The View From Abroad

IMMIGRATION

May 25, 2010

by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Andrea Nill, and Alex Seitz-Wald

Last week, before a joint session of Congress, Mexican President Felipe Calderón slammed Arizona's new immigration law, SB-1070. "I strongly disagree with the recently adopted law in Arizona," said Calderón. "It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree, but also introduced a terrible idea using racial profiling for law enforcement." Following Calderón's address, conservative lawmakers have been blasting him for "meddling" in U.S. politics. "It's about us. It's about our citizenry," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). "I just think that's a line I would prefer that he did not cross. He went farther than I'm comfortable with," stated Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). A statement released by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) read, "It's unfortunate and disappointing the president of Mexico chose to criticize the state of Arizona by weighing in on a U.S. domestic policy issue during a trip that was meant to reaffirm the unique relationship between our two countries." In defense of Calderón, ABC News veteran journalist Sam Donaldson pointed out this weekend that American presidents have frequently criticized the policies of foreign nations. "President Calderón represents Mexico, and he said what a lot of Americans are also saying, that that Arizona law is discriminatory and that it ought not to have been on the books," he said.

INTERNATIONAL CRITICISM: Calderón isn't the first international figure to voice his concerns over the law. In fact, he joins a loud chorus of global leaders who have criticized SB-1070. In Central America, the Guatemalan Foreign Ministry, the new government of Honduras, and officials from El Salvador and Nicaragua have all expressed grave concerns about the law. The Secretary of the Organization of American States (OAS) also expressed "the concern of the OAS, its Secretary General, the countries of the hemisphere and the Latin American community with the passage of a law in a state of the United States that we consider to be discriminatory against immigrants, and in particular against a population of such origin that lives in this country." Heads of state and foreign ministers of the 12-member Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) slammed SB-1070, stating that it encourages "discretional detention of people based on racial, ethnic, phenotypic, language and migratory status reasons under the questionable concept of 'reasonable doubt.'" South African Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu wrote in a blog post that a solution that "degrades innocent people, or that makes anyone with broken English a suspect, is not a solution." United Nations experts who reviewed the law stated that SB-1070 could violate international standards that are binding in the United States. Amnesty International agreed, identifying the law as being in violation of Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and calling it "cruel and misguided."

LESSONS FROM MEXICO: Before Calderón's visit, the Washington Times erroneously reported that "under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison." The Washington Times then quoted Rep. Steve King (R-IA), Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) calling Calderón "arrogant and hypocritical" -- a right-wing talking point repeated throughout the week. However, during his visit, Calderón pointed out that Mexico overturned the provisions cited by the Washington Times. A couple years ago, "[s]ome Mexican officials acknowledged that the current harsh penalties weakened Mexico's position in arguing for better treatment of its own migrants in the United States." In 2008, the Mexican Congress voted unanimously with 393 votes to decriminalize undocumented immigration to Mexico and make it a minor offense. However, it's worth noting that Mexican immigration reform is still a work in progress. Amnesty International recently issued a report calling the "widespread abuse of migrants in Mexico" a "human rights crisis." Tens of thousands of Central American migrants face "alarming levels" of abuse ranging from abduction to robbery and rape. One of the central issues, according to Amnesty, is that migrants still fear they will be deported if they complain to Mexican authorities about abuses. Article 67 of Mexico's immigration law requires law enforcement to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country. The Mexican Interior Department is reportedly working to repeal Article 67 "so that no one can deny or restrict foreigners' access to justice and human rights, whatever their migratory status." In the meantime, the U.S. would be wise to look at Mexico's immigration problems not as a source of hypocrisy, but rather, an extreme but telling lesson on what can happen when the law turns police into immigration agents and immigrants into criminals.

A CALL FOR REFORM: Standing before Congress, Calderón stated, "I am convinced that a comprehensive immigration reform is also crucial to securing our common border." "The time has come to reduce the causes of migration and to turn this phenomenon into a legal, order and secure flows of workers and visitors," stated Calderón. In a less controversial visit, Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom also recently came to the U.S. with "the need to implement an integrated federal immigration reform" high on his list of priorities. Despite the criticisms hurled, it turns out that the majority of the American people agree with Calderón and Colom. Ruy Teixeira of the Center for American Progress wrote yesterday that the "public's continued support for comprehensive immigration reform is being shunted to the side amid all the fuss about Arizona's draconian new law." Granted, polls show that the majority of Arizonans and Americans as a whole support SB-1070. Yet, support for Arizona's immigration law is a manifestation of the public's widespread frustration with the federal government's inaction on the issue. More polling shows that 57 percent of all Americans believe immigration laws should be set by the federal government and 64 percent support some sort of legal status for undocumented immigrants already living in the country. In a joint press conference with Calderón, President Obama made clear that the "political challenge" that's standing in the way of wanted federal action is the lack of Republican support for immigration reform. "I don't have 60 votes in the Senate. I've got to have some support from Republicans." Just a couple hours earlier, while visiting a local elementary school with Mexico's First Lady Margarita Zavala, First Lady Michelle Obama put the issue in poignantly simpler terms: When pressed by a brave second-grader on whether the President was going to deport her mother for not having papers, Obama replied, "Well, we have to work on that. We have to fix that, and everybody's got to work together in Congress to make sure that happens."

The Minerals Mismanagement Service

ENERGY

May 24, 2010

by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Andrea Nill, and Alex Seitz-Wald

