Pages

Monday, November 22, 2010

Sarah Palin's Mystery Research Firm


Why's an incendiary Dutch journalist on the payroll of the ex-Alaska governor's political action committee? A Mother Jones investigation.

Forecasting 2012

— By Kevin Drum

| Sun Nov. 21, 2010 9:00 AM PST
Good news for Barack Obama today! Um, sort of. Ray Fair has released a forecast of the 2012 presidential race based on his well-known political/econometric model, and he says Obama will win in a landslide.
That is, he'll win in a landslide if Ray Fair is also good at forecasting future economic growth:
It thus comes down to what the economy will be in the next two years, which is, of course, what the equations are all about. If the recovery is robust, which my economic model predicts will begin to happen in the middle of 2011, Obama wins easily. If the recovery is only modest, the election will be close, with an edge for the Republicans. If there is a double dip recession, Obama loses by a fairly large amount.
His topline forecast is that Obama wins 55.88% of the popular vote, which sounds reasonable for an incumbent president presiding over a robust economy. But if recovery is fairly flat, which is hardly out of the question, suddenly Republicans are favored to win the White House.
With that in mind, then, what was it we were saying yesterday about Republican incentives relative to the economy? Mitch McConnell made their priorities clear a few weeks ago, after all: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." If Ray Fair is to be believed, there's only one way for that to happen

John Hofmeister on Radio Free Dylan



Episode #11 – John Hofmeister, Founder and CEO of Citizens for Affordable Energy
Author, Why We Hate the Oil Companies: Straight Talk from an Energy Inside and Former President of Shell Oil.
    AN INTERVIEW WITH JOHN HOFMEISTER
    John Hofmeister
    What would change if our country started looking at the real cost of fossil fuels?  Could the private sector effectively develop alternative fuels that can compete with them, or goes the government need to step in somehow? To get answers, Dylan talks with former Shell Oil president, energy expert and founder of Citizens for Affordable Energy, John Hofmeister.
    “I look at the dynamic of the political infrastructure, and it looks to me like there are major subsidies that benefit all the fossil fuel companies.  The consumer is never asked to pay a price, nor is the producer asked to pay a price for the negative externalities — whether it’s the pollutive aspect, or the conflict aspects of fossil fuel energy, says Dylan.  “I would argue that the reason it costs so much more comparatively, and that there’s not really an incentive to make a transition is because the real price of fossil fuel is fairly distorted.”
    “There is so much supply out there that is does drive, frankly, the cost down.  The second thing is, you’re right, there is no cost at this point for what you call the externalities for the environmental disruption,” says John.  “The supply is so huge and the amount of energy is so dense.  The reason solar and wind cost so much is there’s no density of energy produced — and so you don’t get anywhere near the quantity [of energy] from wind or solar for the investment,” says John.
    Listen in for an extended discussion on the future of alternative energy, strategies for weaning our country off of fossil fuels, and whether or not a “green jobs” sector could be part of a solution to our country’s employment crisis.

