas music – not even “Frosty the Snowman” – knows the drill. The vast Christian majority (that funds the public schools) is told that school is no place to celebrate one's religion, even in its most watered-down and secularized forms. There are real-life stories of Scrooge-like school administrators, like the one at the appropriately named Battlefield High School in Haymarket, Virginia. A group of ten boys calling themselves the Christmas Sweater Club were given detention and at least two hours of cleaning for tossing free two-inch candy canes at students as they entered before classes started. They were “creating a disturbance.” One of their mothers, Kathleen Flannery, told WUSA-TV that an administrator called her and explained “not everyone wants Christmas cheer. That suicide rates are up over Christmas, and that they should keep their cheer to themselves, perhaps.” Of course, that level of sensitivity is not applied when it comes to slamming Christianity during the Christmas season. On December 16, The Washington Post paid tribute to another suburban school in northern Virginia, McLean High School, for warming hearts during the season with “The Laramie Project.” This play is a political assault, using transcripts of real-life interviews by gay activists out to blame America's religious people for the beating death of homosexual college student Matthew Shepard in 1998. read more
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Digby has more on this exchange on CNN’s Parker Spitzer and Jeffrey Toobin tying himself in knots trying to defend Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement that the US government might use the Espionage Act to go after Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, so go read her whole post over at Hullabaloo. I just wanted to highlight something Naomi Wolf said during that discussion on how dangerous it is if the government does end up taking that route. SPITZER: And back to Woodward, where does Woodward fit in to this? SHIRKY: So I think that Woodward is not a criminal for publishing leaked documents but I also think that Assange is not a criminal for publishing leaked documents. However, I also, also think that if I’m wrong about that, that the way in which I would be wrong is going through the court system. Not through an extra legal running of WikiLeaks off the network. The damage to me — Jeffrey to your earlier point about the slippery slope, the non-slippery slope argument is the State Department has currently committed itself to making it very difficult for autocratic governments to force information off the Internet. And we’re suddenly providing not just a recipe but a rationale that’s making everyone from Lubchenko (ph) to Kim Jong-il laugh. TOOBIN: But see, you know, again, this is a slippery slope argument. SHIRKY: No. TOOBIN: It is, it is. Because the fact that someone takes United States government documents, secret, no foreign distribution, and says that shouldn’t be on the Internet. To say that North Korea shouldn’t have a free press, to say that Russia shouldn’t allow journalists to — I mean, I think it is easy to draw a distinction between the two. WOLF: Jeff, can I talk about the Espionage Act because that’s really what’s at stake now that they’ve invoked it. I predicted in my book “The End of America” that sooner or later, journalists would be targeted with the Espionage Act in an effort to close down free speech and free criticism of government. And we have a precedent for that. In 1917, the Espionage Act was invoked to go after people like us who are criticizing the first World War. Publishers, educators, editors. Wait, and people were put in prison. They were beaten. One guy got a 10-year sentence for reading the First Amendment. And that intimidation effectively closed down dissent for a decade in the United States of America. The Espionage Act has a very dark and dirty history. And when you start to use the Espionage Act, to criminalize what I’m sure you’ve handled classified documents in your time as a serious journalist, you know perfectly well that every serious journalist has seen or heard about classified information and repeated it. When you start to use the Espionage Act to say reporting is treachery, reporting is spying, it’s espionage, you criminalize journalism. And that’s the history that our country has shown. TOOBIN: I recognize there is that history. And I’m familiar with the red scare, too. America is different now. WOLF: Oh, it’s worse in some ways. TOOBIN: Well, I would disagree. SPITZER: I want to ask Jeff a question though, because I want to come back to this Woodward distinction. You would agree with Clay and Naomi, I think, that Julian Assange would be precisely Bob Woodward if he had been the recipient of these documents, is that correct? TOOBIN: I’d have to know a lot more. SPITZER: But it might be the case. TOOBIN: It well might be the case. SPITZER: OK. So you’re sort of clear articulation of the beginning that he clearly violated something maybe not so much. TOOBIN: I’m not sure. Certainly the attorney general of the United