House panel slams VA over destroyed specimens

The AP reports the chastisement of VA health officials by lawmakers Tuesday over their order to destroy biomedical specimens of Legionnaires' disease and other diseases that two researchers had collected over 25 years.

Chairman of the House Science subcommittee on investigations and oversight Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C. said that an investigation has revealed no cogent reason for the destruction of the diseases.

From the article:

A subcommittee report on the Dec. 4, 2006, incident at the VA Pittsburgh Health Service said Congress should consider legislation setting policy on the handling and disposition of biobanks, places where traditional human biospecimens such as blood and tissue are matched to databases with medical records, genomic sequence data and other information.

"It is incomprehensible that there are no policies in place to ban arbitrary and capricious management decisions by administrators without any assessment of the value of the collection and its potential use in other research," the report says.

Michael Moreland who was in charge of the destruction at the VA Pittsburgh Health Service defends the decision by saying the lab had evolved into an unauthorized enterprise which tested water supplies for private companies. He added that specimens that were not labeled or were in open tubes were considered hazardous and were destroyed.

Dr. Victor Yu and Dr. Janet Stout were responable for collecting the samples. The article concludes by explaining how and why the samples came to be destroyed:

According to the report, the order to destroy the material came after a dispute over how Yu was financing his research that led to the shuttering of his laboratory in July, and his firing for refusing to stop processing samples. Yu said he could not in good conscience stop processing samples from hospitals and others concerned that their water supplies were contaminated by legionella bacteria. Stout had been placed on administrative leave and faced removal action.

The report said police unlocked the lab on Dec. 4 and five health service employees spent two hours throwing the specimen collection in biohazard containers and turning them over to a contractor for disposal as biohazards.

The destruction came at the same time efforts were underway to transfer the collection to a laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh for use in further research by Yu and Stout.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Decision to Discontinue Destroyer Due in Part to Cost

The Associated Press reports today the Navy is ending its DDG-1000 Zumwalt destroyer program because of anti-ship missile vulnerability and because they can't afford the estimated $5 billion per ship.

Congressional investigators involved are concerned that the Navy tried to use too many technologies on the "stealth destroyer" designed to sneak near to the shore, undetected and pulverize its targets with massive guns. A planned 32 ships eventually dropped to seven as costs grew.

Instead the Navy plans to build nine more of its current Arleigh Burke destroyers, said Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday, a member of the Armed Services Committee.

The Navy's plans to expand its 313-ship fleet so even though it can't afford to keep the DDG-1000, it can't afford to stop building ships either, says Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute.

In addition to cost concerns, the DDG-1000 is vulnerable to attack when doing what it was designed for: coming close to shore to use 155-millimeter guns instead of missiles.

Finally, there is currently no threat that the DDG-1000 could be used for.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Veterans Possibly Shortchanged Say Democrats

The AP is reporting that according to a new congressional report at least 28,283 vets may not have been paid money owed to them by the government because the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) were working frantically to clear a backlog of claims resulting from changes in the law allowing vets to claim both military retirement and disability at the same time.

This evaluation was carried out by the House Oversight and Government Reform's domestic policy subcommittee, headed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.

From the AP article:

In mid-2006, DFAS had hired Lockheed to help it work through the long list of cases. The government identified some 133,000 veterans who were eligible for money through its "VA Retro" program. The list quickly grew by another 84,000 names because newly retired veterans or those with a changed disability status were being added.

Officials finally cleared the backlog last June, seven months after the original deadline.

According to the House investigation, officials reached their goal only after lowering their standards. . .

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

A Few Vet/Military Related Headlines

• Officials Warned Against Using Snarling Dogs, Forced Nudity During Interrogations, Senate Investigation Finds [HuffPo], [USA Today version], [WashPo version]
  

• 'Disposable Heroes': Veterans Used To Test Suicide-Linked Drugs [ABC News], [Washington Times version]
  

• Official says Iraq contract dispute cost him job [AP], [New York Times version]

Vets to Testify on 1960s Chemical Tests

The Associated Press comes today with the story of Jack Alderson (pictured above), a retired Navy Reserve lieutenant commander who claims his allergies, skin cancers and chronic fatigue -- as well as the sicknesses of his comrades -- are directly linked to the secret weapons tests he helped conduct in the Pacific during the 1960s.

Alderson was ordered to keep mum about his involvement in project SHAD -- Shipboard Hazard and Defense -- where the military tested germs and test participants were given experimental vaccines. But low turn out at a 1993 reunion motivated him to speak out. Alderson found out that more than half of the approximately 500 crew members who participated in the tests were either dead, inflicted with cancer, breathing problems or other ailments.

Alderson and other witnesses are to testify before a House Veterans Affairs panel today considering a bill requiring more Pentagon disclosure of Cold War era chemical and germ weapons testing along with extending benefits to vets who took part in them. Similar legislation is scheduled to be voted on by the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee later this month.

Officials at the Pentagon haven't ruled out a health link but say such a link is hard to prove.

"We cannot say that this exposure 40 years ago had absolutely no health effect," said Dr. Michael Kilpatrick, deputy director for force health protection and readiness at the Pentagon. "I don't think any physician would risk saying that. Because how do you prove that that's the case?"

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

VA Staffer to Testify to Senate Committee about PTSD email

Norma J. Perez, former coordinator of the PTSD program at the Veterans Affairs hospital in Temple, Texas, will go before the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs Wednesday morning to answer questions on whether an internal email she sent was an attempt by the VA to circumvent paying benefits to soldiers with PTSD, or just misguided advice from an individual, reports CBS News.

In an email, sent on March 20, she wrote the following to the social workers and psychologists
under her supervision: "Given that we are having more and more compensation seeking veterans, I'd like to suggest you refrain from giving a diagnosis of PTSD straight out."

