Pharmacy blames cleaners in fungal meningitis outbreak

By JoNel Aleccia, NBC News

The compounding pharmacy at the center of an ongoing outbreak of fungal meningitis and other infections says the cleaning company it hired is also at fault for unsanitary conditions linked to more than 650 infections and 39 deaths in the U.S.

The New England Compounding Center sent a letter Dec. 31 to UniFirst Corp., asking UniFirst officials to indemnify NECC against claims stemming from the compounding and sale of tainted steroid injection drugs, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

“This demand relates to the limited, once-a-month cleaning services the Company provided to portions of NECC’s cleanroom facilities,” UniFirst, of Wilmington, Mass., explained in required filings.

“Based on its preliminary review of this matter, the Company believed that NECC’s claims are without merit.”

Federal health regulators found fungi in three lots of tainted steroids linked to infections and deaths and more fungi and bacteria in other drugs made by NECC.

In addition, Food and Drug Administration inspectors found evidence of contamination documented throughout the NECC facility and dating from January 2012 through September. In some cases, surfaces were overgrown with visible mold, inspectors said.

UniFirst provided services through its UniClean business as specified by NECC and using NECC’s own “defined cleansing solutions,” UniFirst spokesman Adam Soreff told NBC News in a statement. UniClean technicians cleaned approximately 1½ hours each month.

“UniClean was not in any way responsible for NECC’s day-to-day operations, its overall facility cleanliness, or the integrity of the products they produced,” Soreff said.

NECC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Dec. 21, with officials pledging to establish a fund for victims. NECC faces more than 400 lawsuits from patients who received epidural steroid injections later found to be contaminated with fungus linked to the serious and deadly infections. Some 14,000 people in 23 states received the injections before the problem was discovered in September.

Related stories: 

• Pharmacy tied to fungal meningitis outbreak files for bankruptcy 
• FDA ponders new pharmacy rules after deadly outbreak
• Fungal meningitis victim hopes Congress hears: 'It's torturous'

Netanyahu Pummels Obama, And the Public Cheers

US President Barack Obama meets with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. (photo by REUTERS/Jason Reed)

By: Ben Caspit for Al-Monitor Israel Pulse. posted on Sun, Dec 23.

Almost four years ago, Benjamin Netanyahu made his first visit to Washington as the newly-elected prime minister. It was his second term in office. His first term ended badly, leaving him detested by the Israeli public, shunned from politics and an outcast in the American capital. The headlines in Israel that accompanied his trip proclaimed that Netanyahu was facing a direct threat from the American administration. “Bushehr or Yitzhar,” screamed one such headline, referencing the option of support against the Iranian nuclear program or keeping a settlement in the heart of the West Bank. Political pundits with White House connections gave a stunning description of how Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and his colleagues in President Obama’s inner circle were plotting to “school” Netanyahu and bring him to his knees. Want help against Iran? Sure, just evacuate settlements, freeze construction and get on board the peace process. “The party is over,” said the Americans. If Netanyahu wants the same attitude from us that Israel has grown accustomed to receive for at least a generation, he will have to work up a sweat.

Sitting aboard his flight to Washington, Netanyahu seemed pensive and worried. “What do they want?” he asked privately. “To bring me down?” No one knew what to tell him. By the time Bibi arrived in the American capital, he was scared and apprehensive. The fallout from that first meeting with President Barack Obama was harsh. There was no chemistry worth mentioning. There was, however, mutual distrust and quite a bit of tension. It looked like the beginning of a beautiful rivalry. Then came a freeze on construction in the territories. And then it all fell apart. The Americans made every imaginable error. They perched Abu Mazen too high up the tree, took away the ladder and left.

There was a time when every Israeli prime minister knew that in order for them to keep their job, they first needed to earn Washington’s support. The Israeli public considered the strategic relationship with the US to be a vital asset of the highest magnitude, much more important than the futility of this place, than the outposts and the settlers. Failure to bring Washington on board was a sure sign that they would not remain in power. Period. In 1991 it was President George Bush the Elder who denied these guarantees to then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and showed him the door. In 1992 Shamir lost the elections to Yitzhak Rabin. In 1999 it was President Bill Clinton who gave Netanyahu — the very same Netanyahu — the cold shoulder, and this led to his defeat by Ehud Barak in the next elections. Israelis learned to recognize the value of America, and they learned to appreciate it. Anyone who posed a threat to this relationship was putting himself at risk.

And today? The situation has been turned completely upside down. Israel is well in the midst of an election campaign. It is a very sensitive period. In times like these, the ruling prime minister is generally accustomed to heaping flattery and praises on the American administration. He tries to arrange a highly publicized trip to Washington, and he boasts of the special relationship he has forged with the sitting President. Not this time. Netanyahu and Avigdor Liberman are doing the exact opposite. Instead, they launch a provocative statement about construction in Jerusalem or the territories — whichever comes first — just about every week. Obama has become the punching bag of the “Likud-Beiteinu” party, and the mob cheers on. Meanwhile, the Israeli public is indifferent and shows no signs of concern. Bibi can continue pummeling the Americans as far as we’re concerned, as long as the ship keeps sailing forward and the band plays happily on deck.

