President Obama’s chief of staff used former President Bill Clinton as an intermediary to see if Representative Joe Sestak would drop out of Pennsylvania’s Democratic Senate primary if given a prominent, but unpaid, advisory position, the White House said on Friday.

Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff, asked Mr. Clinton last summer to explore “options of service” on a presidential or senior government advisory board with Mr. Sestak, the White House said in a statement. Mr. Sestak said no and went on to win last week’s primary against Senator Arlen Specter.

The White House disputed Republican claims that the conversations might be illegal or improper. “There was no such impropriety,” Robert F. Bauer, the White House counsel, said in a memo released to reporters. “The Democratic Party leadership had a legitimate interest in averting a divisive primary fight and a similarly legitimate concern about the congressman vacating his seat in the House.”

A “legitimate interest” by the dems does not make an illegal action automatically legal.  The arrogance smells worse than usual these daze…

See if you can spot the moral relativism in the paragraph:

Mr. Bauer went on to say that such horse-trading has been commonplace through history. “There have been numerous, reported instances in the past when prior administrations – both Democratic and Republican, and motivated by the same goals – discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office,” he wrote. “Such discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements.”

Mr. Issa makes the most salient of points:

Representative Darrell Issa of California, the senior Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the interactions described by the White House “represent an illegal quid pro quo,” even if the position was unpaid. “It is abundantly clear that this kind of conduct is contrary to President Obama’s pledge to change ‘business as usual’ and that his administration has engaged in the kind of political shenanigans he once campaigned to end.”

Federal law makes it a crime for anyone “who directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or any other benefit” to someone else “as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office.” It is also illegal for a government official to use “his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate” for Senate.

And proof that the most transparent administration in the history of the known universe has been stonewalling, check this pittar patting around the facts:

While many have speculated that the White House offered to appoint Mr. Sestak as secretary of the Navy, Mr. Bauer said that was never the case. The White House did not offer Mr. Sestak a full-time paid position because Mr. Emanuel wanted him to stay in the House rather than risk losing his seat, so he considered “uncompensated advisory board options.”

Please.  Even an unpaid presidential appointment is something that a complete dolt can bank on in the present and in the future.  The implication that the appointment is of “no value” is preposterous.  Besides that, we only have the word of the Administration to go on at this point (Sestak has been silently waiting for the Dohbama’s to state their case) and at this point, what can you believe that comes out of the White House?

Mr. Sestak first mentioned publicly in February that he had been offered a job but provided no details, and the White House for three months had refused to discuss it, generating intense criticism from Republicans who accused it of trying to bribe a congressman and deep consternation among Democrats who called on the administration to answer questions.

Mr. Emanuel was eager last summer to clear the way to this year’s Democratic Senate nomination for Mr. Specter, who had just left the Republican party, and to bolster Democrats’ majority in the Senate. Mr. Sestak, a retired admiral and two-term House member, was already planning a run.

In tapping Mr. Clinton as the go-between, Mr. Emanuel picked the party’s most prominent figure other than Mr. Obama and someone Mr. Sestak had worked for on the National Security Council in the 1990s. Mr. Sestak endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton against Mr. Obama in the 2008 presidential primaries, and Mr. Clinton was one of the first to call to congratulate him on his Senate victory last week.

And a spot of lunch might be just the thing to ensure that everyone’s stories line up nicely (and send Sestak to prison in the process--maybe):

Mr. Clinton was at the White House on Thursday to have lunch with Mr. Obama and join him in greeting the American men’s World Cup soccer team heading to South Africa.

Mr. Issa and all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have asked the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor. The Justice Department wrote Mr. Issa last week that it did not need a special prosecutor to investigate if it chose to do so. Government officials, who asked not to be identified discussing legal decisions, said that neither the Justice Department nor the Office of Special Counsel, an agency that looks at violations of the Hatch Act governing the political conduct of federal employees, is investigating.

While declining to discuss what happened, Mr. Obama on Thursday said, “I can assure the public that nothing improper took place.”

Dirty Chicago is as Dirty Chicago does...

It is perfectly obvious that Iran’s latest uranium maneuver, brokered by Brazil and Turkey, is a ruse. Iran retains more than enough enriched uranium to make a bomb. And it continues enriching at an accelerated pace and to a greater purity (20 percent). Which is why the French foreign ministry immediately declared that the trumpeted temporary shipping of some Iranian uranium to Turkey will do nothing to halt Iran’s nuclear program.