Instead she said for clinicians to "consider a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder."

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a watchdog group based in Washington, obtained and distributed the email, along with VoteVets.org, a veterans lobbying group.

Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers are pushing for an investigation. They want to make sure PTSD is being properly diagnosed at VA facilities.

Perez was recently reassigned to a VA hospital in Austin, TX. She works there as "Mental Health Integration Specialist."

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Hearing on Vet Suicides

CBS News reports on a congressional hearing titled, "The truth about veteran suicides."

There is talk of a "cover up" within the VA over veteran suicide data. A congressional committee is looking into the matter.

Internal emails by Dr. Ira Katz, the VA's head of Mental Health, seem to have landed the VA in hot water. In a email to his top media adviser Katz says, "Our suicide prevention coordinators are identifying about 1,000 suicide attempts per month among veterans we see in our medical facilities."

Katz's e-mail was written shortly after the VA provided public data showing there were only 790 attempted suicides in all 2007.

Katz later said, "There is no epidemic in suicide in VA."

Sarabeth of 1115.org has no sympathy for Katz:

Why address the problem, and try to reduce the number of actual suicide attempts, when it’s so much easier to just perform a radical numerectomy on the official statistics? Especially when you can achieve much more dramatic results by number-fudging than you ever could through providing adequate mental health services.

This guy is surely the perfect combination of criminal negligence and criminally stupidity? What kind of mental defective do you have to be to a) think you can get away with claiming that attempted suicides are 15 times lower than they actually are, and b) to openly put it all in writing in an email like that?

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

WashPo G.I. Bill Article

Not much hard G.I. Bill news in an article by the Washington Post, but plenty of moving personal stories. It starts off:

Two years after a rocket-propelled grenade hit Nathan Toews during an ambush in southern Afghanistan, sending shrapnel shooting into his skull and spiderwebbing through his brain, he has recovered enough to ask: What now?

Like so many leaving the military, after years of taking orders, he's facing an almost infinite number of choices about his future.

The political G.I. Bill news it does touch on include the dozens of veteran related bills currently in congress and a recently revised bill -- now with 58 co-sponsors -- that would "expand benefits for veterans, including active-duty National Guard troops and reservists, to cover the cost of the most expensive public universities and to match contributions from private schools with higher tuition, for four academic years."

A decent portion of the article reveals the limitations of the current G.I. Bill and the struggles by Vets with a myriad of educational choices.

Source: Some War Veterans Find GI Bill Falls Short [Washington Post]

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Senate Passes Bill for Filipino Veteran Benefits

The Senate approved legislation Thursday that would provide increased veteran's benefits and set up pensions for Filipino vets who served beside American troops in WWII.

The bill passed 96-1 and now moves onto the House where it is expected to get a vote before the end of the year. While Bush has not threatened a veto, the White House and some Republicans want to strip out the provision for Filipino veterans because they believe the money would be better spent on U.S. Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.

Jaywalker of the blog Pedestrian Observer sides with the Filipino vets:

There is a long road ahead for the FilVets and their supporters and it will help if every Filipino American will do their share of lobbying but all these will be for naught if Gloria Arroyo is allowed to sabotage the gains of the lobbying effort. That is if we allow Gloria Arroyo in her illegal abuse of her executive powers in including VMMC in her development plans that will serve as an excuse to sell a property that belongs to the Filipino Veterans not the government to dispose off as they please. Leave it to the president with questionable mandate to spoil everything what could have been the most important legislative victory for the FilVets. Like a typical destructive and vindictive person afflicted with crab mentality will pull down the FilVets because they are $300 a month richer. Denying them hospital care at the twilight of their years is just plain cruel and as sick as it can get.

Genghis of 8Asians says the bill is too little too late:

The bill’s passing is honorable, and it’s welcomed. But for most it’s a bit too late. But even if it came many years after, I’m sure if my grandfather was here today, he would still stand and salute and would have been ever so proud to have served.

Opponents point out such a pension would be in addition to the one already received by their own government.

The bill also makes some veteran benefits retroactive for more people, gives new kinds of housing benefits to severe burn victims and increases the amount of mortgage life insurance some disabled veterans can buy.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

The M4 Situation

The AP ran an article yesterday questioning the reliability and cost of the military's primary rifle, the Colt M4. While the piece delves into the intricate mechanics and operation of the M4 -- and how the weapon is prone to jamming and requires more maintenance than similar models -- there is also an interesting judical and political side:

In 1996, a Navy office improperly released Colt's M4 blueprints, giving nearly two dozen contractors a look at the carbine's inner workings. Colt was ready to sue the U.S. government for the breach. The company wanted between $50 million and $70 million in damages.

Cooler heads prevailed. The Defense Department didn't want to lose its only source for the M4, and Colt didn't want to stop selling to its best customer.

The result was an agreement that made Colt the sole player in the U.S. military carbine market. FNMI challenged the deal in federal court but lost.

And then there is the cost:

More than $300 million has been spent on 221,000 of the carbines over the past two years alone. And the Defense Department is asking Congress to provide another $230 million for 136,000 more.

And now, as Congress considers whether to approve this request, critics are saying Colt's exclusive deal is bad for soldiers and tax payers.

TheRazor.org offers a solution:

Given the situation, why not have them all? Just standardize on the caliber so that ammo can be used by all the guns and let “the market” (soldiers in the field) decide which they want. I’d rather see them decide than an Oklahoma senator anyway.