And Netanyahu is doing the pummeling. He is no longer afraid. He has lost the inherent, natural respect that every Israeli leader has had for the country’s greatest ally. It’s more important for him to plug the leakage of parliamentary seats to Naftali Bennett on the right. The most important thing of all to him is that those seats don’t trickle away. And Washington? We don’t care about them right now. Besides, in our last term in office, we taught our friends in the White House a lesson that they won’t soon forget, didn’t we? The timid, nondescript, and intensely uneasy Netanyahu of his previous term has long disappeared. He has since boosted his confidence and spread his wings, so that he can now hover high above on the fumes of euphoria. What will he do if they evaporate? Après lui le deluge.

What has changed? A few things. First of all, there’s the collapse of the peace process, the eruption of the Arab Spring, and the sense that a storm is brewing all around. There is no one and nothing to talk about, so all that is left is to trust in ourselves, or in our Father Who Art in Heaven. Then there are Obama’s mistakes: his visit to Cairo, his inclination to ignore Netanyahu and the Israeli public. Unlike Clinton or Bush the Younger, Obama hasn’t learned to build a relationship of trust with the Israeli public, and that Israeli public is starved for affection. A president who looks them squarely in the eye when he speaks, who pours his heart out to them, who drops by for a visit… now that’s a winning president. Israel doesn’t see Obama as a true friend, even though he provides the goods that Israel needs most, and he does it even more than most of his predecessors. Nevertheless, Israelis remain suspicious of him. What ever happened to those unforgettable days of “Shalom, Haver” [Goodbye, Friend], as Clinton said over Yitzhak Rabin’s open grave? By the way, had Clinton run for prime minister of Israel back then, he would have won an absolute majority. If Obama ran now, Shaul Mofaz of the Kadima party would get more votes than him.

What we’re talking about is a missed opportunity of historic proportions. Never has Israel found a friendlier administration in Washington, when it comes to all the security issues that really matter. The Israeli public isn’t aware of these details, or perhaps it doesn’t want to be aware of them. In everything to do with the sharing of intelligence, special means, operational and strategic cooperation, the supply of arms, and even international backing (American continues to isolate itself by supporting Israel in all votes in the United Nations’ General Assembly and its Security Council), no administration was ever better than Obama’s. Americans are making the investment but foregoing the returns. Obama is left to feed off spoiled scraps and expelled from the city. There are many he can blame for that, including himself.

At the same time, there have been changes in Israel too. Demography has played its part, and the public has moved to the right. The natural rate of increase among the settlers and the ultra-Orthodox is significantly higher than it is on the other side of the spectrum. This all comes to a climax when Netanyahu and Liberman allow themselves to pummel Abu Mazen too, on an almost daily basis, and no one dares to open their mouths in protest. Would they prefer to see Hamas in Ramallah? Whatever. What difference does it make? They are all Arabs in the end, aren’t they? And so, the celebration continues. The ship sails on, the band remains on deck playing and the iceberg is still shrouded by thick mist (even though it’s looming closer now). Bon voyage.

The new Sandy Hook Elementary is seen on the Jan. 3 on the first day of school for students and teacher who survived the Dec. 14 shooting. The school, formerly known as Chalk Hill, was overhauled especially for the students in the neighboring town of Monroe, Conn.

Students return to class for the first time since a gunman killed 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. They are attending a neighboring school that has been filled with items from the original building. NBC’s Rehema Ellis reports.




A parent greets her child as she gets off a school bus returning from the first day of classes at the new Sandy Hook School on Jan. 3.

Families from Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. are on the field before the game between the New York Giants and the Philadelphia Eagles at MetLife Stadium on Dec. 30, in East Rutherford, N.J.

A school bus stops in front of 26 angels along the roadside as it travels from  

 Newtown, Conn., to Monroe on the first day of classes for Sandy Hook Elementary School students since the Dec. 14 shooting. Chalk Hill School in Monroe was overhauled especially for the students from the Sandy Hook School shooting.

Greg Gnandt and Guy Veneruso work on the installation of 26 stars on the roof of the Sandy Hook fire station on Jan. 1 in Newtown, Conn. The stars were made and installed by a group of local contractors, led by Gnandt, to honor the memory of the victims of the Sandy Hook school shooting.

Fliers can expect higher airfares, fewer airlines, more fees, experts say

10 hrs.

A. Pawlowski , NBC News contributor

Well, that didn't take long. Just four days into the new year, United Airlines and its Star Alliance partner Air Canada have launched the first attempted airfare increase of 2013.

The carriers are attempting to hike more than 1 million fares across their system, reports Rick Seaney, airfare analyst and CEO of FareCompare.com. The increase is between $2 and $5 each way.

As of Friday afternoon, Delta matched United's fares, and "there has been minimal matching by American Airlines and US Airways," according to FareCompare.

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

A US Airways plane and an American Airlines plane share a terminal at Ronald Reagan National Airport in Washington in this file photo taken last April. The carriers could announce its plans to merge as soon as next week.

Uncertainty often looms large when air travelers turn their calendars to January. Will airfares keep climbing? What new fees will airlines come up with? Is merger mania about to engulf more carriers?
Seaney and other air travel experts weighed in on the developments that may shape your flying experience in 2013.

Airfare trends
There were seven attempted domestic airfare hikes in 2012 and that number will likely grow slightly this year, which should raise ticket prices about 7 percent or so, Seaney said.

But some routes may see bargains. Expect Southwest Airlines to try to expand over water, with Hawaii on the carrier’s radar, Seaney added. It may even try to fly to parts of Canada, he predicted.

“As Southwest tries to become more like a legacy airline, the legacy airlines are trying to become more like Southwest. So it’s sort of a strange thing that’s going on,” Seaney said.