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will visit Louisiana today to inspect the government's response to the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Meanwhile, following calls from the Center for American Progress, the Obama administration has announced it will establish an independent commission to investigate the disaster. The probe will investigate "industry practices" and potential negligence on the part of BP and the other companies involved, but it will also investigate the Minerals and Management Service (MMS), a deeply troubled federal agency that for years was the "handmaiden of industry." Housed in the Department of the Interior, MMS is tasked with collecting $13 billion a year from energy companies, while also policing them to ensure safety and environmental rules are followed. These conflicting functions have created a "cozy" relationship between industry and regulator and led to an explosive scandal under President Bush, in which regulators used drugs and had sex with industry representatives while flouting federal law. Salazar vowed to clean up the agency, saying in February, "There's a new sheriff in town." Nevertheless, the institutional culture created under the Bush administration has proved difficult to change. The New York Times reports today that despite President Obama's moratorium on permits for offshore drilling following the BP spill, "at least seven new permits for various types of drilling and five environmental waivers have been granted, according to records." Interior Department officials said that "the moratorium was meant only to halt permits for the drilling of new wells" and "not meant to stop permits for new work on existing drilling projects." Obama acknowledged the unhealthy relationship between industry and regulator, saying, "It seems as if permits were too often issued based on little more than assurances of safety from the oil companies. That cannot and will not happen anymore." Salazar has now proposed splitting MMS into three agencies with separate functions in order to eliminate this dangerous conflict of interest that may have contributed to the BP disaster.
'CONFLICTING MISSIONS': Under Salazar's plan, announced last week, one new division of MMS will oversee leasing and land management, another safety, and the third revenue collection. The three functions "are conflicting missions and must be separated," Salazar explained, before signing a secretarial order to enact the change. Leasing will be handled by the new Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which "will be responsible for the sustainable development of the Outer Continental Shelf's conventional and renewable energy resources, including resource evaluation, planning, and other activities related to leasing." The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, also new, "will be responsible for ensuring comprehensive oversight, safety, and environmental protection in all offshore energy activities." "This will be the police of offshore oil and gas operations," Salazar said. "We will make sure that we are holding energy companies accountable for their responsibilities," he added. The third new division will be the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, which will be "responsible for the royalty and revenue management function including the collection and distribution of revenue, auditing and compliance, and asset management." The first two divisions will be overseen by the assistant secretary for land and minerals management, while the third will be supervised by the assistant secretary for policy, management, and budget -- a separation that will help maintain a clear division between the revenue collection and other functions. President Reagan's controversial Interior Secretary James Watt created MMS by secretarial order in 1982, so Salazar has significant leeway in its reorganization, but he said he will work with Congress to draft legislation that would establish the agencies by law in the coming month. House Natural Resources Chair Nick Rahall (D-WV) called Salazar's plan a "bold initiative to shake up a badly troubled agency," and said his committee will explore the matter this week. Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said her subcommittee will hold a hearing on the plan in the next few weeks, adding, "I've always looked at MMS as a relatively weak agency."
'SUPPRESSING SCIENCE': Early efforts to stop the Gulf spill focused on the blowout preventer, which would have almost certainly stopped the oil gusher had it functioned properly. It did not. MMS was warned in a 2004 study that a "vital piece" of blowout preventers -- the shear rams, which use hydrolic pressure to cut and seal a pipe in order to stop the flow of oil -- may not function under the extreme water pressure of deepwater operations, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month. "This grim snapshot illustrates the lack of preparedness in the industry to shear and seal a well with the last line of defense against a blowout," the authors of the MMS-commissioned study concluded. Nevertheless, MMS did not issue any new regulations on blowout preventers, nor did it mandate that blowout preventers contain two sets of redundant shear rams, as is common in other countries. Moreover, MMS "gave permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits from another agency that assesses threats to endangered species -- and despite strong warnings from that agency about the impact the drilling was likely to have on the gulf," a New York Times investigation found. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), tasked with safeguarding endangered species, warned on multiple occasions that drilling in the gulf could harm such animals and told MMS that it was granting permits in violation of federal law. A spokesperson for Interior said, "Under the previous administration, there was a pattern of suppressing science in decisions, and we are working very hard to change the culture and empower scientists in the Department of the Interior." The White House and Interior Department have now announced "an accelerated review of all actions taken by the minerals agency" under relevant environmental law.
SEX, DRUGS, AND OIL: As Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman noted earlier this month, "Given [its] history, it's not surprising that the Minerals Management Service became subservient to the oil industry -- although what actually happened is almost too lurid to believe." Indeed, under Bush, the agency was, "to a large degree, run by and for the extractive industries." A two-year investigation by the Interior Department's Inspector General (IG) released in late 2008 found that workers at MMS' royalty collection office were "partying, having sex, using drugs and accepting gifts and ski trips and golf outings from energy company representatives with whom they did government business." The IG report detailed  unethical relationships between government officials and the oil industry, calling it "a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity." Royalty in Kind (RIK) officials also attempted to rewrite the ethics rules to cover up their misdoings. Two employees engaged in "brief sexual relationships" with oil and gas representatives, yet they did not recuse themselves from work with those companies and officials. Since their disastrous tenure at Interior, many Bush officials "have since gone on to work directly for the companies they were supposed to be policing," the Project on Government Oversight noted. Former MMS director Randall Luthi is now president of the National Oceans Industries Association, whose mission is to secure a "favorable regulatory and economic environment for the companies that develop the nation's valuable offshore energy resources." Former Interior Secretary Gale Norton became Shell's general counsel, and "J. Steven Griles, a deputy secretary of Interior, lobbied for numerous oil and gas industries -- including BP -- before he went to jail for obstructing a Senate investigation" for his involvement in the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Tackling Obesity

HEALTH CARE

May 19, 2010

by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Andrea Nill, and Alex Seitz-Wald

Last week, First Lady Michelle Obama and several administration officials unveiled Solving The Problem of Childhood Obesity Within A Generation, a report produced by the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity. The goal, first articulated by the First Lady's Let's Move! campaign, is bold: "Solve the problem of childhood obesity in a generation." But the goal is so ambitious only because the crisis of childhood obesity is so grave -- with the current generation of Americans is "on track to have a shorter lifespan than their parents." Obesity "is estimated to cause 112,000 deaths per year in the United States, and one third of all children born in the year 2000 are expected to develop diabetes during their lifetime." Each year, obese adults incur "an estimated $1,429 more in medical expenses than their normal-weight peers," and overall, the nation spent up to $147 billion on obesity-related costs in 2008. At last week's unveiling, the First Lady seemed humbled by the magnitude of the problem but also confident that the Task Force's recommendations, if fully implemented, could begin reducing the nation's obesity rates. "For the first time -- this is the key -- we're setting really clear goals and benchmarks and measurable outcomes that will help tackle this challenge one step, one family and one child at a time," she said.

A MULTI-PRONGED APPROACH: The administration's report provides a comprehensive approach that seeks to tackle the obesity epidemic from all angles and with a broad coalition of stakeholders (an approach the Center for American Progress has stressed as necessary for effective implementation of the obesity initiative). The report focuses on ways government, together with the private sector, can work to create a healthy start on life for children, empower parents with the ability to make healthier food choices, upgrade the nutritional quality of school lunches, eliminate so-called "food deserts" in urban and rural America, and encourage children to get more physically active in their schools and communities. For instance, noting that "approximately one in five children are overweight or obese by the time they reach their 6th birthday," the report recommends informing women about the importance of conceiving at a healthy weight and encouraging breast feeding, which could lower the risk of becoming overweight by as much as 22 percent. The Task Force tackles the multi-billion business of food marketing to children and provides ways in which the food industry can use market as "a powerful tool to drive the purchase of healthy products and to communicate important information about healthy eating choices." The use of licensed characters "to market foods to children is particularly effective and pervasive," the report notes. "When preschoolers were asked if they would rather eat broccoli or a Hershey's chocolate bar, 78% of the children chose the chocolate bar and only 22% chose broccoli. When an Elmo sticker was placed on the broccoli, however, 50% of the children chose broccoli." The report commends the industry for taking steps to reduce advertising of poor quality foods to children, but warns that voluntary industry efforts "had not substantially shifted advertising for children towards healthier products" and argues that "the FCC could consider revisiting and modernizing rules on commercial time during children's programming." Moreover, citing the growing problem of limited access to healthy food choices that forces millions of low-income Americans to live in "food deserts" that "lack convenient access to affordable and healthy food," the report recommends that the federal government provide grants to community development financial institutions, "nonprofits, public agencies and businesses to promote interventions that expand access to nutritious foods," and "support regional planning systems that ensure greater access to healthy food in underserved areas." Providing economic incentives to farmers to "increase production of healthy foods" and taxing unhealthy foods like soda may also impact consumption, the report notes.