"Fits" writes on the blog Shooting the Messenger:

Not wishing to get into a platform war, hey, who the hell has time to answer hate mail, $1500 is ridiculous for a mass produced jam-a-matic poodle shooter. The article does provide some interesting history of the battle to keep the M4 in service, however, and worth a look.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Gen. Petraeus Wants to Suspend Troop Withdraws in July

The U.S. general in charge of the Iraq War told the senate he would continue a troop withdraw until July then pause for 45 days to consider whether to continue bringing troops home.

Before a Senate hearing today Gen. David Petraeus recommended a "period of consolidation and evaluation" once the troops President Bush ordered to Iraq last year have completed their pullout in July. He did not commit to a timetable for troop withdraws after the 45 day pause. Nor did he commit to any further withdraws beyond July.

Both Gen. Petraeus and Iraqi ambassador Ryan Crocker described an Iraq that is becoming more secure but say that progress is fragile.

Let's take a gander at a couple of reactions from bloggers on both sides of the political spectrum.

Joel Johannesen of Proud to be Canadian:

The Democrats in the Senate Armed Services Committee are using this latest opportunity provided by the presence of General Petraeus with his official update report, to display something one wouldn’t necessarily expect: their utter contempt for General Petraeus and the war he—and ostensibly his country—is engaged in to win, in Iraq.

The liberals refuse to accept a general set of standards: the surge has proven to bear much success, and this thing has a shot at succeeding in the end, whenever that is.

James Joiner of An Average American Patriot:

If you realize the real role of the surge or of attacking iraq and staying the course it is all success as is the allowed degradation of our America. Observing China's persecution of Tibetan's and being ignored by Bush it increasingly is looking like a case of you ignore my indiscretions and I'll ignore yours as the ignored world unrest will climax in a total world breakdown! Anyway you look at it once again I am going to update and reiterate the total failure Bush guaranteed the day he ignored all advice to the contrary and attacked Iraq so he could set us up to go after Iran and implement what he thinks will be his and Israel's idea of a new middle east order.

Link to C-Span video of the hearing [Real Media]

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Change-Congress.org Launches

Larry Lessig -- a Stanford Law professor known for his work with Creative Commons, a copyright alternative -- launched Change-Congress.org Thursday with intent to reduce the influence of money on policy-making.

The professor wants lawmakers to pledge to do four things:

1. Not accept contributions from registered lobbyists or PACs.
2. Support the abolition of "earmarks."
3. Support reform to increase transparency in Congress.
4. Support public financing of public elections.

Candidates can make their pledge on the site which will then generate a graphic they can place on their election campaign web sites.

The site also calls for volunteers to track congressional candidates' positions on these issues and the results will be plotted on a Google map.



-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Idaho Senatorial Candidate Changes Name To 'Pro-Life'

An older news clip on 'Pro-Life'

A Senate candidate running for Larry Craig's vacated Senate seat in Idaho is so gung-ho about his anti-abortion stance he legally changed his middle name to 'Pro-Life' so he can appear on the ballot that way.

Marvin 'Pro-Life' Richardson was initially denied the use of his name on the ballot of his unsuccessful run for governor in 2006 because state policy bars use of slogans.

The AP reports:

Now, though, officials in the Idaho secretary of state's office say they have no choice because Pro-Life is his full and only name. He says he will run for the highest state office on the ballot every two years for the rest of his life, advocating murder charges for doctors who perform abortions and for women who obtain the procedure.

April Reign writes on her blog:

Pro-Life,66 (not to be confused with his cousin Route) said; “If I save one baby’s life, it’s worth it.”

I figure if he confuses the hell out of just one uterus fascist it’s worth it!

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

U.S. May Phase Out the Incandescent Light Bulb

A bill being drafted by the U.S. Senate Energy Committee would phase out the incandescent light bulb in the United States, according to a NewsTarget.com report.

The incandescent bulb, the same kind of light bulb developed by Thomas Edison (pictured left), emits light by forcing an electric current through a thin filament. This process is vastly inefficient, wasting up to 90 percent of the energy put into them -- giving off more heat than light.

Alternative methods of lighting include florescent (pictured right), operated by heated gases, and light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Although more expensive than incandescent bulbs, florescent and LEDs are more efficient and longer lasting.

Banning incandescent light bulbs is part of a more sweeping move to curb energy use -- addressing the issue of global warming.

Thirteen states are currently considering at least a partial ban on incandescents, while Australia is on track for a full ban by 2010. Canada also plans to phase out the sale of incandescent light bulbs by 2012.

Steven Milloy of ProudToBeCanadian.com with commentary describing how a potential ban will effect General Electric and its stake in coal burning power plants:

Congress and the state of California, for example, are considering legislation to ban by 2012 the incandescent light bulb, thereby forcing consumers to buy compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). Because USCAP member General Electric manufactures CFLs in China, it now faces labor problems with its U.S. employees who make incandescent bulbs.

Ironically, GE is working on a more efficient incandescent bulb that is slated to be available by 2010 — just in time to be banned.

Speaking of CFLs, let’s not forget the mass tort lawsuit potential against manufacturers and sellers of potentially billions of mercury-containing CFL light bulbs that require special clean-up and disposal procedures.

GE also has a business interest in coal -– a major source of CO2 emissions. The company makes turbines for traditional coal-fired power plants and is developing so-called “Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle” (IGCC) technology — a system for capturing CO2 from coal-fired electricity plants.

Although GE needs greenhouse gas regulations to drive growth for IGCC, its entire coal business is threatened by alarmism and regulation that would ban or greatly reduce the use of coal-fired power plants. Recent environmental group pressure caused the cancellation of eight coal-fired power plants that TXU Corp. planned to build. The cancellation caused, in turn, TXU to cancel its orders with GE for steam turbine generators.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Should Telecoms Get Immunity?