International fares will still be expensive because of fuel surcharges, but globetrotters may see some price breaks if they depart from U.S. cities where foreign carriers are expanding their service, said George Hobica, founder of Airfarewatchdog.com. Turkish Airlines is starting to fly from Houston this spring and that’s putting downward pressure on international airfares in that region, Hobica said.

Possible merger between American Airlines and US Airways
All of the travel experts who talked with NBC News said the merger – which would reduce the number of U.S. legacy carriers to three – would likely lead to higher airfares and cuts in capacity.

“It’s a bad thing for travelers. Any time that competition is eroded, consumers lose,” said Charlie Leocha, director of the Consumer Travel Alliance.

Still, an announcement appears imminent. The board of directors of American's parent company, AMR Corp., could vote on a merger with US Airways as soon as next week, NBCDFW.com reported.
The carrier declined to confirm whether a decision on the merger would be made then.

“We can’t comment on the timeline or our board meeting, but we remain committed in our efforts to secure the best outcome for our financial stakeholders, our people and our customers,” American Airlines said in a statement to NBC News.

If American does merge with US Airways, expect fewer flights on overlapping routes and be prepared for some computer hiccups – similar to the glitches that plagued United Airlines last year after its merger with Continental – when the carriers try to combine their systems.
But travelers accruing frequent flier miles with either airline or those who have earned elite status have nothing to worry about, said FareCompare.com's Seaney.

“Typically, you see newly merged airlines bending over backwards to make sure all their loyal customers are taken care of,” Seaney said. “The last thing you want to do as a merged airline is alienate your best customers. I would expect them to offer more things than they normally would as opposed to cutting back.”

The next generation of fees
With carriers demanding extra money for everything from early boarding to on-board snacks, what else can they possibly charge for? Don’t worry – the number crunchers are still coming up with new ideas.

“Every time we think that the airlines can’t think up a new fee, they surprise us,” Leocha said.

Travelers will likely see a further push to self-service at the airport, so they may be asked to check themselves in for their flight and if they don’t, they’ll pay a fee, said Hobica.

Airlines could also introduce “disincentives” to talk with airline personnel at the airport, he added.

Another trend is airlines offering fees in bundles – so you have the option of buying a package deal of extra services rather than purchasing them individually, Leocha said.

For example, American Airlines last month introduced “choice” fares that bundle extras such as early boarding, one checked bag and the ability to change flights for flat fees that range from $68-$88.

The next step? Carriers will be taking those bundles and discounting them, Seaney said.

New round of passenger protections
Under the latest proposal, the government would require that airline fees be displayed through “all sale channels,” but last month, the Department of Transportation delayed action on addressing the issue from January to May.

“The real battle now is about comparison shopping. Consumers love to comparison shop, airlines hate it and they don’t want to give the comparison shopping sites their bundles of fees,” Seaney said.

The goal is to get the carriers to release their fees so that third-party websites, such as Priceline and Travelocity, can display them in real time and dynamically as they change, Leocha said. The debate over the issue will take place this year, but he doesn’t expect any changes to be implemented until 2014.

“Nothing moves quickly in Washington,” Leocha said. “(Still,) this has been by far the most consumer friendly Department of Transportation that we’ve ever had.”

A better flying experience
 Can it be true? Will you actually enjoy flying this year? Perhaps enjoy is a strong word, but chances are you will see some improvements.

Airlines are going to take delivery of a “boatload of new aircraft” and those planes will have mood lighting, better breathing air, more legroom and other creature comforts, Seaney noted.

“I think people will finally, for the first time in over a decade, have a little bit better flying experience,” he said.

Wi-Fi will become prevalent on most flights, for a fee, Lisa Gill, senior editor at Conde Nast Traveler, told TODAY. Also expect to see more lie-flat beds in business class on long domestic flights, she said.

What Is an Assange? 

 John Cusack

Posted: 01/01/2013 7:28 pm

This week, I was proud to join the board and help launch the Freedom of the Press Foundation, a new organization which plans on crowd-funding for a variety of independent journalism outlets whose prime mission is to seek transparency and accountability in government. You can read about the first group of four organizations -- which includes the National Security Archive, MuckRock News, and The UpTake and WikiLeaks -- here.

Recently, I sat down with George Washington Law School professor and constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley and my close friend Kevin McCabe to discuss WikiLeaks' impact on transparency, the government's response, and the comparison to the Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg (also a co-founder of the Freedom of the Press Foundation). (And see a previous conversation with Jonathan Turley here.)

WikiLeaks was extralegally cut off from funding after two Congressmen successfully pressured Visa, Mastercard and PayPal into refusing to do business with the journalism organization in late 2010. We hope that the Freedom of the Press Foundation will become a bulwark against these types of unofficial censorship tactics in the future.

This is the first part of our conversation.

***** John Cusack: Did you guys see this piece by Ellsberg before the Election? 

Kevin McCabe: No.

Jonathan Turley: No.

John Cusack: Was really meaningful, I think about what it meant to vote for Obama -- Ellsberg's is a principled stand -- but had taken the Chomsky position to stop the Republicans in swing states. But do it with no illusions.

Jonathan Turley: Right.

John Cusack: Anyway, I thought the Ellsberg thing was fascinating. And I spoke to -- Jon, you know Michael Ratner? He said he knew you --

Jonathan Turley: Yeah.

