Currently viewing the tag: “Considering”
The U.S. Dept. of Transportation gave notice this week that it has begun considering whether to grant the Canadian company Bruce Power permission to move 16 radioactively contaminated steam generators through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway.
In a notice in the March 30 Federal Register DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration wrote that on Feb. 24 Bruce Power asked for special arrangements so that it could transport the large generators for recycling and volume reduction in Sweden.
The initial leg of transport would be by road and entirely within Canada. The steam generators would then be loaded on a vessel in Owen Sound, Ontario for transport to Sweden via Lake Huron, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario and interconnecting waterways as well as the St. Lawrence River. At various times the vessel would necessarily enter U.S. waters. Therefore, under IAEA special arrangement provisions, the U.S. would need to revalidate the Canadian certificate in order to permit transport.
PHMSA is recognized as the IAEA Competent Authority for the U.S. and is responsible for competent authority approval in these cases.PHMSA intends to conduct a fully independent review of the proposed transport including safety, environmental, and fitness assessments, in consultation with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and U.S. Coast Guard. PHMSA must approve, deny, or institute additional controls regarding
the transport in the request for competent authority approval.
A group of over 70 mayors from U.S. and Canadian towns along the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway have warned that this shipment could endanger public water supplies.
OK, considering may be too strong of a word but the NATO chief sure isn’t ruling it out. That is because the situation in Libya will get worse before it gets worse. Let’s say the rebels are successful in removing Gadaffi, then what? They are going to come together, put their Jeffersonian minds to work, become good civic-minded and rule of law citizens? — that has less chance of working than Harry Reid does in becoming president. The rebel forces in charge in the aftermath will start fighting one another has soon as they stop fighting Gadaffi. Factions will form, alignments will be made, and the strong man to emerge will larger numbers and influence on his side. The others who are fewer in numbers will naturally suffer the consequences. It has all the makings for a nasty civil war and a chance for tribes to carry out retribution against rival tribes. I’ve already went into this, here.
Or, if you like, Gadaffi continues to stay in power and his tanks and artillery continue to pound the rebels. To the point that that the rebellion is crushed and punishment by Gadaffi is meted out to the public in typical Arabic dictator fashion — ‘Duh! It’s called Winning,’ as Charlie Sheen would put it. Much like is shaping up now.
Rebels say ground forces loyal to leader Muammar Qaddafi are closing in on opposition fighters holding the key oil port of Ras Lanouf along the coastal road leading to the capital, heavily shelling the rebels and reversing their advance toward Tripoli.
Warplanes, apparently part of the NATO force that has intervened to weaken the regime’s superior military power, buzzed Wednesday over the zone where the most intense fighting was under way. But no explosions were heard that would indicate new airstrikes.
Qaddafi’s forces hammered rebels with tanks and rockets Tuesday, turning their rapid advance into a panicked retreat in an hourslong battle. The fighting underscored the dilemma facing the U.S. and its allies in Libya: Rebels may be unable to oust Qaddafi militarily unless already contentious international airstrikes go even further in taking out his forces.
Airstrikes alone will not prevent Gadaffi’s army from advancing. The loyal forces have the advantage of being a trained military with tanks, artillery, and rockets. That isn’t to say that the airstrikes have not had an affect. It just hasn’t delivered a knockout punch. So if the goal is to remove Gadaffi, the rebel forces will need help on the ground. And once Gadaffi is removed, the rebel forces will need help on the ground so they don’t start killing one another. Either way, we’re there.
President Obama appears loathsome to the idea of US ground forces in Libya — indeed it is a very bad idea for the US. Arming the rebels as an alternative is an even worse idea, because, again, as I said; if the rebels succeed in removing Gadaffi what happens when several now well armed groups start killing each other? The answer, of course, is NATO and US ground forces establishing a cease fire and playing peace keepers.We can’t do this on the cheap. The Middle East is a black hole for presidents and has plagued every administration since Eisenhower. President Obama is learning nothing is done cheaply and quietly there. What was intended to be a few airstrikes that weakened Gadaffi to the point of capitulation or exile is now spiraling out of control. Obama’s team doesn’t want to face it but they have no real options left.
We should hang a big sign over the Middle East that reads: “Here, if you break it, you buy it.” Maybe then presidential administrations will get the message.