Interview with AT&T Whistleblower Mark Klein



The Cafferty File on Telecom Immunity on CNN's The Situation Room


The above YouTube videos touch on the subject of whether or not the telecommunications industry should be granted immunity for allowing the NSA to warrantlessly tap the phone calls, emails and internet traffic of its customers.

The first video is of Mark Klein. He is a former AT&T employee who testified before Congress yesterday about why he believes lawmakers should reject immunity for telecom companies who assisted the Bush administration's spying on millions of Americans.

In an NPR interview, Mr. Klein describes a room at a AT&T main switching facility in San Francisco where the National Security Agency essentially intercepted the internet traffic of AT&T customers. And because other telecoms' networks come together at the facility, it gives the NSA wholesale access to all internet activity passing through.

“I flipped out,” he said. “They’re copying the whole Internet. There’s no selection going on here. Maybe they select out later, but at the point of handoff to the government, they get everything.”

Bringing lawsuits against those telecoms involved is a good thing according to Steve Benen of The Carpetbagger Report:

If senators disregard Klein’s first-hand knowledge, and approve retroactive immunity, the extent of the surveillance program will remain a mystery, and Americans seeking their day in court will be denied justice.

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft disagrees. In an opinion piece he penned for the New York Times, Ashcroft cites the "inherent unfairness of requiring companies to second-guess executive-branch legal judgments" when they have received "explicit assurances from the highest levels of the government that the activities in question were authorized by the president and determined to be lawful."

But is immunity really just to protect the telecoms? Dr. Steven Taylor of PoliBlog raises a good point:

Really, in all this discussion of immunity for telecoms it seems to me that the real consequence of granting them immunity will be protecting not the telecoms, but the Bush administration. Lawsuits, while possible financially damaging to AT&T and friends, will point an uncomfortable spotlight on the domestic intelligence gathering by the administration.

The Senate Judiciary Committee was expected to consider a revised FISA bill today, including the immunity provision, but Raw Story is reporting a delay:

A committee aide tells RAW STORY it is "likely" the panel will produce legislation that differs from an Intelligence Committee bill. The Intel bill includes telecom immunity, but it remains unclear whether immunity will be struck by the Judiciary committee.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Congress Adresses 'Do Not Call' Expiration

Separate House and Senate committees passed legislation Tuesday, taking the first steps to make permanent the nearly 145 million names and numbers on the national Do Not Call list by essentially eliminating a five year expiration date enacted by the FTC.

Starting next month, millions of people would be required to re-register their phone numbers with the list, but the Federal Trade Commission decided last week to forgo the removal of the expired numbers while congress considers making the current telephone numbers on the list permanent.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee cleared H.R. 3541, the Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007 on Tuesday. It will go to the full House for a vote. In the Senate, S. 2096, also called the Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007, cleared the Commerce Committee; likewise, it will go ahead to the full Senate for a vote.

Several bloggers are championing the Do Not Call Registry.

Marc Hedlund of O'Reilly Radar:

The closest the U.S. has gotten to a privacy uprising is the National Do Not Call Registry. According to a January, 2007 Times article, since its launch in 2003, "more than 137 million phone numbers have been placed on the list by people tired of interruptions during dinner or their favorite TV show." 137 million! The seeds of a movement are there, at least. While probably nothing else has risen to that level of response, news coverage of ChoicePoint, identity theft, and the like make privacy a popular topic of lip service -- but usually, unfortunately, little else.

Skeet of Skeet's Stuff:

So should you register your cell phone? It can’t hurt. I get occasional telemarketing calls on my cell phone, so I decided it was the reasonable thing to do. You can do it online at the National Do Not Call Registy or by calling 1-888-382-1222 (TTY 1-866-290-4236) from the phone you want to register. I used the phone number to register my cell and office phones today. It took less than two minutes to do each. My fax machine does not have a handset on it, so I registered my fax line through the online site (link above.) That was also quick and easy. I look at it the same way that I see buying term insurance - like an ace in the hole. I remember registering my phone (land line) when Do Not Call became available, but maybe that was before I got new numbers. I regularly get calls from Sun Marketing (as do thousands of others who have complained about them) and occasionally from other telemarketers. Now that I know for sure that all of my phones are registered I’ll be able to file complaints if these nuisance calls continue. It takes thirty-one days for your number to actually enter the system, but after that you’re protected for five years. It’s free, so I can’t think of any reason not to do it.

The registry began in June 2003 and prohibits companies from calling those listed. Fines reach $11,000 per violation. Political, charitable or survey work organizations are exempt. Companies having a sales history with a customer may call for up to 18 months after the last delivery, payment or purchase.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

House Passes Fertilizer Registry

The U.S. House of Representatives voted by voice Tuesday to require the registration of the sale and purchase of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. This stuff is a key ingredient in explosives used for the terrorist bombings of the Oklahoma City federal building and a night club in Bali, Indonesia.

H.R. 1680 demands sellers, producers and some buyers of ammonium nitrate register with the DHS. It also orders producers and sellers to keep sales records.

The Department of Homeland Security would cross reference the sales records with terrorism watch lists, and retailers would receive civil liability protections if they refuse to sell.

Ammonium nitrate is a common and widely used agricultural fertilizer that also happened to comprise explosives used on the double bomb attacks in Istanbul in 2003, killing 57 and attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

According to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, there are approximately 2,000 sellers and manufacturers of ammonium nitrate in the United States. The DHS would need about 60 new employees to preform audits and field inspections.

There is little reaction from bloggers thus far. Jeralyn of TalkLeft.com did however briefly comment on the topic:

I'm not impressed. It's another feel good bill. Ammonium nitrate is not a bomb. It's fertilizer. And do we really need another database?