John Cusack: I spoke to him about this request to see Julian Assange in London. I was just thinking Assange, and as Hedges and Ellsberg sue over NDAA, we have a situation where, if things are as they appear to be, Assange is locked up for basically exposing war crimes.

Jonathan Turley: Yeah. I think the fascinating thing about Assange is that the very same act of disclosure, if he were recognized as a journalist, might have brought him the Pulitzer Prize. Assange holds this curious status. The media doesn't quite know how to handle him. They can't decide whether he is a villain or a hero, or some type of villainous hero. And many people are ignoring the content of a lot of what he disclosed.

You and I have talked about this in the past, John, that the material released by WikiLeaks ticked off the US government, primarily because it showed that the government had been routinely lying to the American people. That produced tremendous anger from government officials who are not used to be exposed in this way, including members of Congress. These are people who tightly control what the public knows and what information is allowed out of the government.

Frankly, most governments are used to lying to each other - to a degree that most people would find shocking. Part of diplomacy is the art of strategic lying. These cables show the level of deceit shown by government not only to other governments but to their own citizens, including our own. And so it was a tremendously embarrassing disclosure.

Some of these disclosures were quite startling and far more important than the media suggestion in the coverage. For example, we've talked about the cable showing the Obama Administration threatening Spain if Spain carried out its right under treaty to investigate the American torture program, in light of Obama's refusal to do so. 

John Cusack: Yeah, it doesn't seem like this guy is being hunted around the world because he embarrassed some diplomats. 

Jonathan Turley: Right, it is more than that.

John Cusack: I would love to discuss what these underlying legal principles are. Do you think he feels he's doing something that should be done by journalists and publishers -- do you think he's filling a gap in journalism, or is this a new sort of journalism? Perhaps he doesn't care about those distinctions, but should we? 

Jonathan Turley: Well, the response to Assange is remarkable -- it was something of a paradigm shift. The media's used to insular disclosures that are controlled and focused on subjects like the secret prisons in Europe, or the torture program. What Assange did was a massive release of material that showed the breathtaking dishonesty by the US government and governments around the world . . . it showed how much of our domestic and international politics are just a type of kabuki, that--

John Cusack: In that way, it's adequately analogous to the Pentagon Papers. In the same way - say Eric Holder signing statements saying you can kill American citizens is the same kind of bullshit legal patina akin to John Yoo's torture document. What are the important difference or parallels, between the Ellsberg releases of the Pentagon Papers and WikiLeaks' release of the exposure of war crimes and state lies?

Jonathan Turley: I think you make the right analogy. In one sense, the Pentagon Papers were so powerful because they were focused on the issue of deception with regard to the Vietnam War. Assange is almost hurt by the fact that his disclosures were 100 times broader than the Pentagon Papers.
Ironically, if he had simply taken parts of those disclosures and released them in isolation, he might have had a greater level of support. Instead, he released this comprehensive record of deceit by the US government and other governments. And frankly, I think the mainstream media had difficulty in covering it and describing it and processing it. 

The result is that this guy is isolated, both in a legal and physical sense. He's being basically held captive in this embassy, unless he's willing to leave and be subject to arrest. He has good reason to suspect that the United States government is planning to deport him as soon as any government can get -- any friendly government -- can get their hands on him. 

John Cusack: Yeah -- I have no idea what the truth is in the matter. But I know that you haven't seen too many governments taking such active interest and getting so actively involved in Swedish rape cases.

Jonathan Turley: Well, there's a lot of skepticism with regard to the timing. The fact is the United States did need some government to grab Assange on the basis of some criminal allegation. Yet, we do not know fully the underlying facts.

Assange may indeed be a highly imperfect individual - even a rapist if these allegations were ever proven. As I've mentioned before, I tell my students all the time that our causes are often better than our clients. It's just a reality of pro bono or public interest work. It is not uncommon to have people who raise important public interest issues, but may have committed great wrongs. 

Frankly, I don't know what the truth of the matter is. I know that Assange has offered to meet with investigators in the embassy, and that's been refused. I'm a little uncertain of why it has been refused.

But in terms of the importance of WikiLeaks, I don't think anyone can really question that there is considerable importance to those disclosures.

John Cusack: Yes, in many ways, it's world-changing. Are Assange and Wiki leaks basically saying there's no one who'll do this journalism anymore, so we are compelled to do it? Or is he filling some other space, or trying to trump journalistic space. Legally, whats the difference? Why is he punished but the New York Times is not? They published his material.

I think you're saying it's such a vaster terrain than the Pentagon Papers that it may explain the frenzy -- when the publisher for the New York Times and reporters around Ellsberg release had to just say to themselves -- vietnam lies --all right, these guys are going to come after us -- Maybe we'll go to jail, maybe we won't. But they made the call, and they published it. 

Wikileaks is going after all governments all over the world.
Jonathan Turley: I think what Assange showed, more than any journalist or activist perhaps in history, is the sheer degree of duplicity and deception by this government and governments around the world. 

John Cusack: You think the primary crux of it is the thing as a whole, not just the Bradley Manning case, or any specific revelation? Manning is just the fulcrom point to stop it and destroy them.

Jonathan Turley: Yeah, I think it's fascinating when you look at the reaction to Bradley Manning and Assange. The government really went to DEFCON 4 in dealing with these guys. And the question is why. I think the answer to that is they want to hoist the wretch. They want everyone to see these guys twisting in the wind, so no one will do this again.

And what is it that they did? They released --

John Cusack: They were whistleblowers.