It will, however, make meaningful sanctions more difficult. America’s proposed Security Council resolution is already laughably weak—no blacklisting of Iran’s central bank, no sanctions against Iran’s oil and gas industry, no nonconsensual inspections on the high seas. Yet Turkey and Brazil—both current members of the Security Council—are so opposed to sanctions that they will not even discuss the resolution. And China will now have a new excuse to weaken it further.

But the deeper meaning of the uranium-export stunt is the brazenness with which Brazil and Turkey gave cover to the mullahs’ nuclear ambitions and deliberately undermined U.S. efforts to curb Iran’s program.

The real news is that already notorious photo: the president of Brazil, our largest ally in Latin America, and the prime minister of Turkey, for more than half a century the Muslim anchor of NATO, raising hands together with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the most virulently anti-American leader in the world.

That picture—a defiant, triumphant take-that-Uncle-Sam—is a crushing verdict on the Obama foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched this administration in action, have decided that there’s no cost in lining up with America’s enemies and no profit in lining up with a U.S. president given to apologies and appeasement.

They’ve watched President Obama’s humiliating attempts to appease Iran, as every rejected overture is met with abjectly renewed U.S. negotiating offers. American acquiescence reached such a point that the president was late, hesitant and flaccid in expressing even rhetorical support for democracy demonstrators who were being brutally suppressed and whose call for regime change offered the potential for the most significant U.S. strategic advance in the region in 30 years.

They’ve watched America acquiesce to Russia’s re-exerting sway over Eastern Europe, over Ukraine (pressured by Russia last month into extending for 25 years its lease of the Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol) and over Georgia (Russia’s de facto annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is no longer an issue under the Obama “reset” policy).

They’ve watched our appeasement of Syria, Iran’s agent in the Arab Levant—sending our ambassador back to Syria even as it tightens its grip on Lebanon, supplies Hezbollah with Scuds and intensifies its role as the pivot of the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance. The price for this ostentatious flouting of the United States and its interests? Ever more eager U.S. “engagement.”

They’ve observed the administration’s gratuitous slap at Britain over the Falklands, its contemptuous treatment of Israel, its undercutting of the Czech Republic and Poland, and its indifference to Lebanon and Georgia. And in Latin America, they see not just U.S. passivity as Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez organizes his anti-American “Bolivarian” coalition while deepening military and commercial ties with Iran and Russia. They saw active U.S. support in Honduras for a pro-Chávez would-be dictator seeking unconstitutional powers in defiance of the democratic institutions of that country.

This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat—accepting, ratifying and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum.

Nor is this retreat by inadvertence. This is retreat by design and, indeed, on principle. It’s the perfect fulfillment of Obama’s adopted Third World narrative of American misdeeds, disrespect and domination from which he has come to redeem us and the world. Hence his foundational declaration at the U.N. General Assembly last September that “No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation” (guess who’s been the dominant nation for the last two decades?) and his dismissal of any “world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another.” (NATO? The West?)

Given Obama’s policies and principles, Turkey and Brazil are acting rationally. Why not give cover to Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions? As the United States retreats in the face of Iran, China, Russia and Venezuela, why not hedge your bets? There’s nothing to fear from Obama, and everything to gain by ingratiating yourself with America’s rising adversaries. After all, they actually believe in helping one’s friends and punishing one’s enemies.

Some time in the early to middle part of December, the entire family vanished. When the cops were called to the scene, they said it looked as if the family had simply gone out on an errand and never returned. Their clothes were still there, all their possessions were there, everything except for the family car and the family van. A few weeks later the van was discovered at a garage where it had been taken for repairs and forgotten about. the car was discovered abansoned a few weeks after that. And during all this time—right up until this Monday—not a peep was heard out of any member of the family or any arrests made.

Monday, a guy was arrested for giving the cops a false name during the investigation. Tuesday, three other men were also arrested in connection to the family’s disappearance.

Yes, you all know where this is going: All four of the arrestees were illegals. They’re from Brazil and had worked on the renovation of the building. So far, nothing has been said about the guy in charge deliberately hiring illegal Brazilians or suggesting that the four may have accompanied the family from Brazil. Nor has a word been said about the fate of the family. I’m waitiang for the facts to start dribbling out.

There is already a strong anti-illegal immigrant sentiment here in Nebraska. Fremont—a town about fifty miles north west of Omaha—has been trying to enanct a law requiring landlords and employers to determine immigration status before renting or hiring. At least one state Senator has announced he will introduce a version of the Arizona law in the next legislative session. Over the past few years, there have been any number of fatal accidents involving illegals—who usually flee the site at top speed. (The latest victim was a toddler girl.)

Of course, all the usual suspects are out screaming “Ra-a-a-cism!” “Haters!” and conflating anti—illegal immigration with anti-immigration in general.