Danger Room | NATO Chief Opens The Door to Libya Ground Troops
The mantra, from President Obama on down, is that ground forces are totally ruled out for Libya. After all, the United Nations Security Council Resolution authorizing the war explicitly rules out any “occupation” forces. But leave it to the top military officer of NATO, which takes over the war on Wednesday, to add an asterisk to that ban. During a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island asked Adm. James Stavridis about NATO putting forces into “post-Gadhafi” Libya to make sure the country doesn’t fall apart. Stavridis said he “wouldn’t say NATO’s considering it yet.” But because of NATO’s history of putting peacekeepers in the Balkans — as pictured above — “the possibility of a stabilization regime exists.”
So welcome to a new possible “endgame” for Libya. Western troops patrolling Libya’s cities during a a shaky transition after Moammar Gadhafi’s regime has fallen, however that’s supposed to happen. Thousands of NATO troops patrolled Bosnia and Kosovo’s tense streets for years. And Iraq and Afghanistan taught the U.S. and NATO very dearly that fierce insurgent conflict can follow the end of a brutal regime. In fact, it’s the moments after the regime falls that can be the most dangerous of all — especially if well-intentioned foreign troops become an object of local resentment.
The U.S. Dept. of Justice is considering whether to charge BP managers with manslaughter for their role in the Gulf of Mexico oil rig explosion that killed 11 and caused the biggest oil spill in U.S. history.
The Justice Dept. is looking at whether cost-cutting decisions by these managers warrant involuntary manslaughter or seaman’s manslaughter, which carries a penalty of up to ten years, Bloomberg reports.
Charging individuals would be significant to environmental safety cases because it might change behavior, said Jane Barrett, a law professor at the University of Maryland.
“They typically don’t prosecute employees of large corporations,” said Barrett, who spent 20 years prosecuting environmental crimes at the federal and state levels. “You’ve got to prosecute the individuals in order to maximize, and not lose, the deterrent effect.”
Federal officials are also said to be looking at whether BP CEO Tony Hayward and others were truthful in sworn testimony to Congress about the spill.
In a forthcoming article about the Gulf oil spill, former DOJ environmental crimes section chief David Uhlmann writes that it is important for the DOJ to pursue criminal charges against BP because criminal prosecution is a more powerful expression of societal condemnation of the negligence that caused the spill.
A member of the PLO Executive Committee, Hanna Amira, has told Al Quds Al Arabi Monday that the Palestinian leadership is considering throwing out their agreements with Israel, according to the Oslo accords, in September.
“There are proposals on the table for discussion, including the abandonment of the PLO of its obligations under the agreements signed and implemented”, he said, stressing that the situation will not remain as it is now, and said, “things after September will be as they were before.”
The PLO has been planning to declare itself a state in September.
He also said that the PLO is planning to hold meetings in Arab capitals to prepare for September.
The Palestinian Authority reports to the PLO, and the PLO is in charge of all non-domestic issues.
Of course, this means that Israel can start building settlements outside the boundaries of existing communities as it has been for years, and can ignore the Areas A, B and C that have been created during the Oslo process. The IDF should be prepared to re-enter Ramallah and Nablus in September. After all, if one party abrogates an agreement, then the other is not bound by it either – that’s what an agreement means.
Israel should make that clear today, and the Quartet should tell the PLO that unilateral actions on their part that destroy the existing agreements with Israel will not be rewarded.
Not that the Quartet ever had strong words for the PLO and its already existing violations of Oslo.
A member of the PLO Executive Committee, Hanna Amira, has told Al Quds Al Arabi Monday that the Palestinian leadership is considering throwing out their agreements with Israel, according to the Oslo accords, in September.
“There are proposals on the table for discussion, including the abandonment of the PLO of its obligations under the agreements signed and implemented”, he said, stressing that the situation will not remain as it is now, and said, “things after September will be as they were before.”
The PLO has been planning to declare itself a state in September.
He also said that the PLO is planning to hold meetings in Arab capitals to prepare for September.
The Palestinian Authority reports to the PLO, and the PLO is in charge of all non-domestic issues.
Of course, this means that Israel can start building settlements outside the boundaries of existing communities as it has been for years, and can ignore the Areas A, B and C that have been created during the Oslo process. The IDF should be prepared to re-enter Ramallah and Nablus in September. After all, if one party abrogates an agreement, then the other is not bound by it either – that’s what an agreement means.