    Henry in the House: Obama mulls big speech to Chamber of Commerce

    By Ed Henry, CNN Senior White House Correspondent
    November 19, 2010 6:08 p.m. ESTEditor's note: Ed Henry has covered the White House for CNN since March 2006. In "Henry in the House," he offers an insider's view of the Obama White House
    Washington (CNN) -- After months of all-out political war with the nation's most powerful business lobby, President Obama appears to be on the verge of launching a dramatic peace offering to the president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donohue.
    Two sources familiar with the negotiations tell me that Obama was giving serious consideration to going into the lion's den and delivering a speech at a December 2 jobs summit hosted by Donohue, whose organization just spent tens of millions of dollars trying to bring the president's agenda to a screeching halt by helping to elect more pro-business lawmakers in the midterm election.
    "It was my impression they were looking very favorably on the invite," a senior Chamber official told me about the White House, and a senior administration official did not quibble with that account when I checked with the White House on Friday.
    For more on Obama's relationship with the Chamber of Commerce, check out CNN's White House blog, The 1600 Report.
    Obama pushes trade at APEC summit
    I'm told that for logistical reasons, unrelated to Obama, the Chamber of Commerce had to cancel the December jobs summit. But the group is now planning a similar January event and wants Obama to be the headliner.
    "The president is always welcome at the Chamber," the senior Chamber official told me. "It can be done, frankly, very quickly if they want to do it. We would be very open to that."
    A senior administration official told me the White House has not yet officially gotten a second invite, but they would give serious consideration to any future inquiry from the Chamber.
    If you think about it, this could be an ideal opportunity for Obama to deliver a big speech early in January when the new Congress convenes. It would be particularly good timing for Obama to try and set the agenda and tee up his State of the Union address later in the month, not to mention hit the reset button on his fractured relationship with the business community.
    "This would show the president will engage people with different views," one senior Democratic strategist told me. "I think it would be a good thing."
    In fact, top Democratic strategists tell me senior White House officials like David Axelrod have been working aggressively behind the scenes to help facilitate a chance for Obama to finally bury the hatchet with Donohue and the rest of the business community.
    It was only weeks ago, on the eve of the election, that Obama was slamming the Chamber, alleging that they might be using illegal foreign money to influence the midterms, a charge the Chamber vehemently denied.
    While senior officials like Axelrod and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner have publicly tried to downplay any tensions with the business community, I'm told by these Democratic strategists that members of the administration are privately more concerned than they're letting on about just how politically damaging the image of Obama being anti-business has been.
    It was already reported this week that Geithner tried to start brokering a detente of sorts by appearing before the Chamber's board, with the senior official there telling me that the Treasury secretary's visit was "refreshing" and a good start.
    Beyond the political intrigue, the significance is that there has been a lot of pessimism in Washington about whether Obama can really get much done in 2011 with a Republican House and a shrunken Democratic majority in the Senate.
    But there are signs that Obama may be able to form an unlikely alliance on some key issues with the Chamber of Commerce, which has a lot of sway with incoming House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and could help each side bridge at least some of their differences on economic matters.
    Jen Psaki, White House deputy communications director, told me that a lot of the tension with the Chamber was overblown and she believes they will be able to work together on billions in new infrastructure spending the president is trying to secure, as well as Obama's push to double U.S. exports within five years -- an idea that Chamber officials diplomatically note was first pushed by Donohue.
    "The economic recovery is more important than political battles of the past," said Psaki. "There are a number of issues that we can see eye to eye on."
    Donohue seems to agree, based on a pretty positive speech he delivered this week in which he said America is a "nation at risk" because of the slow economic recovery and he's ready to work with Obama to fix it.