The bill has yet to be considered in the Senate.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

House Passes Federal Journalist Shield Bill

The House passed the Free Flow of Information Act by a wide margin on Tuesday, but the President has vowed to veto it. The Act is essentially a shield law backing the right of reporters -- and possibly some bloggers -- to protect the confidentiality of sources at the federal level.

Under the legislation, reporters would still be required to disclose information on sources if that information could be used to prevent a terrorist attack, apprehend an attacker of a past act of terrorism, or if information could be used to harm national security.

The bill, as it is currently written, protects "a person who, for financial gain or livelihood, is engaged in journalism," which involves the "gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public."

So does this include bloggers? Jacqueline Zenn of Chasing the Southern Cross weighs in on the topic:

Do I think this bill is a good idea? Of course, and I’m happy to see bloggers included in its protection.*

However, I’m starting to wish there was another word for blogger. Seriously, when someone posting a daily diary online and say, the Huffington Post’s writers are placed in the same category, something is a little off. I don’t want to discount the efforts of personal bloggers, but there’s a certain disparity here. While some bloggers certainly qualify as journalists in my opinion (albeit journalists whose work is colored by their opinions, but I believe we’d be hard-pressed to find a journalist whose work was 100% objective), there are plenty more that are more like hobbyists.

Yes, there should be laws in place protecting the rights of bloggers, but I’m not sure if they belong under the journalistic shield. But perhaps I’m just a little bit mired in the old ways of thinking - after all, if the web, the ultimate free press, has allowed us all to be publishers, why can’t blogging fall under the umbrella of journalism? It’s not as if everything committed to print media is completely serious, objective, and/or perfect (from where I sit, the informality or frivolity of the web as opposed to print seems to the underlying tone of many “blogging vs. journalism” discussions). It’s plain that there needs to be more conversation on this issue.

*Just because it has been passed doesn’t mean that Bush won’t veto it; the Senate is also considering a similar bill.

Since the House version of the bill differs from the Senate one, Brad Friedman of The Brad Blog says bloggers may not be covered:

Under the law, if the compromise version of both houses is passed using the House definition, it could potentially mean that we would not be "covered person" and thus not protected from being required by law to disclose our sources.

Such a statue could be a devastating blow to the ability of folks like us, not on a regular salaried contract with a major metropolitan newspapers or broadcast network, to guarantee privacy to our sources.

For mainstream, traditional journalists however, advocacy for a federal shield law is strong. Over 50 news outlets support the bill, citing reports on Abu Ghraib, clandestine CIA prisons and cruddy conditions at Walter Reed as examples where source confidentiality was essential.

Opponents cite several flaws behind the bill. Besides the President, Masson of Blue Indiana.net has a few concerns:

I have mixed feelings on these sorts of laws. Being part of the legal system, I'm probably biased in favor of its prerogatives. When I judge tells someone to cough up information, generally I think the person ought to have to cough it up. However, I recognize that the First Amendment and the free flow of information it protects can benefit if sources feel like they can go to reporters and not get in trouble for doing so. And, I am inclined to protect the little guy fighting corruption that happens to have the full force of the government behind it. I want to protect Deep Throat and the types of folks who told Sy Hersch about Abu Ghraib. On the other hand, I don't have any inclination at all to protect guys like Scooter Libby or the administration sources who leaked information to Judith Miller about the Iraq war. The other thing I am a little iffy about is the idea of giving journalists First Amendment rights that are not available to the rest of the citizenry.

. . . I have two main problems with this legislation - First it makes coverage contingent on a person receiving significant financial gain for one's reporting. Second, it contains amorphous and potentially broad exceptions where national security concerns or disclosures of classified information are alleged.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that under the Constitution, journalist-client relationships are not protected. Furthermore, journalists currently have no rights to refuse to appear and testify in federal legal proceedings.

Most states, however, already have some type of shield law on the books. 33 states tout media shield statutes with 16 others having judicial precedents protecting reporters.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Bills Call for FDA Regulation and Tax Increases on Tobacco

A bill poised to move through Senate committee would give the Food and Drug Administration the same authority over tobacco products it now has on food, drugs, medical devices and other consumer products.

An identical bill in the House and the Senate version both tout wide bipartisan support. It had been expected to pass through the Senate Health Committee Wednesday, but was delayed because of the all-night Iraq war debate.

The bill would allow the FDA to regulate levels of nicotine, tar and other components. Supporters say this could help save lives by making it harder to start smoking and easier to stop. Those who oppose the legislation contend that removing certain smoke constituents won't make a safer product and to place more emphasis on prevention.

Elyzabethe from the blog Yellow is the Color takes a crack at explaining the behavior of smokers and of those trying to regulate:

How stupid do they think people are? Nobody these days thinks cigarettes are safe. They smoke anyway, but they know it’s not “safe.” (although, when you look at it from the general persepctive of public health fascists who think the government needs to regulate all behavior, you can kind of see how this mindset makes sense; it’s absolutely mind-boggling to them that people sometimes engage in risky behaviors because they’ve weighed the costs and benefits and decided to engage in that behavior anyway; no, it makes much more sense to assume that the public is a bunch of silly, uneducated morons decieved by Big Something — business, tobacco, Planned Parenthood, Pharma — who need the gentle hand of Uncle Sam to prevent them from having decisions to make).

For the record, I don’t really have any particular problem with the FDA being given regulatory power over cigarettes; I was actually kind of surprised to find out they didn’t already have it. The only part of the legislation I really have problems with is the banning of certain flavors of cigarettes in some sort of misguided attempt to “protect the children” (maybe because I give the anti-smoking people too much credit, and think they’re not really idiotic enough to believe the clove-cigarettes-are-extra-desirable-to-kids tripe and are really just trying to slowly chip away at smoking being legal in the first place, much like anti-abortion advocates and the “partial-birth abortion” ban).