States seems to think criminal — criminal activity was involved here. But I think the wholesale taking of enormous quantities of classified information and putting it on the Internet, even if you don’t put all 250,000 documents on, I think that is a meaningful distinction from what Bob Woodward does. SPITZER: It seems to me that Bob Woodward arguably did something much more egregious. He took real-time decisions about why we were going to war in Afghanistan, the discussions are rationale, where we would go spoke to the most senior political and military officials in the nation and blasted that out in the book. A clear distinction. TOOBIN: Well, again, there is a distinction in part because the president of the United States and the vice president are allowed to declassify anything they want at any time for any reason. So if the president declassified — SPITZER: A lot of people who didn’t have that power were sourced in that book. Seemed to be speaking in clear violation. They, in fact, should be subject to criminal investigations. TOOBIN: I always wondered why — why Woodward gets away with it. It’s an interesting question. (CROSSTALK) PARKER: It’s a fascinating conversation. I have mostly listened as a non-lawyer to these arguments. And I never want to make a case against due process because that seems always the right thing to do. WOLF: Thank you. PARKER: And yet I also want to say the government should be able to shut down people who are giving away secrets that are going to cause people to lose their lives and put in, you know, and cause our own people abroad not to be able to do their work in safety. All right then. Naomi Wolf, Clay Shirky and Jeffrey Toobin, fabulous conversation. Thank you. SHIRKY: Thanks so much. PARKER: And you, too, Eliot Spitzer. We’ll be right back. It’s pretty pathetic that CNN’s supposed “legal analyist” apparently doesn’t have any grasp of history with his as Digby described it, authoritarian views he relayed here. I used to think that Toobin was a little more of a straight shooter than some of the other hacks over at CNN, but not any more after watching this interview.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Well, most of the media might be taking the weekend off for the holidays, but you can count on Fox News to keep working and pumping that propaganda out there day in and day out. What would Christmas Eve be without some good old-fashioned union bashing from Republican corporate shill Barbara Comstock? Comstock is terribly upset about a new rule being proposed by the National Labor Relations Board. More on that from the AFL-CIO’s blog. Proposed NLRB Rule Requires Employers to Post Workers’ Rights : Most workers have seen notices about their right to a minimum wage or safe workplace posted in the company break room or elsewhere on the job. Employers are required to post those notices by federal law. But there is no requirement for employers to post any sort of notice about workers’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), including the right to form a union. Now, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is proposing a rule that would require employers to post such notices in the workplace. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka says the proposed rule is “a common sense policy needed in today’s workplace.” Every working person in America deserves to know his or her rights… [The rule]…ensures that workers’ rights are effectively communicated in the workplace. It is necessary in the face of widespread misunderstanding about the law and many workers’ justified fear of exercising their rights under it. According to the proposed rule, published in the Federal Register, the NLRB believes that many employees protected by the NLRA are unaware of their rights under the statute. The intended effects of this action are to increase knowledge of the NLRA among employees, to better enable the exercise of rights under the statute, and to promote statutory compliance by employers and unions. More there with some specifics on the proposed rule, so go read the rest. But according to WFI’s Comstock, this is going to harm small businesses. She also blames unions for the outsourcing that’s gone on in America and pretty well destroyed the economy in places like Detroit. Yeah Barbara, it’s not the greedy CEO’s or our crappy trade laws that reward companies for shipping jobs overseas or the fact that our health care costs are so high. It’s the dirty f#%king hippie union members fault. And of course the “fair and balanced” Fox News didn’t put anyone from labor on to counter Comstock, or bother to inform their viewers just whose interests she’s really looking out for. Here’s more on her organization, the Workforce Fairness Institute : The Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI) describes itself as “an organization committed to educating voters, employers, employees and citizens about issues affecting the workplace.” WFI’s website lists among its “allied groups” the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace , Rick Berman ‘s Center for