    "We're prepared to join with President Obama, his administration, and both parties in Congress to achieve these goals," Donohue said. "Our economy is simply not expanding fast enough to reduce unemployment and create 20 million jobs. It's time to get serous. It's time to act. We've been diagnosing our problems for years. How about some treatment?"
    A turning point in this often testy relationship may have been the president's trip earlier this month to Asia. Administration officials credit Donohue with flying to South Korea while Obama was there to try to help the President push along the pending free trade agreement (though it's still stalled), while Chamber officials credit Geithner with being available to Donohue at 3 a.m. during the trip to help iron out a sticking point.
    Nevertheless, an Obama speech to Donohue's group would be a dramatic gesture, because the White House and the Chamber have been at each other's throats for much of the past two years.
    While Donohue supported the stimulus plan as well as the auto bailouts early on in the Obama administration, the cooperation pretty much stopped there. It "went off the rails," in the words of a senior Chamber official, over the president's health care reform.
    It has always been known that the Chamber was fighting that plan tooth and nail, but nobody knew just how aggressively until this week, when Bloomberg reported that health insurers gave the Chamber $86.2 million to battle the plan -- a staggering amount.
    The Chamber spent tens of millions of dollars more to support Republicans -- as well as some conservative Democrats -- in the midterm election. Those efforts helped knock the president's party out of power in the House and weakened his hand in the Senate.
    Despite the happy talk now about working together on other issues, let's not forget that the Chamber will be glad to be part of any Republican effort on Capitol Hill to weaken the president's signature health care and Wall Street reform laws.
    In addition, the White House has been working behind the scenes to boost an outside group of corporate executives, known as Business Forward, to help set it up as a kind of rival organization to the Chamber of Commerce. The idea is, according to senior Democratic strategists, that the executives who make up Business Forward can stand up and support the president's agenda -- serving as a counterweight to Chamber opposition in order to show that the business community is not unilaterally anti-Obama.
    In fact, Jim Messina, deputy chief of staff at the White House, briefed leaders of Business Forward on Obama's agenda at a meeting in Washington on Monday. The group is made up of executives from several major corporations, including AT&T, Ford, Facebook, Microsoft, Fidelity, Hilton Worldwide, Visa, Wal-Mart, McDonald's and Time Warner (the parent company of CNN).
    Documents from the event obtained by CNN noted that "17 of America's most respected companies are working with Business Forward to encourage thousands of business executives, small business owners, entrepreneurs and venture capitalists to get engaged in the policymaking process."
    The documents added that over the next three months, the group plans to "host panels in Washington and around the country on consumer financial protection, trade and exports, cybersecurity and IP, health care and childhood obesity," all of which could be an opportunity to drum up support for some of Obama's signature issues.
    Officials familiar with the inner workings of Business Forward said they're also using Washington lobbyists to help enlist support for Obama's initiatives, despite the administration's efforts to foster a very hands-off relationship with the lobbying community. Attendees at Monday's meeting with Messina included powerhouse lobbyists like Manuel Ortiz, who lobbies for Visa, Verizon, and AT&T among other corporations, and Broderick Johnson, who lobbies for big clients like Microsoft and Comcast among others.
    A senior administration official stressed that Messina's appearance at Business Forward was part of the White House's regular outreach to the business community and he was merely "providing information about our agenda" and was not allowing lobbyists to help formulate policy.
    Meanwhile, a senior Chamber official scoffed at the idea that Business Forward will be able to rise to any sort of rival to the Chamber. "It's a joke," said the official. "We've been here 100 years."
    The Chamber also is not about to let Business Forward get in the way of Donohue sitting down to get some business done with Obama.
    "I think Donohue's approach is very pragmatic," said the official. "We set to narrow the numbers [in the House and Senate]. But the election is over. The people have spoken. Now there's a lot to do to create jobs. We can meet them halfway."
    The official added, pun intended: "The Chamber of Commerce is always open for business."