HOW HEALTH REFORM WILL HELP: The new health care law makes significant inroads in addressing the obesity epidemic. As Ellen-Marie Whelan, Lesley Russell, and Sonia Sekhar point out in a recent report released by the Center for American Progress, the newly enacted comprehensive health reform law "contains a number of provisions to address childhood obesity in the context of health care and public health." Several studies have indicated that, when presented with calorie information and recommendations, people on average consumed meals with almost 100 fewer calories. The law improves nutrition labeling in fast food restaurants by requiring all chain restaurants "to provide clear labeling of the calorie counts by March 2011." By that date, restaurants must "display a succinct statement on the recommended number of calories individuals should consume each day as well as provide written nutrition information when requested." Vending machines will soon have to meet a similar requirement. The law also promotes breastfeeding by mandating that "employers with more than 50 employees must provide break time and place for breastfeeding mothers to express milk," gives grants to community based obesity intervention programs, invests in broader population-level obesity intervention efforts, and promotes primary care and coordination efforts that emphasize prevention. Still, none of this alone can significantly lower obesity rates. For that, policymakers must do much more to enact the Task Force's recommendations and look beyond health care into the nutrition of food in school cafeterias, the physical education programs, America's agricultural policies, and the food options in lower-income neighborhoods.

CONSERVATIVES ON THE ATTACK: Unfortunately, some in the conservative media are using the Task Force to further the meme that the administration is undermining personal freedoms and liberties. Last week, for instance, Matt Drudge ran a headline saying, "White House seeks controls on food marketing." On the May 11 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity said: "An Obama government obesity task force." "Does every American family need a dietitian appointed by the government to tell them that this food is going to make you fat and this food is not?" he asked. Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin also turned the Task Force into a hit, saying that her "problem with the Obama administration is that it's more concerned with policing grocery aisles and our refrigerators than it is with our borders." "And we'd be heck a lot better off if they got their priorities in order." Only former Governor Mike Huckabee, who himself has struggled with obesity, warned conservatives against mischaracterizing the report. During a discussion in February about Obama's campaign to fight childhood obesity, Huckabee explained that the initiative is not a "nanny-state solution" or a "leftist position" and warned that conservatives would engage in reactionary attacks against the program. Speaking of Obama, he concluded, "She does not believe that it is a government solution and that government should dictate what size cheeseburger you eat." 

Poll: Debt still stressing Americans, even as economy picks up

By Jeannine Aversa
The Associated Press

Posted: 05/31/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT

WASHINGTON — The economy trudges ahead, yet debt dogs many Americans, stressing them out even as they firm up their financial foundations.
There are new jobs being produced, but old worries persist for people despite belt-tightening and boosted savings, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll.
About 46 percent of those surveyed say they're suffering from debt-related stress, and half of that group described the amount of stress as "a great deal" or "quite a bit." On the other hand, about 53 percent say they feel little or no stress at all.
That is in line with findings from last year, even though times seem better today: The economy is growing and generating jobs, and households have made progress in repairing their financial footing, trimming debt, watching spending and saving more.
It's a big turnaround from a year ago — a shrinking economy and jobs jettisoned as businesses struggled to survive the worst recession since the 1930s.
So why aren't the stressed — and the not-so-stressed — feeling better? For starters, it just doesn't feel much like a recovery to many people. Unemployment is stubbornly high — 9.9 percent. The jobless face fierce competition for work. Those with a job are watching their paychecks shrink.
A growing number of people are at risk of falling into foreclosure, and only those with the most stellar credit probably can get a new loan. The AP-GfK polls show that only 20 percent say the economy is good, compared with 15 percent last year.
Ken Goldstein, economist at the Conference Board, a research group that keeps close tabs on consumers, says it is individual circumstances — more so than sentiment about the economy — that shapes people's confidence and their stress over debt.
"It's about what happens to me — my house, my car, my job," he said.

First thoughts on President Obama's oil spill press conference

Posted at 2:08 PM ET, 05/27/2010

President Barack Obama spent nearly an hour answering questions on the policy and the politics of the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf Coast -- among other topics -- as his Administration sought to seize back control of the politics of the disaster.
We tweeted the entire thing -- you can check it all out at " The Hyper Fix".
Below are our first thoughts on what the takeaway from the press conference will be as the President heads to the Gulf tomorrow.
* The government=boss: From his opening statement to his answers to just about every oil spill-related question, President Obama made clear that BP was working under orders from the federal government, not the other way around. "Make no mistake," he said. "BP is operating at our direction." The repeated emphasis on that point is designed to rebut criticism that the Obama Administration deferred to BP in the clean-up effort. It's a complicated argument to make. Why? Because BP has been leading on the technological side -- as the President noted, the company is far better equipped than the government to figure out how to fix the problem -- but not on the overall strategy and direction of the effort. It's a nuanced argument to make and a distinction that Obama has to hope average Americans understand.
* Urgent!: It was clear from the very start of the press conference that Obama understood that he and his team were back on their heels politically when it came to the situation in the Gulf. And so, he methodically set out to emphasize that from the minute the oil rig accident occurred that he and his Administration have understood the gravity of the situation and the need to act quickly. "This is what I wake up to in the morning and this is what I go to be tonight thinking about," Obama said about the spill. He added that his Administration is operating under a "constant sense of urgency" about the matter and noted that he convened a meeting of his top advisers in the Oval Office on the same day he learned of the accident. "This has been our highest priority since this crisis occurred," he said. While Obama rejected the comparisons to how the Bush Administration handled Hurricane Katrina -- "I will leave it to you guys to make those comparisons," he said -- it's clear that the perceived detachment from President George W. Bush during that crisis is deeply impacting how Obama and his White House are seeking to handle this one.
* I feel your pain: Obama is not the most naturally empathetic politician -- that would be Bill Clinton -- but he does understand the need, in moments like this one, to make clear to people that he feels this stuff in his gut. Obama repeatedly used the word "frustrated" to explain his feelings; "I am angry and frustrated as well," he said in the early moments of the presser. He also sought to make clear to those in the affected area that he would not -- again the ghost of Katrina lingered -- forget about them. "We are not going to abandon our fellow citizens," said Obama. But Obama, ever the political realist, acknowledged that the only way to change how people feel about the spill is to end it; "People are going to be frustrated until it stops," he said.
* Tough visuals: The difficulty of Obama's political positioning on the oil spill was made plain when MSNBC and CNN went to a two-shot -- showing both the President as well as the punctured pipe continuing to spew into the Gulf Coast. On the one hand, Obama was asserting that he and his government were doing absolutely everything to solve the problem; on the other, the picture of the pipe served as a stirring reminder that the problem still isn't fixed.
Have thoughts of your own after watching the press conference? Offer them in the comments section below.