Jonathan Turley: Right, they released information embarrassing to the government. But when you look at the media coverage, they clearly are unwilling to treat Assange as a whistleblower, and they are particularly unwilling to treat him as a journalist.

And so this sort of goes to this longstanding question of what constitutes a journalist in the age of blogs and Internet sites?

John Cusack: I guess that's probably the question I was stumbling towards -- what do you believe that difference is, from the constitutional perspective of freedom of speech, or its protection?

Jonathan Turley: Journalists have been adopting a very narrow definition because they have a legitimate concern that, with the ability to create a blog in a matter of minutes, everyone can claim to be a journalist. If everyone is a journalist, then no one will likely have journalistic privileges. Journalists survive on these privileges and those privileges will evaporate if everyone can claim them.

And so if you look at things like the National Press Club, they long have had a definition of a journalist that deals with how much the person gets paid to do journalism, excluding people who are legitimate journalists but are not receiving a full-time, or even a significant part-time, salary. Those definitions are highly artificial today. Most people are now getting their news from the Internet and from blogs. 

Kevin McCabe: -- in a reference in a Times story, the reporter referred to Chris Matthews and Katie Couric as journalists, who would be attending the Al Smith dinner. And I was going to send a note saying Chris Matthews is no journalist. At one time he was a columnist. But he's a cable TV opinion guy now. I think that what you say just brings a striking relief to all of that. It's just so obvious.

Jonathan Turley: It also creates this awkward position, where if Adam Liptak at the New York Times releases material from Assange, it's a journalistic act. When Assange releases this information in bulk, it's considered a terrorist act. And nobody seems comfortable with trying to explain that distinction. And I'm not too sure that they can.

There's two ways to look at whether someone's a journalist -- their function and their motivation. And usually, we look at both. Well, what was the motivation of Assange? Assange's motivation, it seems to me, was clearly to be a whistleblower and to release this information. But he was also doing an act which is identical to what journalists do.

And yet, if you look at how he's treated in the newspapers, they're not treating him as either whistleblower or journalist; they're treating him somehow as sui generis, something unique. He's an Assange.

John Cusack: Yes. What is the difference between him raising money, and putting up a website, WikiLeaks, and having his own investigative reporting team gather information and aggregating content; and the Huffington Post hiring folks doing the same-- I watch her put her thing together and become the online newspaper... many of the people who were bloggers and are now journalists - great guys like Sam Stein -- and they do a great job -- now they have titles -they get accredited and go to the White House, and they are journalists, but primarily, they write online...

Jonathan Turley: Yeah, I think that's true. The distinction I think you could draw between these acts -- and I think you're absolutely right in that concern. I think that part of the distinction is if the government was arguing that Assange is an actual hacker -- if they're saying that he broke into a computer system and removed this material--

John Cusack: -they're basically saying that Assange is Anonymous.

Jonathan Turley: Right.

John Cusack: So their argument is if Assange is Anonymous; he's a cyber-terrorist?

Jonathan Turley: Right. And if he's a hacker, I think that does --
John Cusack: Does that hold up?

Jonathan Turley: Well, no -- if he's a hacker, it does put him in a different category, in the sense that he's committing a crime --

John Cusack: Is he a hacker? Do we know that?

Jonathan Turley: Well, no, we don't know that. In fact, many people insist that it's clear he's not a hacker, that he somehow got this material from a third party. But I don't know the truth either way. But I think the one distinction we can draw, and the distinction that's existed -

John Cusack: -- Like the New York Times got from Ellsberg -he was the third party 

Jonathan Turley: Right.

Kevin McCabe: But I think it's important to re-frame this discussion here and look at this problem from a broader perspective than just Julian Assange. Because I am not interested in individuals.

I am interested in movements. We need a movement protecting the 1st Amendment and its broadest reach. I don't care about Assange other than he is an individual whose rights are being violated. And that means my rights are being violated. The reason we should care about what happens to Assange in the United States is because what happens to him, happens to the First Amendment."

You can read this whole post on Jonathan Turley's blog as well.

Airline Humiliated Double-Amputee Marine to the Point of Tears 

 There is no apology that could make up for the way this Marine was treated. He served  our country with honor and distinction, he gave his all, including his legs.  I will boycott Delta Airlines, and I think all Americans should do the same.  Lets show a corporation, that they can not get away with treating people  this way......

Posted by Lindsay Mannering

on December 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Last year, Marine Lance Cpl. Christian Brown lost both his legs while fighting in Afghanistan. Last week, he lost his dignity while flying on Delta. According to reports, Brown, 29, was humiliated by the airline staff who clumsily wheeled him to the back of the plane, bumping into seated passengers along the way, and refused to let him change seats with fellow ticket-holders who offered him their seats in first class. Army Lt. Col. Keith Gafford was also on that flight from Atlanta to D.C. and saw the whole shameful scene go down. He says Brown, who was also battling a fever of 104, was in tears.

Gafford explained:

I have been flying with Delta for a gazillion years and this crew treated Chris worse than you’d treat any thing, not even any body. I did 27 years in the military. I have seen a lot of things and have seen a lot of guys die, but I have never seen a Marine cry.