    On Mrs. Kennedy’s Detail

    Op-Ed Contributor

    By CLINT HILL
    Published: November 21, 2010

     IT was with great trepidation that I approached 3704 N Street in Washington on Nov. 10, 1960. I had just been given the assignment of providing protection for the wife of the newly elected president of the United States, and I was about to meet her for the first time.
    I soon realized I had little to worry about. Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy, just 31 years old at the time, was a gracious woman who put me immediately at ease. She was the first lady, but she was also a caring mother; her daughter, Caroline, was nearly 3 years old, and she was pregnant with her second child. Three weeks later, she went into early labor with John Jr., and I followed her through the entire process. It would be the first of many experiences we would have together.
    Being on the first lady’s detail was a lot different from being on the president’s. It was just the two of us, traveling the world together. Mrs. Kennedy was active and energetic — she loved to play tennis, water-ski and ride horses. She had a great sense of humor, and we grew to trust and confide in each other, as close friends do.
    In early 1963, Mrs. Kennedy shared with me the happy news that she was pregnant again. She had curtailed her physical activities and had settled into a routine at the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port, Mass., for the last few months of her pregnancy. I was on a rare day off when I got the call that she had gone into early labor. I raced to the hospital at Otis Air Force Base, arriving shortly after she did.
    The president, who had been in Washington, arrived soon after she delivered their new baby boy, whom they named Patrick Bouvier Kennedy.
    When Patrick died two days later, Mrs. Kennedy was devastated. I felt as if my own son had died, and we grieved together.
    The following weeks were difficult as I watched her fall into a deep depression. Eventually, it was suggested that she needed to get away. In October 1963 I traveled with her to the Mediterranean, where we stayed aboard Aristotle Onassis’ yacht, the Christina. The trip to Greece, Turkey and Yugoslavia, along with a short stop in Morocco, seemed to be good therapy, and by the time we returned to Washington the light had returned to her eyes.
    I was surprised, however, when not long after our return Mrs. Kennedy decided to join her husband on his trip to Texas. It was so soon after the loss of her son, and she hadn’t accompanied the president on any domestic political trips since his election.
    Nevertheless, when we left the White House on Thursday, Nov. 21, I could tell that Mrs. Kennedy was truly excited. I remember thinking this would be a real test of her recovery, and that if she enjoyed the campaigning it would probably be a regular occurrence as soon as the 1964 race got into full swing.
    The first day of the trip was exhausting. We had motorcades in San Antonio, Houston and finally Fort Worth, where we arrived around midnight. It had been a long day for everyone, and Mrs. Kennedy was drained.
    On the morning of Nov. 22, I went to her room at the Hotel Texas to bring her down to the breakfast where President John F. Kennedy was speaking. She was refreshed and eager to head to Dallas. She had chosen a pink suit with a matching hat to wear at their many appearances that day, and she looked exquisite.
    The motorcade began like any of the many that I had been a part of as an agent — with the adrenaline flowing, the members of the detail on alert. I was riding on the running board of the car just behind the president’s.
    We were traveling through Dallas en route to the Trade Mart, where the president was to give a lunchtime speech, when I heard an explosive noise from my right rear. As I turned toward the sound, I scanned the presidential limousine and saw the president grab at his throat and lurch to the left.
    I jumped off the running board and ran toward his car. I was so focused on getting to the president and Mrs. Kennedy to provide them cover that I didn’t hear the second shot.
    I was just feet away when I heard and felt the effects of a third shot. It hit the president in the upper right rear of his head, and blood was everywhere. Once in the back seat, I threw myself on top of the president and first lady so that if another shot came, it would hit me instead.
    The detail went into action. We didn’t stop to think about what happened; our every move and thought went into rushing the president and Mrs. Kennedy to the nearest hospital.
    I stayed by Mrs. Kennedy’s side for the next four days. The woman who just a few days before had been so happy and exuberant about this trip to Texas was in deep shock. Her eyes reflected the sorrow of the nation and the world — a sorrow we still feel today.


    Clint Hill, a former assistant director of the Secret Service, served under five presidents.

    Koch-Funded Tim Phillips is Still Confused About Climate Change

    November 19, 2010

    By Ryan Koronowski, ACP Research Director and Josh Nelson, ACP New Media Director
    This week, CNN’s “Parker Spitzer” spoke with Tim Phillips, the head of the front group Americans for Prosperity that’s funded by the oil company Koch Industries. Mr. Phillips was up to his old tricks. While acknowledging that he is not a scientist, he said that to believe climate science isn’t “far from settled” would be “arrogance.”

    Of course, his claim is the furthest thing from the truth. This was simply another attempt by an oil industry-funded, climate denial mouthpiece to try and convince Americans that climate change isn’t happening. But this particularly insidious brand of snake oil has no basis in reality. In fact, there’s overwhelming evidence that climate change is happening now and is caused by pollution from fossil fuels.
    Americans for Prosperity has a seemingly harmless-sounding name, but they are heavily funded by foundations run by David Koch, co-owner of the oil refinery and pipeline company Koch Industries.
    While you might not have heard of Koch Industries before they won Repower America’s Snake Oil Award for Public Deception, the Koch brothers are doing everything they can to mislead the public and influence our political leaders. And it doesn’t stop with backing third party smear machines; Koch has also spent nearly $17 million lobbying Congress in the past two years.
    It’s not over yet. In January, Koch Industries executives and high finance head honchos will be meeting at the Rancho Las Palmas Resort and Spa to “develop strategies to counter the most severe threats facing our free society,” which evidently includes “climate change alarmism.” A similar meeting this year featured a presentation on voter mobilization by none other than Tim Phillips.
    The fight to solve climate change is about more than just a back-and-forth debate about scientific issues that have long been settled. Instead, we should acknowledge that facts don’t have a political party, and get to work building a clean energy economy that can create millions of jobs for Americans.
    Tim Phillips may claim not to believe in climate change, but as Upton Sinclair once wrote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
    Thanks to the Wonk Room over at Think Progress for first catching this story.