How long has BP been in business? BP is drilling in international waters like a startup company without knowledge that it is possible to drill into pockets of high pressure that could cause an incident like this. They were not, and are not, capable of shutting down the flow of petroleum and until it is shut down there is essentially nothing the administration can do to stop it from befowling our shores.
The oil permeates every level of the Gulf from the sea bed to the surface and the technology does not exist to deal with a disaster of this magnitude. It cannot be burnt off, it cannot be blocked from reaching the coast and dispersants are inadequate to reach the sea bed.
If men were placed shoulder to shoulder on the coast they could not prevent this disaster from reaching our shores.
The only thing that can be done is to clean up as quickly as possible to minimize the damage as much as possible.
Those of you who complain that the administration is not doing anything should share your ideas as to how to stop this disaster or heist your sorry behinds down to the Gulf Coast to lend a hand.
You complain about to much government and now you complain that there is too little. You can't have it both ways.



BB,
I respect your opinion, but I do not think Margret was yanking anyone’s chain since I have seen other comments by her on other topics. She is nice but fairly partisan as well. On a side note, someone from EPA called me and asked about some analytical methodology I had worked on (they were interested in applying it to measure dispersant in the water). I downloaded all my information to my EPA contact in a matter of seconds (I didn’t say I had a lot of experience) and this included salutations. After the phone call, I was initially honored than I thought those guys are really in trouble if they are calling me for advise, but then again maybe they wanted to know how not to approach an issue. Ooooh they are good.
I personally do see this event similar to Bush’s Hurricane Katrina. I did not fault either president since in both cases the events overwhelmed the system. Who can be prepared for a Category 5 Hurricane hitting the coast with a city that is basically underwater from the start or be prepared for deep ocean blow out of an oil rig. Or for that matter and election that is decided by only a few votes. Our systems work when we have large margins. I would note there was a lot of good findings following Katrina especially simple ones like evacuating pets as well as people (simple but profound in its impact). I am sure following this disaster there will be a lot of new key findings that will make us better prepared for such an event and preventing such an event. However, I heard a lot from the left about incompetent government during Katrina and Obama used Katrina often as a metaphor for change during his campaign. The same people (government workers) who served Clinton efficiently also served Bush ineffectively (Katrina) and these are the same ones serving Obama. You can not fault one president without faulting the other president, but that is what people on the left and right do all the time and both do it equally.  

How the Sestak job offer became a big deal

Updated: 5:23 p.m.
Party leaders and campaign operatives -- on nearly a daily basis -- approach challenger candidates seeking to disrupt the established political order with a simple message: Get out or else.
And so, the report this morning that former President Bill Clinton was tasked by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to make such an approach to Rep. Joe Sestak -- allegedly offering him an unpaid advisory role on an intelligence board in exchange for getting him to drop his primary bid against Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) -- would not normally raise much of a stir in official Washington.
That the story has become a major controversy, a regular fixture on cable news chat shows and a momentum-killer for Sestak following his come-from behind victory against Specter in last week's Pennsylvania primary is evidence of how the White House mishandled the controversy, according to conversations with several high-level Democratic strategists.
"How do you make something out of nothing?," asked one such operative who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the matter. "By acting guilty when you're innocent."
Another senior party official said that the White House "has a lot of egg on their face" and described the events as a "PR nightmare".
The unfolding of events since Sestak told a local television host -- albeit obliquely -- in February that he had received a job offer from the White House speaks to one of the oldest political adages about the presidency: stonewalling almost never works. (The full White House report on the matter is  here.)
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was repeatedly asked in the intervening months about Sestak's allegation but deflected comment. As the story became a bigger deal in the wake of Sestak's primary victory, the statements out of the White House grew more and more opaque -- as Gibbs insisted over the weekend that "nothing inappropriate happened" but refusing to engage in the more basic "what happened question."
The matter reached a head during President Obama's press conference yesterday when, asked by Fox News Channel's Major Garrett about the details of the Sestak job offer, the President said only: "I can assure the public that nothing improper took place. But as I said, there will be a response shortly on that issue."
Republicans gleefully highlighted every incident of the White House's practiced silence on the matter, using the Sestak allegation to undermine one of the pillars of the Obama brand: transparency and accountability.
"This issue goes to the heart of Obama's claims to have a different kind of White House and that he would usher in a new era of transparency and accountability," Republican National Committee communications director Doug Heye told the Fix earlier this week.
Allies of the White House argue that the Sestak situation was less PR blunder than conscious choice to accept some short term pain for long term gain (or at least less long term pain).
Their argument is that the White House could have pushed out an answer to the Sestak job controversy quickly but, in so doing, would have run the risk of not having all the facts of a relatively complex situation straight -- making it a real possibility that they would be bludgeoned by the press if there was a mistake or inconsistency in the original statement.
Instead, they chose to conduct an exhaustive review, which led to what we expect to be a detailed document from the White House counsel's office later today, in order to take the public relations hit and quickly move on.
Regardless of the reasoning (or lack therefor, according to their critics) behind the White House's approach to the issue, their extended silence on the matter has created -- at least in the near term -- a major PR problem.
It's -- yet more -- evidence that small things can quickly grow into big things in the hothouse atmosphere of official Washington. While Obama and his senior aides decry that fishbowl effect, it has come back to bite them this time around.