They sat on the tarmac for more than 45 minutes and Gafford said still, the flight attendants wouldn't move Brown to a better seat. He blasted the staff for being "hard as woodpecker lips."
What was going through the minds of the flight attendants who, from what it sounds like, went out of their way to be some of the least accommodating people on Earth? The man's got no legs, for crying out loud, he's sick as a dog, he's visibly humiliated, and he's a veteran who served our country proudly -- is it too much to ask to treat him like a human being?
Delta has issued an apology, but I can understand where Gafford and retired Army Col. Nickey Knighton, another service-member on the flight, are coming from when they speak with such disgust and disdain for the treatment Brown received.
You'd think around the holidays people would have lighter, kinder hearts, especially for those who served, and for those with their whole lives ahead of them. I guess not.
Can you believe how Brown was treated?

Senate report on Benghazi lets Obama off hook

Homeland Security Committee finds intelligence agencies, not White House, are responsible for "talking point" changes. Last Modified: 01 Jan 2013 03:38

Some Republicans had questioned whether the presidential staff rewrote the talking points for political reasons [AP]

A Senate report has said the FBI, CIA and other intelligence agencies - but not the White House - made major changes in talking points that led to the Obama administration's explanations of the attack on US diplomatic facilities in Benghazi. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee report said on Monday the White House was only responsible for a minor change.  Flashing Red:A Special Report on the Terrorist Act on Benghazi with Security Considerations Some Republicans had questioned whether the presidential staff rewrote the talking points for political reasons. The committee, headed by independent Sen Joe Lieberman and Republican Sen Susan Collins, also said the director of national intelligence has been stonewalling the panel, in holding back a promised timeline of the talking point changes. US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the September 11 Libya attack. The US ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said she had used the talking points to say in television interviews on September 16 that it may have been a protest that got out of hand. Rice's incorrect explanation may have cost her a chance to be nominated as the next secretary of state, as Senate Republicans publicly said they would not vote to confirm her. President Barack Obama instead nominated Democratic Sen John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who is expected to win easy confirmation. Woefully unprepared The State Department this month acknowledged major weaknesses in security, and errors in judgment exposed in a scathing independent report on the assault. Two top State officials appealed to Congress to fully fund requests to ensure diplomats and embassies are safe. Testifying before two congressional committees, senior State Department officials acknowledged that serious management and leadership failures left the diplomatic mission in Benghazi woefully unprepared for the terrorist attack. The State Department review board's report led four departmen t officials to resign. The Senate report said that on September 19, eight days after the attack, National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen told the Homeland committee that the four Americans died "in the course of a terrorist attack". The same day, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the department stood by the intelligence community's assessment. The next day, September 20, presidential spokesman Jay Carney said, "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton also used the words "terrorist attack" on September 21. Olsen's acknowledgement was important, the report said, because talking points prepared by intelligence officials the previous week had undergone major changes. A line saying "we know" that individuals associated with al-Qaeda or its affiliates participated in the attacks was changed to say, "There are indications that extremists participated." The talking points dropped the reference to al-Qaeda and its affiliates altogether. In addition, a reference to "attacks" was changed to "demonstrations". US officials removed over Benghazi attack Four senior officials leave after critical report blames their offices for failing to secure Libya consulate. ( 20-Dec-2012 ) Clinton accepts Benghazi findings Rice remains under fire for Benghazi comments

Farm Bill Perspectives Emerge; and the Ag Economy

Categories: Agricultural Economy /Budget /Farm Bill

Farm Bill Issues
Bloomberg writer Alan Bjerga reported yesterday that, “The fiscal-cliff settlement, which extends the most-recent agriculture law until September, is frustrating farmer groups that spent 2012 pushing new programs and now must start again under a tougher spending outlook.

“Congress’s approval of a one-year extension of the farm bill that expired Sept. 30 heads off government-mandated higher milk prices. It also preserves subsidies that even farmers call wasteful and makes plans approved by the U.S. House Agriculture Committee and full Senate last year moot. Now back to square one, lobbyists and lawmakers may have an even tougher climb as cost-cutting rules the day, said analyst Mark McMinimy.”
Mr. Bjerga explained that, “The top Republicans and Democrats on both congressional agriculture committees had pushed for an extension that contained elements of legislation they had backed last year, including a new dairy program intended to stabilize prices for the boom-or-bust industry. That plan, which House Speaker John Boehner blasted as worse than ‘Soviet-style’ economic management [related audio clip from July 12], was stripped from the fiscal-cliff deal.”

The article added that, “The House Agriculture Committee plans to start drafting a new farm bill on Feb. 27, while the Senate panel will begin its work  soon,’ [Senate Ag Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.)] said Dec. 30.”

The “Washington Insider” section of DTN pointed out yesterday (link requires subscription) that, “Stabenow and her House counterpart, Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., now have until next September to draft legislation to replace the extended 2008 farm bill. They already have their earlier effort to use as a starting point, and there are indications that a new farm bill might be ready for floor consideration in both chambers before summer.”

Mary Kay Thatcher, Senior Director of Congressional Relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation, reminded listeners yesterday on the AgriTalk radio program with Mike Adams, that in early March, the Congressional Budget Office will release its new projections of what programs will cost.

Ms. Thatcher noted that, “It’s going to be very challenging, and there almost certainly will be less money to do it. So we may start somewhere close to where the bills are now, but the question on the budgeting comes up and will give us a big answer about whether we can finish about in the same place.”

With respect to the Farm Bill extension, Ms. Thatcher stated that, “Obviously I think everyone would have liked to have had a five year bill done, but that became somet
hing that just wasn’t doable.”