    This Junk Won't Fly

    Slate Magazine
    human nature

    The idiocy of airport-scanner "Opt-Out Day."

    By William Saletan
    In case you haven't heard, there's a big holiday coming up. No, I don't mean Thanksgiving. I mean the day before it. Wednesday is the busiest air travel day of the year, and a horde of paranoid zealots—techno-libertarians, Tea Partiers, rabble-rousers, Internet activists, and congressional demagogues—has decided to make it even worse. They're calling it "National Opt-Out Day." Rather than endure an electronic scan of your body at the security gate, they want you to "opt out" and force the Transportation Security Administration to physically inspect you. Their hero is John Tyner, the man who recorded himself a week ago as he warned a TSA officer not to "touch my junk."
    Ignore these imbeciles. Their plan would clog security lines and ruin your holiday for no good reason. They don't understand the importance of the electronic scans. They're wrong about the scanners' safety. And from the standpoint of dignity, their advice is insane. If you opt out of the scan, you'll get a pat-down instead. You'll trade a fast, invisible, intangible, privacy-protected machine inspection for an unpleasant, extended grope. In effect, you'll be telling TSA to touch your junk.
    Here's what one of Opt-Out Day's instigators, an outfit calling itself We Won't Fly, is telling the public:
    If you have to fly on November 24, opt out of the virtual strip search body scanners for your own health and privacy. Say "I opt out!" Tell your friends, family and community so they know how to protect themselves, too. Be prepared for delays and intimate TSA groping. At least you will avoid the risk of cornea damage and skin, breast and testicular cancer and the humiliation of a virtual strip search.
    It's hard to know where to start with this idiocy. The body scanners aren't dangerous. Their safety has been certified by the Food and Drug Administration, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, and other scientific reviewers. You get more radiation from being at flying altitude for two minutes than you do from a scan.
    Second, a "virtual strip search" is nothing like a real one. According to We Won't Fly, the fact that airport scans "are automated and mechanical in no way changes the fact that when a government agent looks beneath your clothing you are being strip searched." Are you kidding? It changes everything. In an airport scan, the only person who sees your naked body (it looks like this on the viewing screen) is an officer in a room away from where you're standing. He or she never sees your face and has no idea whose body is on the screen. Conversely, the officer who's standing in front of you, awaiting word that you've passed the scan, never sees you naked. This separation of your identity from your nude image is what protects your privacy. In a pat-down, there's no separation. The same officer who looks you in the eye slides his hand up your groin.
    Did I mention the cost in time? A scanner can clear you in 10 seconds. A pat-down can take four minutes—or longer, if you accept TSA's offer of a private screening room. Imagine how long you'll have to wait at the airport Wednesday if half the people in front of you refuse to be scanned. TSA "won't have the manpower to reach into everyone's crotch," exults a WWF co-founder. The group urges followers to "jam TSA checkpoints by opting out" and "slowing down their security theater."
    And for what? If Opt-Out Day grinds air travel to a halt and forces the government to withdraw the scanners, WWF's next goal is to abolish TSA. It claims the agency isn't "agile" enough to match al-Qaida. That's hilarious. Naked scanners are exactly the kind of agile response al-Qaida requires. Last year's underwear bomber showed that metal detectors can't handle non-metallic explosives concealed on the passenger. Hence the scanners.
    Tyner proves the point. Read his account of how he plotted to evade the scanners:
    I have been reading about the millimeter wave and backscatter x-ray machines … Not wanting to go through them, I had done my research on the TSA's website prior to traveling to see if [San Diego's airport] had them. From all indications, they did not. … After removing my shoes and making my way toward the metal detector … I was pulled out of line to go through the backscatter machine. When asked, I half-chuckled and said, "I don't think so."
    In a follow-up post, Tyner writes, "I tried to avoid the … scanner machine by getting in the metal detector line. I was actually relieved when the person in front of me was pulled out of line."
    Those words could just as easily have been written by the underwear bomber. Research the airports, look for the weak link, and pray that you don't have to go through a scanner that can see what's between your legs. So, yes, Mr. Tyner. Before you board my plane, I want the guys from TSA to look at your junk. And if you refuse, I want them to touch it.
    Like Slate on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter. Human Nature's latest short takes on the news, via Twitter:

    Latest Twitter Updates Follow William Saletan on Twitter.
    William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War. Follow him on Twitter here.

    The Real Airport Security Debate: Would You Rather Be Groped or Zapped? 7 hours ago

    David Corn
    Columnist

    Groped by a TSA agent or zapped by harmful radiation?

    That may well be the real airport screening debate. But in the past weeks, there's been an uproar in the media only over the new intrusive examinations being used at airport screening by the Transportation Security Administration. And this past weekend, the Obama administration officials sent signals that these policies could be eased. On "Face the Nation," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she wouldn't submit to such a pat-down: "I mean, who would?" Yet on CNN, John Pistole, the TSA administrator, said, "No, we are not changing the policies because of that, because of the risks that have been identified because of the current threat stream." Yet hours later, he throttled back on the rhetoric, telling Politico that screening procedures "will be adapted as conditions warrant" to make them "as minimally invasive as possible, while still providing the security that the American people want and deserve." And during the NATO summit in Lisbon on Saturday, President Barack Obama said, "You have to constantly refine and measure whether what we're doing is the only way to assure the American people's safety. And you also have to think through, are there ways of doing it that are less intrusive?"

    This all suggests the administration may be worrying about a popular backlash against the more intrusive pat-downs that began three weeks ago. This controversy has been fueled by such pat-down horror stories as the one involving a 61-year-old fellow who survived bladder cancer and who uses a ursotomy bag. On his way to Orlando, Florida, he was searched by a TSA agent who hit the bag, causing it to break open. Urine spilled and dribbled down his shirt to his pants, and ran down his leg. (This episode raises the question: Do we really need to have pee-soaked passengers in order to keep terrorists at bay?)

    The fuss over pat-downs seems to have displaced the fuss over the full-body scanner images that can show more than TSA agents really need to know about passengers. (Travelers declining the full-body scans are being subjected to the new, too-close-for-comfort physical exams.) Yet the true worry may not be an invasion of privacy but chromosome damage and cancer.

    Last April, four scientists at the University of California-San Francisco sent John Holdren, Obama's top science adviser, a letter declaring their "concerns about the potential serious health risks." The four scientists -- a biochemist, a cancer specialist and two X-ray experts -- noted, "This is an urgent situation as these X-ray scanners are rapidly being implemented as a primary
    screening step for all air travel passengers." They maintained that that the dose of radiation delivered by these machines would appear to be safe "if it were distributed" throughout the traveler's entire body. But, they contended, because most of the dose "is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue ... the dose to the skin may be dangerously high." This quartet of scientists said that "real independent safety data" about these scanners "do not exist." They insisted that the devices could cause breast cancer in a "fraction of the female population," damage white blood cells, induce cancer within HIV and cancer patients, and cause "mutagenic effects" -- that is, chromosome damage that could lead to cancer, particularly among older travelers. They also asserted that men are "at risk for sperm mutagenesis." They added, "The risk of radiation emission to children and adolescents does not appear to have been fully evaluated," and they suggested that pregnant women could be at risk. The four asked, "have the effects of the radiation on the cornea and thymus been determined?" And they raised the possibility of a glitch in the scanner's hardware or software causing "an intense radiation dose to a single spot on the skin."