The Sestak story continued ....
How Bill Clinton has become the roving fixer for the Obama administration.
The cover up is worse than the non-crime.
Joe Sestak released a statement on the conversation.
Republicans had a quick response.
The White House released a  memo on the matter.
Sestak's brother has talked with the White House.
Obama himself said that "nothing improper" took place.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 28, 2010; 11:28 AM ET

Comment:

"Change you can believe in?"- Sure Nixon, Reagan, and Bush might have done the same with Sestak- AND Bill Maher and Michael Moore would be SCREAMING- where are they now?
For that matter IMAGINE how Maher/Moore would be screaming about the inept "What Me Worry" job President Obama is doing to curb the flow of oil in the gulf- what would they be saying if a Bush was in office- HYPOCRITES! (Do we still have a Navy? With submarines?)
NY Times 5/28/10
Representative Darrell Issa of California, the senior Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the interactions described by the White House “represent an illegal quid pro quo,” even if the position was unpaid. “It is abundantly clear that this kind of conduct is contrary to President Obama’s pledge to change ‘business as usual’ and that his administration has engaged in the kind of political shenanigans he once campaigned to end.”
Federal law makes it a crime for anyone “who directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or any other benefit” to someone else “as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office.” It is also illegal for a government official to use “his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate” for Senate.
!@!!!!!!

JPRS
Wow are you stretching it now.
This may come as news, but...the English language allows for more than one meaning to a word and I realize that the left is programmed to always be on the defensive, however, when a statement is made and then taken out of context.
Oh yes, Folks here we are to number 5 of Alinsky's model, take everything out of context and blow it out of proportion so that the opponent will spend his time trying to defend your attack and will have little or no time to make his point.
Anyway, Just open your mind for a moment and consider this. When the statement is made such as "If the law were specific with regards to just compensation or no compensation, it would only address those terms."
The word "just" is used to supplant the word "only".
OK so you made your point and it was rebuked.
Your turn.
And that should have been a hookah rather than hooter.
It really takes so little to rattle the left..... you are only proving my points with regards to you and "your" kind.
Wow now that I left myself wide open, either JPRS or another leftie may attempt to take that out of context and play the race-bait card...shhh, don't tell anyone, they may never notice on their own....
Lefties are the craziest peoples.....

ProCounsel,
What you're describing is a method of police work that usually results in
A. Bad police work.
B. The prosecution of innocent people
e.g. rather than following the evidence to where it leads and narrowing the pool of suspects based ON THE EVIDENCE, the police plant evidence and shape testimonies in order to gain a conviction of a pre-selected defendant.
Based on your approach, it would have been impossible for the investigators to have located the suspect in the recent failed Times Square attack, because the person was just one anonymous guy out of several million people. They did not know in advance who committed the crime, and there was no way that they could have known.
Unless you're dealing with a small community where everyone knows each another, then the "presumption of guilt" standard is likely to steer you wrong more often than not.
icsjp2003,
"No, the prosecutor only makes an assumption of precedent."
That statement literally makes no sense. The prosecutor makes no "assumption of precedent". The prosecutor will look to precedent for guidance on how to apply and interpret a law.
"The judge and court decides if the case has merit or in this case precedent."
Only if a prosecutor finds cause and files suit.
"There has been, by your own admission, very few prosecutions under this law, then who are you to say that it has no merit, or no precedent? It is a very broad law and who is to say what the courts will decide? You?"
Not only have there only been "a few" prosecutions -- the one prosecution brought under the law has no bearing on the facts involved in this case. This means that a new prosecution would involve a novel application of the law. After 70 years, it is at best, HIGHLY UNLIKELY, that the law would be used on this basis.
In the end, does this mean that anyone knows absolutely how this will play out?
Of course not.
What it does mean is that the legal foundation for any case would be built on a shaky foundation from the outset. It would quite literally create a new standard of illegal political action. Of course, time will tell how things play out.

JPRS
Just can't get through the discussion without insults eh? Well, I'll take that in view of the source then.
No, the prosecutor only makes an assumption of precedent. The judge and court decides if the case has merit or in this case precedent. For a 70 year old law that has been tested so few times, I venture to guess there are many interpretations the courts could make of it.
There has been, by your own admission, very few prosecutions under this law, then who are you to say that it has no merit, or no precedent? It is a very broad law and who is to say what the courts will decide? You?
Who are you to determine what the interpretation of the court will be based upon ALL the evidence.
What did we forget about evidence? Yes, there must be evidence as well and if the evidence is worthy, then you would be surprised what the courts deem as relevant. All he evidence has yet to come out.
I guess that book-lernin of yorn, might git ya pretty fer some day.
Now, it appears that we are boring our "so gracious" host here at the Washington Post.
Both of us have experienced "too many post" messages, and the newer cross posts are probably directed at breaking up the discussion anyway. Do ya think?
While we agree to disagree, I hold no malice, and you.... well... I pray you find your "Hope and Change".
I have enjoyed the exchange, and believe me, the pleasure was all mine.
Adieu


Look, final thoughts on this.
If the law were specific with regards to just compensation or no compensation, it would only address those terms.
However, the law specificly states:
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. AMENDMENTS 1994 - Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $10,000". 1976 - Pub. L. 94-453 substituted $10,000 for $1,000 maximum allowable fine. 1972 - Pub. L. 92-225 struck out "work," after "position,", inserted "contract, appointment," after "compensation," and "or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit," after "Act of Congress,", and substituted "in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office" for "in any election". EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1972 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 92-225 effective Dec. 31, 1971, or sixty days after date of enactment [Feb. 7, 1972], whichever is later, see section 408 of Pub. L. 92-225, set out as an Effective Date note under section 431 of Title 2, The Congress.
Last modified: April 13, 2006
I see alot more than just an offer of compensation there.
Once again regardless of what happened in the Bush admin, or the Regan admin or what happened in Californica, none of it is applicable to the case at hand. Just because one or more persons got away with it does not mean that the law is invalid or un-applicable.
That is for the courts to decide.
Nuff said

icsjp2003,
The defense is that politics in itself is not a crime. Horse-trading, earning chits, dispensing chits, are part of the nature of any political system.
"Material consideration" usually means an exchange of money.
In this case, the party leadership was trying to use its influence to shape the primary field. We still don't know what was offered -- if it was a non-paying seat on some board, then this is moot. Even if it was a position within the executive branch, I don't see the issue.
I'm much more concerned about the fact that we don't enforce clear cut cases of abuse.
e.g. Political staff shouldn't be telling the DOJ which US Attorneys to retain or fire mid-term. In the beginning of the term they might have some input, but they shouldn't be allowed to punish U.S. Attorneys for the failure to push purely politically motivated prosecutions. We should be closing down the revolving door between Congressional staff and executive agencies and the private sector; members of Congress themselves should be barred from federal lobbying for a LONG-TIME; spouses should not be allowed to earn a second income by cashing in on a husband or wife's political office.
All of these are much more problematic cases.
The thing that gets me about this case is the fact that Rahm tried to push a stronger candidate out of the Democratic Senate race in an attempt to mollify Specter and in order to retain Sestak's hard-won district in the House. I think he exercised poor political judgment. As far as legal questions go there's no issue. As far as ethical questions go, this one does get close to the line on Rahm's part. Sestak should actually be applauded for saying no.