Separate legislation in the Senate is calling for a 61 cent increase in federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, money that would go toward children's health insurance.

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters:

Sin taxes get a lot of support, but only to the extent that they actually work. For instance, the increase on cigarettes will probably not raise that much of an outcry, mostly because the tax increase is much more modest. It will not put manufacturers out of business, much as some members of Congress would like. Therefore, it will actually raise the funds Congress projects.

But the same Senate bill could place a maximum tax of $10 per "large cigar", meaning any stogy is subject to the tax except for the tiny ones that come in cigarette-like 20 packs.

Ed Morrissey again:

The whopping $10 per cigar limit, on the other hand, will kill the cigar industry. No one will pay $15 for a $5 cigar. Some might not have an issue with that, but cigars are not the same as cigarettes. They don't get smoked in the same way or in the same quantity, and they do not have the same addictive qualities and harmful additives of cigarettes. Nevertheless, it's quite apparent that Democrats want to kill the cigar industry with this ridiculous tax.

The President has said he would veto this bill if it were to pass.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Net Radio's Day of Silence

Yesterday thousands of U.S. based webcasters -- including Yahoo Music, MTV Radio, Live 365, Pandora and Rhapsody -- participated in a day of silence to protest an impending royalty rate increase that, if put into effect, would end many of our countries internet radio stations.

Currently most U.S. webcasters pay 12% of profit back to the artists and labels they play, on top of a annual fee. On July 15, however, new and retroactive per-song royalty rates will go into effect which will increase costs dramatically.

A guy going by the name Cinematic Razor Sharp says on his MySpace Blog that these new royalty rates are way off base:

At the request of the Recording Industry Association of America, the CRB ignored the fact that Internet radio royalties were already double what satellite radio pays, and multiplied the royalties even further. The 2005 royalty rate was 7/100 of a penny per song streamed; the 2010 rate will be 19/100 of a penny per song streamed. And for small webcasters that were able to calculate royalties as a percentage of revenue in 2005 – that option was quashed by the CRB, so small webcasters' royalties will grow exponentially!

Webcasters who participated in the day of silence are urging listeners to get involved politically. Jerry del Colliano of Inside Music Media:

The plight of the large and small Internet streamer may get worse before it gets better. Activists are right to target Congress because only lawmakers can save the most exciting growth industry to hit music media since -- well, radio.

Therefore, I favor any approach that targets Congress. You make the non-supporters of fair royalty rates pay by not supporting them. This takes mobilization that can only happen through that great political tool called the Internet.

This is exactly how our representative form of government works. The great majority of Americans support this growing segment of music media. Congress should enable the ability of these folks to enjoy music entertainment online and allow entrepreneurial businesses to prosper simultaneously.

Anyone looking to get involved can go to www.SaveNetRadio.org where there are convenient ways to contact your representatives as well as news and information.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Welcome to my Underground Lair

The Associated Press has a story out revealing the existence of various secret offices occupied by Senators. These "hard-to-find nooks scattered around the Capitol" are coveted by many of the 100 Senators in addition to their nearby official suites. Some of the hideaways are in the basement of the Capitol; some are hidden behind cordoned off hallways; yet others are behind doors marked only with an "H" for House and "S" for Senate and a number.

Usually, the more senior the member of the Senate, the swanker the hideaway setup. Some of the spaces lack a window and only have room for a standard desk and chair. Others have working fireplaces, a grand view of the Mall, phones, furniture, fridges, stoves, even bars.

Some of the things that go down or have gone down in the hideaways are as follows:

• Legislative dealmaking
• LBJ turned his into a "love nest". He would invite women there at day's end to "take diction"
• Louisiana Sen. Allan Ellender served shrimp gumbo to five U.S. presidents in his third floor hideaway
• Vice President Harry S. Truman learned of FDR's death while stopping by House Speaker Sam Rayburn's hideaway for a late-afternoon snort of bourbon
• Gordon Humphrey's staff called his hideaway the 3C center -- military jargon for command, control and communication -- because the former pilot would pretend he was back in the cockpit when going there
  

For more detail and a timeline, check the side story "Hideaway History" by the AP.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Crack Sentencing Law and Policy

The U.S. Sentencing Commission said Tuesday that Congress should appeal a law that puts first-time offenders in prison for a minimum of five years for possessing a small amount of crack cocaine.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act, enacted during the 1980s crack epidemic, sends distributors of five grams of crack -- the equivalent weight of five paper clips* -- to federal prison for a mandatory minimum of five years.

It takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to result in the same sentence as the five grams of crack, the commission said. It urged Congress to deal with the 100:1 disparity by raising the amount of crack required to trigger the mandatory minimum sentence so focus can be shifted to major traffickers.

The Commission concluded that there is "almost universal criticism" concerning federal cocaine sentencing policy from community interest groups, the judiciary, criminal justice practitioners and academics.

The ACLU said in a press release that the "sentencing disparity has devastated African-American and low-income communities, targeting low-level offenders while failing to address the larger problem of the drug trade."

Bean at Feministe.us with the ACLU's summary of proposals in the Commission's report and disagrees with the third:

· Increase the amount of crack cocaine required to trigger the five-year mandatory minimum sentence, as current law subjects low-level drug offenders to the same or harsher sentences as major dealers.

· Repeal the mandatory minimum penalty for simple crack cocaine possession.

· Reject proposals to lower the amount of powder cocaine required to trigger the five- and ten-year mandatory minimums, as the Commission finds “no evidence to justify such an increase.”