In the AgriTalk interview yesterday, Ms. Thatcher added that, “Most everything got extended, but the problem is that there were 37 expiring provisions, which included things like disaster assistance for livestock, new and beginning farmer money, energy money, etc. Those things are all authorized, but the fact is in order to get money, you’d have to go to the Appropriations Committee, and then those folks will have to fight for that money against money that’s probably already at least planned for some other item.

“So I would say the big losers in the game are, indeed, the 37 programs that didn’t get funded. I think the disaster assistance for livestock is the most striking.”

In an update yesterday at the DTN Ag Policy Blog, Chris Clayton provided more details about the Farm Bill extension, and pointed out that, “The bill extends most farm programs through Sept. 30, 2013, giving lawmakers nine months to get a new bill moved…Much of the challenge from the extension comes from a problem highlighted in the 2008 farm bill. There were 37 programs in that legislation that didn’t have a ‘budget baseline’ to carry forward after Sept. 30, 2012.”

In his detailed update, Mr. Clayton added that, “Disaster programs were authorized in the bill, but not with any mandatory funding. The one exception is the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program, or SURE, which was not reauthorized. Instead, discretionary levels were set with funding for certain programs that could come through the appropriations process.”

A news release yesterday from the United Fresh Produce Association noted that, “Unfortunately, the extension of the Farm Bill excludes funding for several specialty crop programs and disregards reforms made by the Senate and the House Agriculture Committee in the 2012 Farm Bill. For example, lawmakers set discretionary funding for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) at $100 million, while mandatory funding stood at $50 million in the 2012 Farm Bill. With a discretionary designation, lawmakers must still approve appropriations for the research programs.”

Also, a news release yesterday from the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance stated that, “The passage of a fiscal package late Tuesday evening excluded key specialty crop priorities. While the bill does avert the dreaded ‘fiscal cliff,’ efforts to roll a new five- year Farm Bill into the bill were rejected in favor of a nine month extension of the 2008 law. The extension does not include funding for certain expiring programs such as the Specialty Crop Research Initiative and Clean Plant Network.”

Meanwhile, Christopher Doering reported in yesterday’s Des Moines Register that, “The Democrat who is chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee was critical of the role that Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, his party’s leader, played in the outcome. ‘Rather than embrace the Senate’s bipartisan farm bill, which cuts $24 billion in spending and creates certainty for our agriculture economy, McConnell insisted on a partial extension that reforms nothing, provides no deficit reduction and hurts many areas of our agriculture economy,’ said Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.”

Speaking briefly about the Farm Bill on the Senate floor yesterday (video replay at FarmPolicy.com Online), Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) noted that the five-year Farm Bill that the Senate passed in June saved $24 billion, and was a bipartisan bill that passed overwhelmingly.

Sen. Reid cast blame at the House for not taking action on the legislation and stated: “So now we are on a short-term extension.”

Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute stated on The Diane Rehm Show (NPR Radio) yesterday that, “The Senate early last year, by a wide bipartisan margin, passed a farm bill. It, you know, may not have been a great farm bill, but it did a lot of things at the time when we had the worst drought since the Great Depression. Seventy-four votes for it, and the House did nothing all the way through the election. Livestock farmers among others were just hit enormously hard.

“And now, simply because without a fix, milk prices would have gone up immediately to $6 to $8 a gallon, they basically just patched it for nine months, but did it in a fashion that really hit small milk producers and benefits the large ones because that’s what Mitch McConnell insisted on. You know, this is the worst possible way to make really bad policy. And while this — nobody’s paying much attention to this except in dairy states. It really is a classic example of how far away from decent policy-making we have come in the last few years. It’s just embarrassing.”

Earlier this week, Senate Ag Committee Ranking Member Pat Roberts (R., Kan.) noted that, “I am pleased that the final agreement [legislation to address the so-called fiscal cliff] also includes an extension of the 2008 Farm Bill through the end of September 2013. While this extension is not the best possible bill, I believe it is the best bill possible at this time.”

In a news release yesterday, House Ag Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R., Okla.) noted in part that, “Further, this bill provides a one year extension of the 2008 farm bill, which gives agricultural producers certainty and allows the Agriculture Committees in Congress to continue working on a five-year comprehensive farm bill.”

And perhaps most interesting, the AP reported today that, “Minnesota U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson said Wednesday he’s so upset that Congress passed only a short extension of the 2008 Farm Bill that he won’t work on a new version without assurances from congressional leaders it will get a vote.”

The article stated that, “Peterson told The Associated Press he and his staff were writing to Boehner and other House leaders expressing frustration over what he called lack of respect for the committee’s hard work. He said he would demand a guarantee that if the committee passes a farm bill in 2013, it will be allowed to come to the floor where representatives can fight out any disagreements over the details.

“‘If they will not give me that assurance, I am not interested in writing a farm bill,’ Peterson said.

“Peterson said he discussed his frustrations with Lucas and that Lucas told him he couldn’t write a farm bill without Peterson’s support.”

The AP article explained that, “The bill passed Tuesday night to avert the tax increases and spending cuts known as the ‘fiscal cliff’ extends current farm bill programs for just nine months and averts a potential spike in milk prices that could have happened if the current dairy program had been allowed to expire. It does not contain a broader overhaul of dairy policy that Peterson authored, which was in both the House committee’s farm bill and the version that passed the full Senate with bipartisan support in June.”

Meanwhile, Daniel Looker reported yesterday at Agriculture Online that Iowa GOP Senate Charles Grassley called the nine-month Farm Bill extension “bittersweet.”