Harry Reid: Comeback Kid?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. AP Photo

For the first time in the better part of the last year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has reason for optimism as he looks toward his re-election prospects this fall.
A new poll conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Media Research for the Las Vegas Journal shows Reid has pulled into a statistical dead heat with his two most likely Republican challengers this fall: former state party chairwoman Sue Lowden and former state Assemblywoman Sharron Angle.
Reid takes 42 percent to 39 percent for Angle while Lowden stands at 42 percent to 39 percent for Reid. Back in an April Mason-Dixon survey, Lowden held a 47 percent to 37 percent edge over Reid.
Reid's image in the state has also improved over the last six weeks. Back in April, 33 percent of Nevada voters had a favorable impression of him while 54 percent saw him in an unfavorable light. In this poll, Reid's favorable score stood at 37 percent while his unfavorable rating was at 49 percent.
While Democrats are certain to seize on these results to suggest that Reid is on the comeback trail, there are plenty of reasons to take such analysis cum grano salis.
The main one is that Reid appears to be benefiting from the increasingly nasty primary fight between Angle, Lowden and, to a lesser extent, businessman Danny Tarkanian.
Lowden, the one-time clear frontrunner, has struggled mightily to get out from under a self-inflicted wound caused by comments about a health care system based on bartering -- with chickens. (Yes, chickens.)
Combine that gaffe with an increased focus on her brief record as a state legislator -- courtesy of a tough ad from the Club for Growth, which is supporting Angle -- and it's no surprise that the polling shows a genuine drop off for Lowden not just in her head to head matchup with Reid but also in her own favorability ratings.
While Republicans are bashing each other on the television airwaves, Reid is running a trio of ads touting the benefits for Nevadans of the health care bill -- a nice politics vs. policy contrast that is likely accruing to his benefit as well.
At issue for Reid is what we have taken to calling the "Corzine conundrum". That is, how does an incumbent who is universally known in his or her state -- not even one percent of Nevada voters said they didn't recognize Reid's name -- and pulling between 37 percent and 43 percent support in hypothetical general election matchups win?
Thanks to a great poll archive on the Review Journal site, we can look at where Reid has stood in polls over the last six months (or so). Here's his BEST showing in any of the possible general election matchups by month:


May 2010: 42 percent
April 2010: 37 percent
February 2010: 42 percent
January 2010: 41 percent
December 2009: 42 percent
Given those numbers, what is Reid's path to 50 percent plus one? There's really only one: disqualify the Republican nominee.
Reid will certainly have the financial resources to do just that. He ended April with $9.4 million in the bank as compared to $289,000 for Lowden and $120,000 for Angle.
But, disqualifying an opponent is easier said than done -- particularly when there is real skepticism about the messenger. Given that, the most important time in the race may be the first month of the general election. Can Reid define either Lowden, Angle (or maybe even Tarkanian) in such a negative light that they can't recover? And, if not, what does he do next?


comments:

IMO...
Baggers like Rand Paul and Sue Lowden present BHO with such a grooved fastball down the middle. They have already made enough racist and foolish statements (Abolishing the minimum wage? Chickens for Checkups?) to fill a year's worth of political attack ads. But BHO and his party don't seem to have the stomach to take them on.
BHO continues to whiff at their pitches, even the weak stuff like the Joe Sestak fake ocntroversy (BHO clearly should have ignored it all together or just pointed out that Bush One and Ray-Gun did precisely what he did with Joe--a two-day story at most if properly handled).
By contrast, week after week, BHO's opposition is able to tee up ridiculous, fact-free fake controversies and keep them going for weeks or not months, see, e.g., birthers.
________________
Never thought I'd say this but...they need to move HRC inside the White House as COS, Deputy COS, something, so her unbridled vengeance-fueled, pants-suited energy is put to good use. HRC would have had the baggers for lunch, IMO.
Mrs. Wm. Jefferson Clinton, forgive Fix for his insulting and profane video about you. Your country needs you now.


Harry Reid is backed by voters who know him and like him and will shoe up at the polls. The assortment of half-wits, wishful-thinkers and troglodytes thrown up by the GOP a become less popular the more the voters hear from them.
Reid's 432% will make it to the polls in November. The GOP voters will be unmotivated.
Love the quote from Marc Ambinder:
"Here is something I don't think Republican strategists in Washington...many of them, anyway, understand about conservative voters now. Their discontent with the [Republican] party is NOT about ideology. It is, quite simply, about them. The consultants. The leaders. The people who were NOT able to prevent Obama from becoming president. The people who were NOT able to prevent health care from being signed into law, despite promising that it wouldn't be. The people who fed the bailout engine. So ideas that seem extreme and bizarre to the powers that be [in the Republican party] might be more accepted by discontented voters simply because the mainstream forces consider them to be extreme."

It's good to read that Nevada voters are swinging back toward Harry Reid, once they got a better look at the two non-mainstream Republican frontrunners.
Marc Ambinder, writing in the Atlantic, says this: "Here is something I don't think Republican strategists in Washington...many of them, anyway, understand about conservative voters now. Their discontent with the [Republican] party is NOT about ideology. It is, quite simply, about them. The consultants. The leaders. The people who were NOT able to prevent Obama from becoming president. The people who were NOT able to prevent health care from being signed into law, despite promising that it wouldn't be. The people who fed the bailout engine. So ideas that seem extreme and bizarre to the powers that be [in the Republican party] might be more accepted by discontented voters simply because the mainstream forces consider them to be extreme."
He was writing about Rand Paul's idea to repeal the 17th Amendment, but it applies to the Nevada race as well.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/kill-the-17th-amendment/57323/

Ed Case opts out of Hawaii race

Posted at 10:38 PM ET, 05/30/2010

Ed Case opts out of Hawaii race

Former Hawaii Rep. Ed Case (D) announced Sunday night that he will not be a candidate for the 1st district seat he had run for in a special election earlier this month.
"My heart tells me to stay in this fight," Case wrote in an e-mail to supporters. "But my head says this has become the wrong fight." He added that "the question is not whether but when, where and how I can best continue to serve, and I know that path will emerge in its own time."
Rep. Charles Djou (R) won the May 22 special election for the seat of former Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D) who resigned to focus on running for governor full time. State Sen. Colleen Hanabusa's (D) took 31 percent while Case finished third with 28 percent. All three candidates appeared on the same ballot due to Hawaii special election law.
Case's announcement clears the way for Hanabusa be the party's nominee against Djou. In the special election she had the support of Sens. Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka as well as much of the Hawaii political establishment. Case had burned bridges to that crowd following his 2006 primary challenge to Akaka.
In a statement, Hanabusa called Case's decision a "most magnanimous gesture."