Ok. I’m with them on the first two. Increasing the level of crack required to trigger a harsh five year minimum sentence is an important step to reducing the impact of the misguided “War on Drugs” on low level dealers and - worse — people who possess for their own use. Repealing the mandatory minimum for possession is clearly ancillary to that. But it’s that third recommendation that really stings, and that reduces the positive impact of the other two. In the third bullet point, the commission rejects the idea of getting rid of the 100-to-1 disparity by saying that there’s no need to bring the level of powder cocaine needed to trigger a mandatory minimum sentence down to be more in line with that of crack cocaine.

Now, in a vacuum I agree with that third recommendation. I don’t think we should be punishing cocaine use more harshly. We should be punishing crack and cocaine use less harshly. But U.S. drug policy does not exist in a vacuum. By refusing to address the disparity here, the commission condones its continuation.

In fairness, not nearly all of the blame can be placed at the feet of the sentencing commission. This is the fourth time in twenty years that the commission has urged Congress to act to change drug sentencing laws. But Congress has remained inactive. Unsurprisingly. There’s some hope though: Recently, a bipartisan coalition has been pushing the Drug Sentencing Reform Act, which would reduce – but not equalize — the disparity. And there is a general push toward more humane prison policy from some conservative senators.

But by ignoring the crack-cocaine sentencing disparity — or at the very least, refusing to recognize its impact in its recommendations — the sentencing commission has enabled Congress’s inaction and allowed a racist policy to continue.

-Dippold

*Here is a Frequently Asked Questions List about crack, including the typical dosage.

Political Online Reputation

WashingtonWatch.com

Washingtonwatch.com is a site I became privy to by watching the Geekbrief.com video podcast. This site may be old news to some, but WashingtonWatch now offers up congressional bills and information in wiki form where users can edit, discuss, vote on and basically do other Web 2.0 things to the content. It is actually reminiscent of OpenCongress.org which was previously posted about on PoliticalReps.

But the crux of WashingtonWatch.com is the fiscal impact of congressional bills on "our nation's budget - and yours". Two tabs in the middle of the page -- "Greatest Cost" and "Greatest Savings" -- break down certain bills into how much money they either cost or save each family. While the figures are not exact, and it is unclear as to how many constitute an "average family", it is interesting to see possible government expenditures broken down in this fashion. For example, Senate Bill 509, The Aviation Security Improvement Act, would cost the average family $66.59. When the bill is clicked on, more details -- like how much it would cost an individual or a couple -- are available from a drop down box.

Michael Arrington from TechCrunch.com offers this comment about the site's new wiki form:

I expect lobbyists, lawyers and congressional staff will get heavily involved in spinning legislation according to their own agendas, and we’ll soon see the beginning of a Washinton D.C. version of Wikipedia wars. This should be fun.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Department of Homeland Security seeks New Radiation-Detecting Gear

The Bush Administration wants to put new devices that would detect radiation at our nation's land crossings and ports.

Old monitors have trouble telling the difference between weapons of mass destruction and the radiation in naturally occurring items like bananas and ceramics.

Despite the inefficiency, some are questioning the $1.2 billion cost.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is testing some of the new detectors on cargo coming into the port of New York. The program is aimed at stopping malevolent materials terrorists attempt to ship into the United States.

Critics believe nuclear materials that are heavily shielded -- for instance, encased in lead -- could fool even the most advanced detectors.

John Bowen of the Hometown Security blog chimes in, offering some solutions:

It's all protective intervention, with the goal of finding radioactive needles in the haystack of cargo. They are going to rely on state and local officials to do some of this detection, with some limited guidance from DNDO.

But the testing data on the radiation detectors is somewhat questionable, and the deployment schedule is falling behind. Hmm...

State and local authorities might want to consider other steps, such as identifying local sources of radioactivity and collaborating with their caretakers regarding their security (e.g., hospitals, food irradiators, oil and gas drilling operations, etc.) Another idea is what New York did - conduct a baseline radiological survey of the area, so that it easier to spot anomalous radiation.

The best security system will not solely rely on detection. The "detection" set of concentric rings should only be one in a system of concentric rings.

The Bush administration is expected to present its case for mass installation of the new devices to congress later this year.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

OpenCongress.org goes live

Boingboing.net points out the new website OpenCongress.org. The site bills itself as bringing "together official government data with news and blog coverage to give you the real story behind each bill."

It is basically aggregates congressional information from across the web and presents it in a nifty web 2.0 format. It takes "all the bills, Members of Congress, votes, committee reports, issue areas, and more" from Thomas, the website of the Library of Congress and combines it with Congressional news articles from google news, blog posts from Technorati and campaign contribution information from OpenSecrets.org.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Airline Ticket Tax Could Vanish

The Bush administration and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will unveil a plan Wednesday to pay for a new air traffic control system by eliminating the passenger ticket tax while raising other costs for fliers such as a higher tax on fuel.

The announcement is likely to set off a debate among airlines, who support the plan, and private and corporate jet owners who will -- under the proposal -- pay more to fly in national air space.

Although FAA Administrator Marion Blakey hasn't said exactly how much a modernized control system will cost, he did say a new digital system which utilizes satellites should replace a WW II era radio and radar based one.

Blakey also said the 7.5 percent passenger ticket tax currently paying for air traffic control won't raise enough money to replace the aging system because of the growth of low cost airlines and because the average plane has gotten smaller -- it costs just as much to track a small airplane as it does a jumbo jet.

Thus, the FAA is asking congress to charge fees that reflect the actual cost of flying such as raising the passenger facility charges tax (an existing tax which pays for airport improvements) and more than tripling fuel tax for corporate and private aircraft.

The Air Transport Association, an airline lobbyist, says that airlines pay for 93.7 percent of the air traffic control system, but use only 68.1 percent of it while military, corporate and recreational aircraft use the remaining 31.9 percent.