Israel should make that clear today, and the Quartet should tell the PLO that unilateral actions on their part that destroy the existing agreements with Israel will not be rewarded.
Not that the Quartet ever had strong words for the PLO and its already existing violations of Oslo.
Written by Solana Larsen
Earthquake-prone Turkey is currently considering a bid on a nuclear power plant tender from a Japanese energy company. Selene Verri from Turkish Diary asks: “So, Turkey is going nuclear. Is it wise, knowing what just happened in Japan, a conscientious and prepared country?”
The Arizona State Senate is considering a bill to introduce specialty license plates with the Gadsden Flag phrase turned Tea Party slogan, “Don’t Tread On Me,” with funds generated by those plates going to promote the Tea Party in ways well beyond car bumpers.
As the Arizona Daily Star noted Thursday, the state Senate is considering a bill that would create a license plate depicting the Gadsden Flag’s iconic image, a coiled snake on a yellow background, complete with the “Don’t Tread On Me” tag line. Similar specialty plates have been proposed in Virginia, Nevada, and South Carolina, while Texas has already approved creating such a license plate.
Yet what’s interesting about this particular plate is that the money generated from its sale would be used specifically to fund tea party causes.
From the Star:
What’s behind the plates is money: Of every $ 25 additional annual fee paid to the state, $ 17 goes to the benefiting organization for its own programs. In this case, a committee of five people, all of whom would have links to tea parties, would divide up the proceeds.
In fact, the bill specifically states that the money can only go toward Tea Party causes.
The bill calls for the creation of a five-member committee of people from groups who promote Tea Party ideals — one member, it states, must come from a non-profit with “a mission of bringing together, empowering and training tea party groups.” Two other members must come from groups that “[promote] the Tea Party governing principles of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.”
That committee would then be tasked with distributing the money to Tea Party entities in the state that also “promote Tea Party governing principles.”
The bill is not a sure thing just yet. It must still clear a final Senate vote before it can move on to the House.
Calls to Sen. Don Shooter (R), who introduced the specialty plate amendment, and Senate President Russel Pearce (R) were not immediately returned.
MD Del. Tiffany Alston (D)
On Tuesday, Maryland Del. Tiffany Alston (D), a co-sponsor of a bill to expand marriage to the state’s gays and lesbians, walked out of the House Judiciary Committee’s scheduled vote on the measure because she needed “a little more time to weigh my final decision.” The following day she announced her intention to vote for the bill saying, “I believe all people should be treated equally regardless of their sexual orientation. … I have resolved that if and when the chairman calls the vote I will be ready to vote based on what I believe to be right.”
But now WTOP is reporting that Alston has had another change of heart and is considering substituting the marriage bill with a measure that would legalize civil unions in the state:
Alston says the change she is considering would allow Maryland residents to get civil union licenses if they wished to be married, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.
She says she believes the change would be “a good balance,” but does not know if it would receive support from other committee members.
“I have what I believe to be a solution,” she says. “I don’t know if it will garner any political will or favor.”
Proponents of marriage equality are against the change, even as the bill struggles to make its way out of Committee and on to the House floor. Alston is the necessary 12th vote to move the bill forward, but a vote won’t come before tomorrow since Del. Jill Carter (D), the other lawmaker who boycotted the measure on Tuesday, is out sick.
Meanwhile, Del. Sam Arora (D), who promised to co-sponsor the bill, is also having second thoughts and has reportedly told some constituents that he will now vote against it. Some donors are now asking Arora for their money back. Last month, the bill suffered another setback after Del. Melvin Stukes (D), a co-sponsor of the measure for the past four years, withdrew his sponsorship. He claimed that he thought the bill, which is titled the Civil Marriage Protection Act, “would have given same-sex couples the right to obtain civil unions rather than marriage.”