Union Facts , the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business . Yeah, those groups are all just looking out for the little people and those small businesses, don’t ya’ know. And here’s more on their funding. Sounds a whole lot like Dick Armey’s Freedom Works or the US Chamber of Commerce with them not wanting to disclose exactly who’s paying their bills. I can’t imagine why. Neil Golub , CEO of the Golub Corporation , “has raised millions of dollars from the industry for The Workforce Fairness Institute, one of the main coalitions working to defeat” EFCA, reported the States News Service in January 2009. [8] When asked by the New York Times , WFI’s Mark McKinnon “would not say which companies are financing the institute, founded by several longtime Republican operatives.” [9] On its website WFI states that it “is funded by and advocates on behalf of business owners who enjoy good working relationships with their employees, and would like to maintain those good relationships without the unfair interference of government bureaucrats, union organizers and special interests.” [1] And who are their personnel? Big players in the Republican party and big business shills of course. Katie Packer Executive Director [10] Mark McKinnon [11] Barbara Comstock [12] Danny Diaz The Workforce Fairness Institute “employs Former Bush ad man Mark McKinnon, former White House Political Director Sara Taylor , Mitt Romney aides Barbara Comstock and Katie Packer, powerhouse conservative PR firm CRC , GOP Web gurus Patrick Ruffini , Mindy Finn and Patrick Hynes and former RNC Communications Director [Danny] Diaz,” reported Politico.com. [13] Barbara Comstock is a founding partner of the Corallo Comstock public relations and lobbying firm [14] , which counts the National Association of Broadcasters and — until January 2009 — the Hearst Corporation among its clients. [15] That name Mark McKinnon sound familiar? Of course it does to anyone who reads this blog since he’s one of the founders of the latest Republican re-branding effort, No Labels . Hey Mark, I’ve got a label for you buddy… union buster. Here’s how the AFL-CIO described the Workforce Fairness Institute (got to love the names these people come up with for these groups, don’t you?) in their post on who is opposed to the Employee Free Choice Act . Take a look at the other groups listed there as well. Who They Are: National Journal calls them a “stealth group” that refuses to reveal their funding base. [xii] This group was formed by corporate lobbyists and public relations shills specifically to block the Employee Free Choice Act through public campaigns. Money spent on anti-worker campaign: “One source says the WFI is trying to raise as much as $10 million for its operations.” [xiii] All these people care about is taking care of their wealthy donors and them having access to cheap labor. And they could give a hoot about small businesses, how many Americans are hurting or creating jobs in the United States. But Fox is going to roll this shill out on Christmas Eve and let her blame our economic woes on unions and working people who dare to demand a living wage and benefits.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Looks like Man-on-Dog Rick Santorum is at it again, whipping up those good Christian viewers at Fox into thinking that the evil gay-loving secularists are out to get them. Here he is responding to Juan Williams during a panel discussion on Hannity’s show after Williams asked Santorum and guest host Mark Steyn what they thought of President Obama’s statement that he was “struggling with the idea of maybe supporting gay marriage” during his press conference after signing the repeal of DADT. From News Hounds — Rick Santorum Explains How Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Is Part Of A Secularist Plot To Rid America Of Religion : Steyn snidely asked if Obama’s “principled defense of marriage or whatever it was” was “likely to be tossed overboard with so much else?” Santorum replied, “Look, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was not about men and women serving in the military. Men and women who are gays and lesbians can serve in the military right now. That’s not the issue. The issue is a bigger issue. The issue is – and it’s not even about gay marriage. This is about a larger issue of the secularization of our society. It’s a larger issue about the left just, you know, trying to, you know, put government in control of this country, and trying to move faith, trying to move any people of faith and religion out of the public square, out of America, trying to transform what America’s all about. And this is just one more step in the process and we have Republicans who may be well meaning… but what they’re doing is a larger harm and this is just one more step in that process.” Yeah, heaven forbid Christians in this country don’t have enough of a bully pulpit to keep their members afraid of teh gays for political purposes like Ricky boy is doing here. Hey Rick, when the atheists take over the halls of Congress, you let me know, will ya?