PARIS (AP) - The director of the Tour de France claims Lance Armstrong has “fooled” the sports world and that the seven-time champion owes fans an explanation over new allegations he used a performance-boosting drug.

Tour director Jean-Marie Leblanc’s comments appeared in the French sports daily L’Equipe on Wednesday, a day after the newspaper reported that six urine samples provided by Armstrong during the ‘99 Tour tested positive for the red blood cell-booster EPO.

“For the first time - and these are no longer rumors, or insinuations, these are proven scientific facts - someone has shown me that in 1999, Armstrong had a banned substance called EPO in his body,” Leblanc told L’Equipe.

“The ball is now in his court. Why, how, by whom? He owes explanations to us and to everyone who follows the tour. Today, what L’Equipe revealed shows me that I was fooled. We were all fooled.”

On Tuesday, Leblanc called the latest accusations against Armstrong shocking and troubling.

Armstrong, a frequent target of L’Equipe, vehemently denied the allegations Tuesday, calling the article “tabloid journalism.”

“I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs,” he said on his Web site.

Armstrong, who retired from professional cycling after winning the Tour a month ago, was not immediately available for comment regarding Leblanc’s latest remarks.

EPO, formally known as erythropoietin, was on the list of banned substances at the time Armstrong won the first of his seven Tour’s, but there was no effective test then to detect it.

The allegations surfaced six years later because EPO tests on the 1999 samples were carried out only last year - when scientists at a lab outside Paris used them for research to perfect EPO testing. The national anti-doping laboratory in Chatenay-Malabry said it promised to hand its finding to the World Anti-Doping Agency, provided it was never used to penalize riders.

Five-time cycling champion Miguel Indurain said he couldn’t understand why scientists would use samples from the 1999 Tour for their tests.

“That seems bizarre, and I don’t know who would have the authorization to do it,” he told L’Equipe. “I don’t even know if it’s legal to keep these samples.”

L’Equipe’s investigation was based on the second set of two samples used in doping tests. The first set were used in 1999 for analysis at the time. Without those samples, any disciplinary action against Armstrong would be impossible, French Sports Minister Jean-Francois Lamour said.

Lamour said he had doubts about L’Equipe’s report because he had not seen the originals of some of the documents that appeared in the paper.

“I do not confirm it,” he told RTL radio. But he added: “If what L’Equipe says is true, I can tell you that it’s a serious blow for cycling.”

The International Cycling Union did not begin using a urine test for EPO until 2001, though it was banned in 1990. For years, it had been impossible to detect the drug, which builds endurance by boosting the production of oxygen-rich red blood cells.

Jacques de Ceaurriz, the head of France’s anti-doping laboratory, which developed the EPO urine test, told Europe-1 radio that at least 15 urine samples from the 1999 Tour had tested positive for EPO.

Separately, the lab said it could not confirm that the positive results were Armstrong’s. It noted that the samples were anonymous, bearing only a six-digit number to identify the rider, and could not be matched with the name of any one cyclist.

However, L’Equipe said it was able to make the match.

On one side of a page Tuesday, it showed what it claimed were the results of EPO tests from anonymous riders used for lab research. On the other, it showed Armstrong’s medical certificates, signed by doctors and riders after doping tests - and bearing the same identifying number printed on the results.

L’Equipe is owned by the Amaury Group whose subsidiary, Amaury Sport Organization, organizes the Tour de France and other sporting events. The paper often questioned Armstrong’s clean record and frequently took jabs at him - portraying him as too arrogant, too corporate and too good to be real.

“Never to such an extent, probably, has the departure of a champion been welcomed with such widespread relief,” the paper griped the day after Armstrong won his seventh straight Tour win and retired from cycling.

Leblanc suggested that in the future, urine samples could be stashed away for future testing as detection methods improve - another possible weapon in the fight against doping.

“We’re so tired of doping that all means are good as long as they are morally acceptable,” he told L’Equipe.

So alledged 6 year old samples are used to accuse Armstrong of Doping.  Has any independent groups seen these samples?  Can they even prove they are Armstrongs blood?  Should be interesting to see how this plays out.

by TUAW Blogger (RSS feed) on May 20th 2010 at 3:00PM

In what is sure to raise a ruckus, comedian / filmmaker / app developer Emery Emery recorded a phone call with an Apple App Store rep when his iSlam Muhammad app was pulled from the App Store after one day. .......video

iSlam Muhammad apparently depicted images of the prophet Muhammad (forbidden by Islam) and outlined disturbing passages from the Qur’an. It’s surprisingly similar to BibleThumper, a Christian-bashing app that remains in the App Store.