It appears Chris Lytle’s twelve-year career in MMA could be at an end due in part to a medical procedure he underwent about a month prior to his bout at UFC 127 with Brian Ebersole. Though Lytle has yet to speak about the topic publicly out of respect for Ebersole, his agent, Ken Pavia, recently […]
Five Ounces of Pain
It appears Chris Lytle’s twelve-year career in MMA could be at an end due in part to a medical procedure he underwent about a month prior to his bout at UFC 127 with Brian Ebersole. Though Lytle has yet to speak about the topic publicly out of respect for Ebersole, his agent, Ken Pavia, recently […]
Five Ounces of Pain
THE TEN AT 10:
1. Lorenzo Mauldin is still not sure what he’s going to do, but he’s starting to feel better about his options. The Maynard Jackson High defensive end and longtime South Carolina commitment, who was stuck without a scholarship after the Gamecocks oversigned on national signing day, is now heavily considering an offer from Louisville.
Mauldin
Cardinals’ second-year coach Charlie Strong has offered to bring in the 6-foot-4, 240-pound defensive end as a non-qualifer if he continues to come up short on his test scores, according to Mauldin. That means Mauldin would have to pay his own way the first year but would have three years of eligibility remaining and a qualify for a fourth if he’s on track to graduate.
“That’s a pretty good option for me,” Mauldin said Monday. “I believe it’s better than prep school. I’ll already be there with the team and I could be playing football the next fall.”
Mauldin, who has lived in 16 foster homes and currently resides in a …
ABC News’ Kirit Radia reports: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said today that the United States and its international partners are “actively considering” a imposing a no-fly zone in Libya, where leader Moammar Gadhafi is accused of using airpower against…
Political Punch
South Dakota backed off from the proposed legislation to change the definition of justifiable homicide in a way that could have allowed abortion providers to be legally murdered. But now Nebraska is actively considering a similar law — only it’s even worse:
The legislation, LB 232, was introduced by state Sen. Mark Christensen, a devout Christian and die-hard abortion foe who isopposed to the prodedure even in the case of rape. Unlike its South Dakota counterpart, which would have allowed only a pregnant woman, her husband, her parents, or her children to commit “justifiable homicide” in defense of her fetus, the Nebraska bill would apply to any third party.
“In short, this bill authorizes and protects vigilantes, and that’s something that’s unprecedented in our society,” Melissa Grant of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland told the Nebraska legislature’s judiciary committee on Wednesday. Specifically, she warned, it could be used to target Planned Parenthood’s patients and personnel. Also testifying in oppostion to the bill was David Baker, the deputy chief executive officer of the Omaha police department, who said, “We share the same fears…that this could be used to incite violence against abortion providers.”
Baker’s concern is well-grounded: Abortion providers are frequent targets of violent attacks. Eight doctors have been murdered by anti-abortion extremists since 1993, and another 17 have been victims of murder attempts. Some of the perpetrators of those crimes, including Scott Roeder, the murderer of Wichita, Kansas, abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, have attempted to use the justifiable homicide defense at their trials. Several of the witnesses at Wednesday’s hearing cited Tiller’s murder as a case where a law like the one Christensen introduced could have come into play.
For his part, Christensen insisted that his measure is not intended to target abortion providers. Like Jensen, Christensen claimed that his bill is merely meant to allow pregnant women to defend their unborn children without fear of prosecution. “LB 232,” he said, “is really nothing more than an attempt to make sure a pregnant woman is not unnecessarily charged with a crime for using force to protect her unborn child from someone who means to bring harm to her unborn children.”
But, as other lawmakers pointed out during the hearing, Christensen’s bill, as currently written, would not only apply to pregnant women but to anyone who attempted to prevent harm to a fetus. “I think it opens the door to something unintended,” said state Sen. Steve Lathrop. “I don’t think you came in here intending to make those who provide abortions a target of the use of force,” he told Christensen, “but I think it may unintentionally do that or at least provide somebody with an argument that they were justified in that.”
Not everyone is sure that the law’s potential use in a case of abortion-related murder was unintentional. “If they wanted it narrow, they should have drafted it that way, and they did not,” Alan Peterson, a lobbyist with the ACLU of Nebraska who testified at the hearing, toldMother Jones. “So I have reasonable suspicion that the intent was at least to create a possible broad defense for attacks on abortion providers.”
[…]
Christensen and proponents of his bill, including the anti-abortion groups Americans United for Life and Family First, argue that concerns that the measure would legalize violence against abortion providers are overblown. They say that since abortions are legal in Nebraska, the killing of an abortion doctor would not be permissible under Christensen’s law. (Proponents of South Dakota’s bill made a similar case.) But Peterson disputed this interpretation. He said the existing self-defense statute that Christensen’s bill would amend is “not limited to situations where something is going on that’s unlawful. It says the person who claims the defense believes that there’s something unlawful. That’s a subjective standard.” A standard, he added, that might allow the killer of an abortion provider to use Christensen’s law, if passed, to get away with murder.