AMERICAN HEART

AMERICAN HEART

© Jon David 2009

“American Heart” LIVE at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville

They say our reputation
Needs a new coat of paint
and a delicate melody
But I say I like the bruises

And a melody don’t mean a thing
If we don’t have the strength to sing

I won’t be made to ever feel ashamed…

…that I’m American made
I got American parts
Got American faith
In America’s heart
Go on raise the flag
I got stars in my eyes
I’m in love with her
And I won’t apologize

They say that we need changin’
As if all the Founding Fathers
seem to get it wrong
But I say I still believe in
The greatest Liberator, Innovator, Cultivator
Freedom knows

So I suggest you take a look inside
I think you changed already
You went and lost your pride

But I’m American made
I got American parts
Got American faith
In America’s heart

Go on raise the flag
I got stars in my eyes
I’m in love with her
And I won’t apologize

Dress her up so you don’t recognize her
She’ll still be there if you wake up in the night
‘Cause a mother can always find her child
Even when that child don’t know he’s lost

I’m American made
I got American parts
Got American faith
In America’s heart

Go on raise the flag
I got stars in my eyes
I’m in love with her
And I won’t apologize
I’m in love with her
And I won’t apologize
I’m in love with her
And I won’t apologize            

New, giant sea oil plume seen in Gulf

Researchers worry second undersea find is a result of chemical dispersants used to contain spill

By MATTHEW BROWN and JASON DEAREN, Associated Press

Marine scientists have discovered a massive new plume of what they believe to be oil deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico, stretching 22 miles from the leaking wellhead northeast toward Mobile Bay, Alabama.
The discovery by researchers on the University of South Florida College of Marine Science's Weatherbird II vessel is the second significant undersea plume recorded since the Deepwater Horizon exploded on April 20.
David Hollander, associate professor of chemical oceanography at the school, says the thick plume was detected just beneath the surface down to about 3,300 feet. He says it's more than 6 miles wide.
Scientists say they are worried the undersea plumes may be from chemical dispersants used to break up the oil a mile under the surface.          

Thursday, May 27, 2010 12:35 ET

War Room

Obama's Gulf oil spill press conference

By Alex Pareene

Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

U.S. President Barack Obama

2:00 How Fox works: Question to Obama: will you endorse a boycott of Arizona? Obama: I don't endorse any boycott. Or not endorse any boycott. Megyn Kelly: "President Obama refusing to condemn boycotts of Arizona."
1:55 Oh, hooray, Major Garrett: Fox wants to ask about that "boot on the neck" line from Salazar. "Are you comfortable with that imagery, sir? Is your BOOT on the NECK of BP?" AND! What did you admin offer Joe Sestak? Thanks, Major. Important questions.
There will be an official response "shortly" on the Sestak issue that will hopefully answer Major Garrett's questions. (I DOUBT IT.) "Nothing improper took place."
As for the boot/neck thing, Obama feels bad if he hurt anyone's feelings with that language, I guess. We don't need language, we need ACTION.
Malia knocks on the door while President Obama is shaving and says, "did you plug the hole yet, daddy?" (Really?) Obama feels bad about the oil birds and dead turtles. Obama understands why people in Louisiana are upset. The Federal Government is constantly thinking about this. In case anybody wonders, "I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down."
"The federal government is fully engaged, and I'm fully engaged." The end.
1:45 Next Q: What will the National Guard be doing at the border, exactly? Would you support a boycott of Arizona? (I don't think the President can boycott state?) (Also apparently the Prez wanted to talk about immigration, instead of taking more oil questions.) "I'm the president of the United States. I don't endorse boycotts. Or not endorse boycotts." His admin is examining this law. Immigration is inherently the job of the federal government. And the federal government needs to step up. And! We need a comprehensive approach to immigration reform. "I am prepared to work with both parties, and members of congress," to get a bill that secures borders, holds companies accountable, and makes those who come here illegally get right by the law.