Continue reading …Even as the public grew increasingly disenchanted with Washington's full-throated liberal policies in 2010, the media elite's partisanship remained on full display. The Media Research Center's Best Notable Quotables of 2010 captured the highlights, as journalists continued to blame America's misfortunes on George W. Bush, even as they also insisted that Barack Obama deserved more credit for his amazing accomplishments. In the MRC's ” They Don't Miss Him Yet Award for Still Bashing Bush ,” Time's Joe Klein took the prize for insisting that the April 2010 Gulf oil spill was really Bush's fault: “This is more Bush’s second Katrina than Obama’s first,” Klein lamely insisted on The Chris Matthews Show. Klein made his crack on May 30, nearly 500 days after Bush left the Oval Office. read more
Continue reading …Click here to view this media As Karoli already informed us about , the FCC passed some fairly milk toast regulations on Net Neutrality this week and as expected we got the usual freak out from the right wing. Think Progress has more on some of the reaction from conservatives here. Conservatives Freak Out Over Mild Net Neutrality Laws: ‘It’s Total Government Control Of The Internet’ They missed Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s carping on Sean Hannity’s show the other night where she basically repeated the same fear mongering she has posted on her Congressional web site. FCC Internet Grab a Christmas Nightmare : There’s no such thing as hospice for federal bureaucracies. No quiet corner where bureaus who have outlived their usefulness can go to bravely face the end. The undead need no such niceties; not when they can leap vampire-like upon the next great sector of American life and proceed to suck it dry in the name of “public interest”, “fair play”, or any other euphemistic glamour the Executive and Legislative branches can be lulled into. This may sound like a Halloween tale, but the FCC’s Christmas Week takeover of the Internet is the best example of President Reagan’s maxim that the nearest thing to eternal life on Earth is a federal program. Just four days before Christmas, the FCC will make its vampric leap from its traditional jurisdiction- the terrestrial radio and land line telephones that have fallen into disuse; onto the gifts piled neatly under our trees. The iPads and iPhones, Androids, Wiis, Webbooks, and WiFi will all feel the federal bite in a way they never have before. Today the FCC, in spite of Congressional opposition and public outrage, is expected to adopt “net neutrality” regulations over the Internet. They will impose thousands of pages of rules on the most prosperous, creative, and exciting sector of the American economy. They’ll do it- and then Congress will have to undo it. The FCC’s blind impulse to regulate before the new Congress can restrain them ignores a host of consequences that will prove ill for America’s Creative Economy. First, in detaching the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from the Internet architecture they have built, the FCC is effectively nationalizing the web. The FCC does this in the name of “fairness”, “non-discrimination”, and “leveling the playing field”. The consequence will be a restriction of bandwidth for users and a deterioration of the online architecture that ISPs no longer have an interest in expanding or maintaining. The underserved communities in this country who don’t yet have access to broadband are now much less likely to get it. Second, the FCC’s hysterical reaction to the hypothetical problem of anti-competitive online behavior is also redundant. By asserting jurisdiction over the Internet as a communications platform, the FCC is shortsightedly ignoring the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) who already has sufficient rules in place to contain the bad behavior in the virtual marketplace the FCC seems so worried about. This sets up a real jurisdictional fight and points out what happens when the bureaucracy decides to create work for themselves, rather than wait for Congress to dictate to them. Finally, when the FCC moves to regulate the Internet, they focus on those issues they understand: bandwidth, spectrum, and to a lesser extent content. They ignore emerging issues of fair trade, property rights, privacy, and copyright. In my view a more comprehensive approach to the new Creative Economy and how it can be protected is the most appropriate. Such a comprehensive approach can only begin on Capitol Hill. The real issue here is not that the Federal Government lacks the authority to sensibly regulate the Internet. Nor, even, that the Internet is in desperate need of regulation- it isn’t. The issue is that the FCC is running out of useful things to occupy their time. There is a real bi-partisan consensus that Congress should act first to regulate the Internet (or not regulate as the case may be). Industry and creative content providers who were coerced into this deal by an over zealous FCC Chairman should take heart. Like the breaking of dawn, the new Congress will prove a swift antidote to the federal bloodsucker you found at your throat this Christmas. Yeah, that’s the ticket Marsha. It’s the federal government and the regulators that are the bloodsuckers, not the telecom companies that want to overcharge people for their Internet access or potentially censor sites they don’t agree with. I’m sure her campaign donors will be very pleased with this appearance. This is the crap we’re going to get to look forward to in the next two years… endless hearings on laws and policies that Republicans would have supported in the past before their party lost their damned mind since they’re corporate friendly and calling them “government takeovers” and “socialism” because Democrats passed them. Good grief these lying hacks make my head hurt.