The text of the legislation, which is also linked from the Mother Jones article, is here.
South Dakota backed off from the proposed legislation to change the definition of justifiable homicide in a way that could have allowed abortion providers to be legally murdered. But now Nebraska is actively considering a similar law — only it’s even worse:
The legislation, LB 232, was introduced by state Sen. Mark Christensen, a devout Christian and die-hard abortion foe who isopposed to the prodedure even in the case of rape. Unlike its South Dakota counterpart, which would have allowed only a pregnant woman, her husband, her parents, or her children to commit “justifiable homicide” in defense of her fetus, the Nebraska bill would apply to any third party.
“In short, this bill authorizes and protects vigilantes, and that’s something that’s unprecedented in our society,” Melissa Grant of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland told the Nebraska legislature’s judiciary committee on Wednesday. Specifically, she warned, it could be used to target Planned Parenthood’s patients and personnel. Also testifying in oppostion to the bill was David Baker, the deputy chief executive officer of the Omaha police department, who said, “We share the same fears…that this could be used to incite violence against abortion providers.”
Baker’s concern is well-grounded: Abortion providers are frequent targets of violent attacks. Eight doctors have been murdered by anti-abortion extremists since 1993, and another 17 have been victims of murder attempts. Some of the perpetrators of those crimes, including Scott Roeder, the murderer of Wichita, Kansas, abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, have attempted to use the justifiable homicide defense at their trials. Several of the witnesses at Wednesday’s hearing cited Tiller’s murder as a case where a law like the one Christensen introduced could have come into play.
For his part, Christensen insisted that his measure is not intended to target abortion providers. Like Jensen, Christensen claimed that his bill is merely meant to allow pregnant women to defend their unborn children without fear of prosecution. “LB 232,” he said, “is really nothing more than an attempt to make sure a pregnant woman is not unnecessarily charged with a crime for using force to protect her unborn child from someone who means to bring harm to her unborn children.”
But, as other lawmakers pointed out during the hearing, Christensen’s bill, as currently written, would not only apply to pregnant women but to anyone who attempted to prevent harm to a fetus. “I think it opens the door to something unintended,” said state Sen. Steve Lathrop. “I don’t think you came in here intending to make those who provide abortions a target of the use of force,” he told Christensen, “but I think it may unintentionally do that or at least provide somebody with an argument that they were justified in that.”
Not everyone is sure that the law’s potential use in a case of abortion-related murder was unintentional. “If they wanted it narrow, they should have drafted it that way, and they did not,” Alan Peterson, a lobbyist with the ACLU of Nebraska who testified at the hearing, toldMother Jones. “So I have reasonable suspicion that the intent was at least to create a possible broad defense for attacks on abortion providers.”
[…]
Christensen and proponents of his bill, including the anti-abortion groups Americans United for Life and Family First, argue that concerns that the measure would legalize violence against abortion providers are overblown. They say that since abortions are legal in Nebraska, the killing of an abortion doctor would not be permissible under Christensen’s law. (Proponents of South Dakota’s bill made a similar case.) But Peterson disputed this interpretation. He said the existing self-defense statute that Christensen’s bill would amend is “not limited to situations where something is going on that’s unlawful. It says the person who claims the defense believes that there’s something unlawful. That’s a subjective standard.” A standard, he added, that might allow the killer of an abortion provider to use Christensen’s law, if passed, to get away with murder.
The text of the legislation, which is also linked from the Mother Jones article, is here.
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) may see a familiar face in his Republican Senate primary: the man he succeeded in Congress, former Rep. Matt Salmon (R).
Salmon tells Arizona political publication “Yellow Sheet Report” (subscriber) that he is seriously considering launching a bid for the seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Jon Kyl (R) and has begun making calls to gauge support.
Salmon served in Congress in Arizona’s first congressional district during the mid-nineties. He stepped down after a third term and Flake was elected to his seat in 2000. Salmon ran for governor in 2002, losing a close race to now Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. He later served as chair of the state Republican party.
Salmon expects to finalize a decision in the next few months.