• Continue reading

With respect to the National Guard: they will do lots of helpful stuff. But just sending more troops won't solve the problem. We need an orderly, fair immigration framework. And he told GOP: "I don't even need you to meet me halfway. Meet me a quarter of the way." And the president just explained that he can't pass bills with a simple majority in the Senate!
1:40 Next Q, from the New York Times: do you regret calling for expanded drilling? He continues to believe that we need to get oil here, in the US, where there is barely enough to meet ten minutes of our demand. "Where I was wrong was in my belief that the oil companies had their act together when it came to worst case scenarios."
Next Q: About Elizabeth Birnbaum. Obama found out about it this morning and insists he doesn't know the circumstances. At MMS, Salazar was "in the process of making these reforms, but obviously, they weren't happening fast enough."
On energy: the fact that oil companies have to go a mile underwater and then dig another three miles tells us something about how hard it is getting to get all the oil we need!
"That's part of the reason you never heard me say 'drill, baby, drill.' Because we can't drill our way out of the problem." All of the easy oil is gone. :( And, again, pushing the Lieberman/Kerry "American Power Act."
1:35 Helen Thomas! Her Q: When are we getting out of Afghanistan? (And don't give us the.. Bush-something about "them coming here.") Obama is now explaining the original justifications for the Afghanistan war. Oil continued to spill on the split-screen for a while, but then MSNBC switched it to Helen. "They absolutely are a threat to us."
1:30 Chip Reid Q: was Elizabeth Birnbaum fired? And MMS: Salazar blaming Bush admin for cozy relationship. And you blame Bush admin for cozy relationship! But you "continued to give permits." Is it fair to blame the Bush admin? Short answer: yes. (And Obama doesn't know about Birnbaum.) Next Q: can BP be trusted, because they keep always lying about everything? Prez says BP's interest is capping this stupid thing and minimizing the damage. But they are not aligned with the public interest in terms of being forthcoming. (So, short answer: no.) We have to "verify everything they say about the damage." And this is an area "where our efforts fell shot." Fed should've pushed to have the camera feed made public faster.
1:25 Q: "Why is it taking so long and did you REALLY act from day one as if this was a worst case scenario?" I don't understand the point of questions like this. Is the president going to say, "you know what, you got me, I didn't give a shit about this spill until that web cam went up."
Pre-deploying boom would've been the right thing to do. Now, Prez bringing up that IG report on MMS again. Salazar "cleaned a lot of that up" but more needs to be done. There was a "complacency" about the worst case scenario. How is it that oil companies kept getting environmental waivers? Because the waiver process was a joke. "What became the habit, pre-dating my administration," was just giving the waiver away. And: "domestic oil production is important." Ugh.
1:20 Chuck Todd! Q: The relationship between the government and BP. And: "Can you respond to all the Katrina comparison?" Obama will take that Q first. He will leave it to "you guys" to make judgments on that. Because he's too busy thinking really hard about solving the problem. So hard at work! (He's confident that people will look back and say that this admin was "on top" of an unprecedented crisis.)
MSNBC CRAWL UPDATE: "Country music star Willie Nelson cuts off his pigtails."
One last stab at his five-minute answer to Chuck Todd's question: The problem isn't that BP is running around doing whatever it wants, but in something this big, mistakes will be made. He wants everyone to understand that WE ARE BOSSING BP AROUND. WE CONTROL THEM.
1:15 Q 2, from Jake Tapper: "You say that everything that could be done, is being done." But some people say that isn't true. Governor Jindal, for example, had an idea (that Obama already mentioned). Obama: If the question is, are we doing everything perfect? Then, no. But if the question is, are we evaluating every idea? Then the answer is yes. On Jindal's barrier island idea: they looked at it two weeks ago. The Army Corps of Engineers evaluated it. They are evaluating whether or not to take help from other countries based on many factors. Message still is: Grown-ups in charge, taking this seriously, constant urgency.
1:10: Disagreements between the Feds and BP: Top Kill. (We are still on his answer to the very first question, by the way.) There has never been a point during this crisis when this wasn't Obama's top priority. Mike Madden says: "These split-screen cable news shots usually drive me crazy, but the #oilspill gushing as Obama speaks actually seems appropriate." That's true! It's eerie and poetic and sad.
1:05 Question time: they understood from day one the enormity of the problem and they have been focused on stopping it. The government has always been in charge of making sure the response is "appropriate," but BP is the "responsible party," so they have to stop it and "mitigate the damage." They are doing so under the government's supervision, and they answer to Thad Allen. And! The Federal Government does not have better technology than BP! "Two or three days after this happened," Obama had a Situation Room meeting, and he was informed that BP had all the robots. Should the government have some robots? Probably, yes! (Maybe Lockheed Martin and Boeing should be making us oil leak-plugging robots instead of new and exciting death machines?) (Obama is not saying this, it is just my opinion.)
1:00 There are a number of ongoing investigations into the root causes of the disaster. And we're already on a "final note." We need clean, renewable sources of energy! Oh, good, he is finally using this disaster to push for passage of the climate bill. He closes: "This oil spill is an unprecedented disaster." "We are relying on every resource, and every idea, every expert, and every bit of technology, to work to stop it." Every day he sees this continue "I am angry, and frustrated as well." (That ought to please Chris Matthews! He said he is angry, it is official, the President is mad.)
12:55 Obama pressing his administration's active role in the response effort thus far. Also: Nobel-prize winning physicist Stephen Chu is on the case! 20,000 people in the region "are working around the clock." The National Guard. The Coast Guard. "More than 1,300 vessels." Numbers! I continue to think the biggest problem people have with the Obama administration's response is primarily a problem of "optics," to use a particularly despicable term.
Obama is now explaining that when he took office, MMS was incredibly corrupt. Scandalously close relationship between oil industry and regulators. More reforms are needed. As I said, the "optics" thing requires Obama to explain, to people who already know these things, what he has already done. We just need to hear it from him, I guess.
12:50 The conference has begun. We'll update this post as it goes on.
President Obama is about to hold his first real press conference since July 22, 2009. According to the press and the cable networks, it is the president's job to appear serious and mad. He will have to answer questions about this terrible oil spill. But mostly he will have to act in such a way that the media feels they have done their job putting his feet to the fire. Let's see how he does!

The smoking toddler: Who's to blame?

I am appalled by this.  Who would give a baby cigarettes to smoke, to bad they do not have child welfare.  Because I would be calling and making a complaint.  

A nicotine-addicted 2-year-old sparks fury. But it isn't just the parents at fault -- it's Big Tobacco Video

By Mary Elizabeth Williams

In an interview with UK's The Sun, this 2-year-old Indonesian boy was seen smoking a cigarette with abandon.

It's not such a small world after all. One only need check out the video that surfaced this week of an overweight Indonesian toddler dragging on a cigarette with all the practiced aplomb of Don Draper -- and the horrified reactions it spawned across the world -- to get a textbook lesson in cultural divides.
A reporter visiting the 2-year-old boy's Sumatran village shot the footage, which was posted on the UK Sun's website Saturday. But it was a follow-up on Wednesday, with the accompanying revelations that his father gave the child his first smoke when he was just 18 months old and his mother's lamentations that the boy, who allegedly smokes up to 40 cigarettes a day, is "totally addicted. If he doesn't get cigarettes, he gets angry and screams and batters his head against the wall," that sent the clip into the viral zone.
Anyone familiar with British tabloids knows that nicotine-addicted tykes are their idea of a headline jackpot. The accompanying caption, "Tar baby," was certainly an inspired touch of "us vs. them" provocation. Isn't this wrong how they treat kids over there? Don't you feel angry, readers? Fish, meet barrel. And sure enough, extending far beyond the comments section of the Sun, the Internet quickly lit up like a gaggle of Indonesian toddlers over the "disgusting" and "disgraceful" situation.
Those of us used to moving in social circles where giving your kid access to a doughnut or a Bratz doll will get you a rep as a child abuser, where anti-smoking campaigns are enthusiastic to the point of stomach-turning, were naturally boggled by the clip. But that disturbing video doesn't just represent an easy opportunity for parents with high-speed Internet access to feel smug about their own child-rearing practices.

• Continue reading

It's a snapshot of a country where over 60 percent of all adult men smoke, a place where, unsurprisingly, the tobacco industry rides roughshod over the public health interest. While smoking rates continue to dip in places like the U.S., they've actually risen in Indonesia. The World Bank estimates that one-third of the world's adult population smokes -- an astonishing 80 percent of whom live in "low- and middle-income countries." And that number just keeps growing-- in places like Indonesia, where a smoking household will spend about 11 percent of its income on cigarettes and the rate of smokers between the tender age of 5 and 9 has dramatically risen since 2001. A place where there are no bans on public smoking, no age limit on who can buy cigarettes, and a deep-pocketed, largely unregulated tobacco industry that can advertise on television  and sponsor huge entertainment events seemingly at will. A part of the world where smoking is the leading cause of premature death.
A child's welfare is still first and foremost his parents' responsibility. But before we get too comfortable in the knowledge that we'd never even expose our own babies to cigarettes, let alone hand them a pack, maybe we can redirect a little of that indignation toward a profitable industry that's worked so hard to pour smoke down those little lungs.