    In other words, oh boy, there's a lot to worry about:
    There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations. We are unanimous in believing that the potential health consequences need to be rigorously studied before these scanners are adopted. Modifications that reduce radiation exposure need to be explored as soon as possible.
    They called on Holdren to set up an impartial panel of experts to study the potential health consequences of the scanners.

    By the way, there are now almost 400 body scanners deployed at 68 airports. By the end of 2011, that number is supposed to reach about 1,000 machines, with 2 out of 3 passengers being screened by these devices.

    The White House did not set up that independent scientific panel. It took Holdren three months to reply to the scientists. In July, he wrote them a short note, asserting that "the issues you have raised have been studied extensively by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ... for many years, as well as by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)." Yet he didn't refer to any particular studies or tests. He noted that FDA and DHS representatives would "craft a detailed and clear description of the evidence for the safety of the devices in question, addressing all of the points raised in your letter."

    On Nov. 8, the White House posted that FDA/DHS response. These agencies essentially said, no problem. They claimed that "the issue had been studied extensively for many years" by federal agencies and that the dose to the skin is "at least 89,000 times lower than the annual limit." But John Sedat, who leads the four UCSF scietnists, says this response is in "error" and based on "many misconceptions." Sedat and the three other scientists are preparing a response to the response.

    But this matter deserves more than a ping-pong match. Instead, the National Academy of Sciences or another independent body ought to convene the inquiry the UCSF scientists requested. By the way, the UCSF scientists are not alone. David Brenner, the head of Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research, who helped write the guidelines for security scanners, says he wouldn't have approved those rules had he known the scanners would be used on almost every air traveler (though he doesn't agree with the UCSF scientists' claim that that these machines could cause cancer, prompt sperm cell mutations, and harm fetuses). Earlier this year, Brenner said: "There really is no other technology around where we're planning to X-ray such an enormous number of individuals. It's really unprecedented in the radiation world."

    In the meantime, the TSA is marching ahead with its plan to install full-body scanners in airports across the country. And if you're asked to enter one, what's a person who can't navigate the periodic table to do? Do you trust your government when it says there's nothing to fret about? Or is it prudent to take heed of this not-yet-resolved dispute between the UCSF scientists and the agencies and decline politely -- and face a prodding in the privates?

    It's a no-brainer: I'd rather accept a demeaning squeeze than a dose of radiation -- before being allowed to proceed to friendly skies. In either case, I'll be thinking: The terrorists won.


    TSA Chief: Pat Downs are doing what they were intended to do









    >> joining us from washington, tsa administrator john pistole. sir, thank you very much for being on the show this morning.

    >> you're welcome. that's quite a lead-in.

    >> yes, it is:  it's certainly been the source of a lot of joking. i'll start off with a dead serious question for you. these new rules or guidelines have been put in place for the past couple weeks. have they proven effective? have they found anything? are they worth snit.

    >> let me start with the advanced imaging technology machines, we can go back several years with those. we have found all types of things that we would not have picked up through the walk-through metal dedeck tors. the whole purpose of the enhanced pat-downs is to address the challenges we see from the christmas day bomber last year, using a nonmetallic device which would not have been picked up, a bomb that would have killed all the people on the aircraft, of course. so the enhanced pat-downs are designed to identify and disrupt that type of plot. so that's the challenge. how do we best balance the security that everybody wants, everybody wants to get home for the holidays safely.

    >> this has become the butt of jokes on "saturday night live." and you went right to the body scanner machines. there are separate issues with that. in terms of the enhanced pat-downs, first of all rnlgs was there a problem with the way we transitioned into them that has led to this conversation getting out of control? then it's like to know if they are working in any way?