Mr. Looker added that, “Grassley said that as Congress moves to the next stage of fighting over spending cuts, that the ag committees may face pressure to cut more from farm programs.”

Rep. Jim Costa (D., Calif.) noted in a news release this week that, “Despite all the hard work and compromise to craft a bipartisan Farm Bill, Republican Leadership chose an all too familiar, kick-the-can approach that does nothing to modernize our agriculture programs or address the crisis facing our nation’s dairy industry. We had the bill and the agreement but what American agriculture got was more of the same.”

Also, in a statement yesterday, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack noted that, “While I am relieved that the agreement reached prevents a spike in the price of dairy and other commodities, I am disappointed Congress has been unable to pass a multi-year reauthorization of the Food, Farm and Jobs bill to give rural America the long-term certainty they need and deserve.”

In a statement yesterday, American Soybean Association (ASA) President Danny Murphy noted that, “Once the extension expires at the end of the fiscal year in September, we will be left at the same impasse we’ve had since the House Agriculture Committee passed its farm bill in July unless our elected leaders can find a way to come back to the bargaining table with a renewed focus on what’s important, not just for soybean farmers, but for all of agriculture and for the nation as a whole. It’s imperative that our members of Congress in both chambers and in both parties move past party politics and get the job done this time.”
American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) President Bob Stallman discussed the nine-month extension of the Farm Bill in a video update yesterday, which is available at FarmPolicy.com.



And an update yesterday from the National Cotton Council stated that, “Cotton industry leaders commend the leaders of the respective agriculture committees and Cotton Belt Senators and Representatives for their unwavering efforts to enact predictable farm policy in a timely manner for the 2013 crop year and beyond.

“The industry looks forward to continuing to work for prompt enactment of balanced long-term policy that is fiscally responsible, consistent with U.S. trade obligations and provides certainty for farmers, consumers, agribusinesses and rural communities.”
Meanwhile, National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) President Gene Schmidt noted yesterday that, “In total, the fiscal cliff bill does not address deficit reduction, whereas the 2012 Farm Bill as passed by the full Senate and the House Agriculture Committee would have saved taxpayers $23 billion and $33 billion respectively, while maintaining needed funding for important conservation programs.”
Similarly, Mary Kay Thatcher of the American Farm Bureau, pointed out yesterday on AgriTalk that, “You know, you would have thought they would have jumped at that ability to get $24 to $35 billion, but instead they said no, we just want to do something easy and go ahead and extend where we are.”

Christopher Galen, Senior Vice President of Communications for the National Milk Producers Federation, was also a guest on yesterday’s AgriTalk program where he noted that, “So the real irony here is that all this talk about the fiscal cliff, and oh, we’ve got to reduce the deficit, what they did with the farm bill actually doesn’t help… And so the farm bill is that low- hanging fruit on the tree. We’re talking about $20 to $30 billions of dollars of savings, if they will just take it. And if you don’t take the reforms in the new farm bill, then you’re going to continue to spend more money than you might otherwise. So I think that’s going to be one of our strongest arguments going forward.”

Mr. Galen also pointed to the importance of the Dairy Security Act in today’s economic environment on yesterday’s AgriTalk program- related audio (MP3- 1:11), while an unofficial FarmPolicy.com transcript of his complete interview on AgriTalk yesterday can be found here -full audio replay of his discussion with Mike Adams here (MP3- 12:12).

And a news release yesterday from the National Milk Producers Federation noted that, “Now that the House of Representatives has passed the Senate’s fiscal cliff package extending existing farm programs into 2013, the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) said today it will continue its push in the 113th Congress for a five-year farm bill that includes the Dairy Security Act.”

In other developments associated with the recently passed fiscal cliff deal, Reuters news reported yesterday that, “The $1 a gallon tax credit for biodiesel will run through 2013 at a cost of more than $2 billion under a provision of the mammoth legislation passed by Congress to avoid the so-called ‘fiscal cliff.’”

The American Soybean Association, in a news release yesterday, welcomed this development.

And the AP reported yesterday that, “The measure approved Tuesday night as part of the bill extending tax cuts for most taxpayers also helps wind energy and ethanol producers by extending tax credits, most of which expired Monday.”

Sen. Tim Johnson (D., S.D.) indicated yesterday that, “Especially important for South Dakota is the wind energy production tax credit has been extended for 5 years providing much needed certainty for wind turbine manufacturers and wind farm investors.”

However, Zack Colman reported yesterday at The Hill’s Energy Blog that, “A recently renewed wind power credit could face more scrutiny next Congress, as House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said Wednesday that the credit is of ‘serious interest’ to his committee.

“Issa criticized a ‘dramatic’ alteration to the credit that he said amounted to an expansion of the program.”
Agricultural Economy
The AP reported yesterday that, “Despite getting some big storms last month, much of the U.S. is still desperate for relief from the nation’s longest dry spell in decades. And experts say it will take an absurd amount of snow to ease the woes of farmers and ranchers.”

And Bloomberg writer Tony C. Dreibus reported yesterday that, “The worst U.S. drought since the 1930s Dust Bowl is damaging wheat crops across the world’s biggest supplier, at a time when hedge funds are the most bearish on prices in seven months.

“About 62 percent of the country is mired in a dry spell that the government says will last at least until March in states growing the most winter wheat. With dormant crops already in the worst condition since records began in 1985 and global inventories headed for a third annual drop, Chicago futures may rise as much as 25 percent to $9.50 a bushel this year, the median of 32 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg shows.”
Keith Good