Continue reading …The Washington Post’s Dana Priest has another phone book’s worth of terrifying revelations about our national security/police/prison state. One that really chills given the FBI’s track record is the “vast repository” the Bureau is building that “stores the profiles of tens of thousands of Americans and legal residents who are not accused of any crime. What they have done is appear to be acting suspiciously to a town sheriff, a traffic cop or even a neighbor.” The Washington Post: At the same time that the FBI is expanding its West Virginia database, it is building a vast repository controlled by people who work in a top-secret vault on the fourth floor of the J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building in Washington. This one stores the profiles of tens of thousands of Americans and legal residents who are not accused of any crime. What they have done is appear to be acting suspiciously to a town sheriff, a traffic cop or even a neighbor. If the new Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative, or SAR, works as intended, the Guardian database may someday hold files forwarded by all police departments across the country in America’s continuing search for terrorists within its borders. The effectiveness of this database depends, in fact, on collecting the identities of people who are not known criminals or terrorists – and on being able to quickly compile in-depth profiles of them. Read more Related Entries December 22, 2010 CIA Launches W.T.F. December 21, 2010 Foreign Policy Review Suggests a Losing Effort
Continue reading …The FCC’s new net neutrality rules are being attacked not only by internet activists, but by Republicans who call it “interventionist overreach.” Attacks from both sides might tempt you to believe that this must therefore be a reasonable compromise, but you would be wrong. (Here’s a clue: The telecoms love it!): Come Tuesday afternoon, following what will likely be a 3-2 party line vote at the FCC, the new rules of the road will resemble the old rules in many respects — just with less legal authority, and a massive new loophole. For the first time, federal policy would allow for so-called reasonable “paid prioritization,” which critics argue is the first step toward cleaving out high-speed, premium fast-lanes from the “public internet.” This could jeopardize internet innovation by disincentivising entrepreneurial activity on the free, or regular, internet. The new policy appeared to cross a key hurdle Monday when Democratic FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said he would support it. “The item we will vote on tomorrow is not the one I would have crafted,” Copps said in a statement. “But I believe we have been able to make the current iteration better than what was originally circulated. If vigilantly and vigorously implemented by the Commission — and if upheld by the courts — it could represent an important milestone in the ongoing struggle to safeguard the awesome opportunity-creating power of the open Internet.” “While I cannot vote wholeheartedly to approve the item, I will not block it by voting against it,” Copps added. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a liberal advocacy group that supports net neutrality, instantly launched a fusillade against Copps. “Internet users across America will have lost a hero if Commissioner Copps caves to pressure from big business and supports FCC Chairman Genachowski’s fake Net Neutrality rules — rules written by AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon, the very companies the public is depending on the FCC to regulate strongly,” PCCC Senior Online Campaigns Director Jason Rosenbaum said in a statement. “There’s no such thing as half a First Amendment, and there’s no such thing as half of Net Neutrality. If approved, Genachowski’s industry-written rules would be a historic mistake: For the first time, the FCC would give its stamp of approval to discrimination online.” The apparent denouement of this saga comes after five years of debates, lawsuits, botched regulatory actions, grassroots campaigns, and millions of dollars spent lobbying the federal government.
Continue reading …