    >> the two issues there that you addressed is how could we have best rolled this out f you will. we did a couple of pilot projects if you will in two airports, las vegas and boston. the concern was, if we advertise, if you will, that we're doing this in two airports, that meant we had 451 airports around the country where we were not doing that. terrorist whose provide may be ready to do something, by the way, we're not thoroughly screening people for the nonmetallic bombs such as we saw on 12/25. the other part, yes, we have found some things, whether contraband -- typically drugs, of course, whether in the underwear or wherever it might be. that's been an age-old issue.

    >> mike barnicle?

    >> mr. pistole, mark happen pri halperin is here, some people are reluctant to go through the body scanners because of perceived dangers with radiation, what are the dangers, if any, with radiation?

    >> the scientific study that we commissioned before we ever rolled these machines out showed there's complete think safe amount of radiation emitted. that's by national institute of standard technology, fda and john hopkins. we rely on those. we want to work with industry to make sure we have the safest machines available. that is the bottom line. they are safe for everyday use.

    >> sir, let me ask you two questions about the two pieces of. this you say the machines are safe for use. would you be willing to go through it four times a week?

    >> yes. i travel quite a bit. guy through security screening every time. i have full confidence they're safe and secure.

    >> have you been subjected to the full pat-down?

    >> yes, i have.

    >> and how did you feel about it?

    >> well, i felt it was thorough. i felt it was doing exactly what it's designed to do to try to detect somebody is trying to kill hundreds of people on an airplane.

    >> okay. guys, what is he supposed to do, seriously? what is he supposed to do given the fact that people are hiding bombs in their underwear or anywhere else?

    >> that's what i would like to ask him. mr. pistole, let me ask you this, what do you think it says about us as a culture, as a nation, where we are all up in arms over the past week or so about getting frisked at airports and potential radiation from these machines much more so than we are about the fact that we're engaged in two wars in afghanistan and have a 10.5%, 15% real unemployment rate in this country? what does it say about us?

    >> the threats are real. we're facing a determined en any who has proven adept at building, concealing, designing bombs that are going to kill hundreds of people on one aircraft. think eve also done the same on cargo aircraft to effect our economy. so that's the bottom line for me. how can we work in partnership with the american people to provide the safest travel possible and especially this week so people can get home to enjoy time with loved ones.

    >> mr. pistole, i was in the airport and people in line with me were saying this can't go on. is there a better way? what are other options? what else have you looked at?

    >> i think the key is to look at this as one player as security that we hope to be and are informed by intelligence from around the world such as we saw with the saudi intelligence about the cargo plot. every morning i receive an intelligence brief that helps inform the judgments and actions. the idea is to have as much intelligence as possible about those who may pose a risk before they ever get to the airport. absent that, we try to apply common sense which has not been heard in discussions in the last few weeks. we exempt chish 12 and under because we don't assess they pose a risk to aviation security. we obviously are trying to work through the best intelligence, how that can inform our actions n. final analysis, reasonable people can disagree as to what's proper for them as to privacy and security. everybody wants to make sure everybody else on that flight you're on has been properly screened just as they want to make sure you and i have been properly scleen.

    >> tsa administrator john pistole, thanks very much. we appreciate your coming on the show this morning.

    Holbrooke: Nothing North Korea does is 'stunning'


    Tax Cuts for the Rich

    Nov 18, 2010


    Congressman Grayson (D-Fla.) gives more ideas of what the rich can do with the extra $83,000 they will get each year from the Republican's plan for tax cuts. But Rep. Grayson prefers to vote for jobs.

    Nov 17, 20010

    Congressman Grayson (D-Fla.) gives some ideas of what the rich can do with the extra $83,000 they will get each year from the Republican's plan for tax cuts. But Rep. Grayson has a better idea.

    Meet the Press Sunday November 21, 2010

     [Enhanced video] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joins us from the NATO Summit in Portugal. Then Gov. Bobby Jindal joins us to discuss the future of the Republican Party, and his new book "Leadership and Crisis". Plus, a roundtable: Robert Draper, who takes us "Inside Sarah Palin's Inner Circle" in New York Times Magazine, Paul Gigot, Rep.-elect Allen West, R-Fla., and Richard Wolffe.