This act of Apple censorship coincides with International Draw Muhammad Day, an Internet event designed to demonstrate how radical Islamic factions are causing traditional news outlets to self-censor themselves in fear of violent retaliation. This event has resulted in the country of Pakistan banning Facebook and YouTube, both of which have a number of pages that are touting the event.

What’s disappointing is that this points out Apple’s lack of consistency in approval of apps, as well as their inability to provide recourse to developers who have had apps rejected for seemingly weak reasons.

http://www.tuaw.com/2010/05/20/found-footage-apple-pulls-islam-muhammad-app/

While I understand people’s desire to show freedom of speech, I myself tend to refrain from bashing people’s religion of choice.
There does seem to be a double standard in play here though.

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven’t heard of this politician, it’s because he’s a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country’s carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

But we need to get Cap and Trade passed NOW!!!  Before our congress members even read it.

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country’s new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The rest of the world is putting cap and trade plans on hold but we have to rush head first into it for no other reason than a few people in DC want to do it.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N.—13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

But we can’t wait a second longer. 

The collapse of the “consensus” has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Credit for Australia’s own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published “Heaven and Earth,” a damning critique of the “evidence” underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist—and ardent global warming believer—in April humbly pronounced it “an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence.” Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute’s annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama’s special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn’t.

Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That’s made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won’t be alone.

When Cut And Dried Isn’t So Cut And Dried

I’m new to the site and at the risk of sounding dumb, I just want to know in brief, what the main gist of it is. I registered because I just watched Sicko (I know.. 3 years later...) and was curious about the ending. Is this site an anti Mike Moore site specifically for running down his documentaries and the inaccuracy, exaggeration, misrepresentation of truth and biased sensationalized hype many feel is prevalent in his films. Or, is it an alternate perspective on such. (Ie: Keeping the news makers ect.. honest, or at least exposing lies).

I have no intention of berating anyone’s being, beliefs or opinions. I read the “Read this first” part. Personally, I believe (and this was before coming to this site) that Jim K has no obligation to Moore for his financial assistance. He thanked him for it and that is all that is required in general of any decent person. 

I also like some things that Moore (if accurate) mentioned. But is it true? Does the HMO sad stories on Sicko reflect the medical/ insurance problems in America? Are 9/11 workers (Volunteers) forgotten and left without medical care? Is the little black girl that died because she was moved to an approved hospital just a one off case or is this prevalent?

I am not trying to poke sarcastic fun at anyone I genuinely want to know, because both sides interest me immensely and I want to take an informed stance.

Educate me please.

I am an open book. (NO abuse please!)

The economic case for global action to stop the destruction of the natural world is even more powerful than the argument for tackling climate change, a major report for the United Nations will declare this summer.

The Stern report on climate change, which was prepared for the UK Treasury and published in 2007, famously claimed that the cost of limiting climate change would be around 1%-2% of annual global wealth, but the longer-term economic benefits would be 5-20 times that figure.

The UN’s biodiversity report – dubbed the Stern for Nature – is expected to say that the value of saving “natural goods and services”, such as pollination, medicines, fertile soils, clean air and water, will be even higher – between 10 and 100 times the cost of saving the habitats and species which provide them.

Can you say “redistribute even more of the wealth”?

“We need a sea-change in human thinking and attitudes towards nature: not as something to be vanquished, conquered, but rather something to be cherished and lived within,” said the report’s author, the economist Pavan Sukhdev.

The changes will involve a wholesale revolution in the way humans do business, consume, and think about their lives, Sukhdev, told The Guardian. He referred to the damage currently being inflicted on the natural world as “a landscape of market failures”.

The report will advocate massive changes to the way the global economy is run so that it factors in the value of the natural world. In future, it says, communities should be paid for conserving nature rather than using it; companies given stricter limits on what they can take from the environment and fined or taxed more to limit over-exploitation; subsidies worth more than US$1tn (£696.5bn) a year for industries like agriculture, fisheries, energy and transport reformed; and businesses and national governments asked to publish accounts for their use of natural and human capital alongside their financial results.

With the U.S. and the EU on the verge of financial ruin, where will they get all of this money?  And how do you like this window of probability:

The TEEB report shows that on average one third of Earth’s habitats have been damaged by humans – but the problem ranges from zero percent of ice, rock and polar lands to 85% of seas and oceans and more than 70% of Mediterranean shrubland. It also warns that in spite of growing awareness of the dangers, destruction of nature will “still continue on a large scale”. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has previously estimated that species are becoming extinct at a rate 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than it would naturally be without humans.

I’m surprised that they referred to us as “humans” and not “the humans”...