On the other hand, National Business Aviation Association president Ed Bolen says it's the hub-and-spoke system created by large airlines that puts a heavy load on the air traffic control system. He calls the proposal a "toxic mix of higher taxes, new fees and airline control." And added, "It would give them [airlines] a massive tax cut, to be paid for largely by a 'general aviation' industry that serves many of the nation's small and mid-sized businesses and their communities."

"We've got a system in the U.S. that's the largest, safest, most efficient in the world," Bolen said. "It's been funded through user taxes for 40 years, it's worked. We don't need to set up a new bureaucracy."

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

U.S. sent pallets of cash to Baghdad before handover

According to what lawmakers said Tuesday, the Federal Reserve sent more that $4 billion in cash to Baghdad on large pallets aboard military planes a short time before the U.S. gave governmental control back to the Iraqis.

The money, being held by the U.S., came from Saddam Hussein regime's refrozen assets, surplus funds from the U.N. backed oil-for-food program and from Iraqi oil exports.

On December 12, 2003, $1.5 billion was shipped to Iraq. Then came more than $2.4 billion on June 22, 2004, and $1.6 billion three days later. The Coalition Provisional Authority turned over sovereignty to Iraq on June 30.

L. Paul Bremer in charge of the CPA, which ran Iraq after initial combat operations ceased, said the Iraqi minister of finance requested the huge shipments of cash.

There is also concern that insurgents got their hands on some of the total $12 billion in Iraqi money that Bremer and the CPA disbursed for reconstruction -- by falsifying names on the government payroll.

Stewart Bowen, special inspector general for Iraqi reconstruction, noted in a January 2005 report that $8.8 billion was unaccounted for after funds had been given to the Iraqi ministries.

The Gun Toting Liberal, writes of Bremer:

The fact is, BILLIONS of tax dollars are missing in “The Desert”, and this guy was left in charge of them. When pressed on the wherabouts of those THREE HUNDRED, THIRTY-SIX TONS of tax dollars under his care, he counters by whining about how “tough” and “chaotic” it was at the time, and how it made more sense to just keep on doing whatever he FELT like at the time with those BILLIONS of dollars of our tax money. Just because the man worked for the United States Government doesn’t give him a pass, should this man ever stand trial for losing BILLIONS of dollars of other people’s money.

Brent at A Dakota Democrat calls for more oversight:

Somehow according to a report by the special Inspector General for Iraq, $8.8 Billion of reconstruction funds have been mysteriously lost. So, our government shipped pallet loads of US money into Iraq, dispersed it by stuffing it in duffel bags in the back of pickup trucks, and now is saying we don't know where it is. Boy, I am glad that there has been oversight over the money that we have sank into this war. Nothing like having over 10% of the money spent by congress on this war being missing.

Significant time on Technorati provided no defense for this act. Bloggers appear to overwhelmingly condemn sending 363 tons of cold hard cash into a war zone. Maybe they needed the money instantly and an efficient way to distribute it was in the form of greenbacks? Who knows?

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Bill would recognize Armenian deaths as genocide

Memorial in Yerevan, Armenia

Democrats and Republicans introduced a resolution in the House calling for U.S. recognition of the 1.5 million Armenian deaths at the end of World War I as genocide.

The measure will likely anger Turkey who claim the deaths were not the result of genocide. President Bush opposes such a move saying even congressional debate could damage relations with Turkey, a Muslim ally and host of Incirlik Air Force Base -- utilized by American forces for missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sponsors of the resolution say the newly controlled Democratic Congress make it more likely that it will make the House floor for a vote. Similar measures have failed in the past with congressional leaders keeping it from vote.

Blogian states:

Israeli scholar Yair Auron’s “Banality of Denial: Israel and the Armenian Genocide,” which I finished reading last week, states that the resolution was pulled out in 2000 because Shimon Perez had written a letter to Clinton saying that Jewish lives in Turkey would be under danger if it passed. But more recently, a former Turkish FBI translator has claimed that then House speaker Hastert pulled out the resolution because he was bribed by nationalist Turkish groups in America.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who supports the resolution, will likely get a call from the President asking for a no vote on grounds of national security.

Bush issues a statement every year commemorating what happened to the many Armenians at the end of the first World War, but has come just short of declaring it genocide. In Turkey it is a crime to use the word to describe what happened while in France it is just the opposite -- denying that the killings are genocide is a crime.

Mizgîn of Rastî has lost hope with Turkey:

So much for the concepts of sin and shame. What a bunch of losers.

Well, there you have it. There really isn't any hope. If Turkey cannot come to terms with the Armenian Genocide, which happened almost 100 years ago, it cannot come to terms with its continuing Kurdish genocide. No, there really isn't any hope at all.

Prof. Dr. Norman Barry (found here) differs:

First there is the alleged “Armenian genocide,” then the problem of Kurdish separatism and the abiding complaint that in Turkey the military has too great a say in politics. I deliberately say “alleged” Armenian genocide since there is genuine disagreement among reputable historians about what exactly took place in World War I. Undoubtedly there was harsh treatment of the Armenian minority, but was it a genocide? Probably not, and we must remember that it also took place in extraordinary times: Turkey was fearful of Russia and a potentially subversive minority posed a serious problem.

In closing, a quote from colleague Tim Showers:

I believe passing this bill is the right thing to do; not speaking out against the Turkish government's position is akin to implicitly supporting it, which we would no more do than supporting Holocaust deniers. The timing, however, is unfortunate, given the politically charged near future with Turkey, so the question becomes does the pragmatism of international relations override the principle of human rights support.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

D.C. may Receive Representation in Congress