Currently viewing the tag: “Playing”
Since Japan's earthquake and following nuclear crisis, the CBS Evening News has done two reports on the Obama administration blocking use of the Yucca Mountain storage facility in Nevada to safely dispose of U.S. nuclear waste. Meanwhile, NBC and ABC have ignored the controversy.
The first CBS report on the issue came on March 22, when Evening News anchor Katie Couric declared: "The crisis in Japan has renewed the debate over nuclear power in this country. Today a federal appeals court heard arguments in a lawsuit over what to do with spent fuel rods." Correspondent Jim Axelrod explained: "An estimated 66,000 metric tons of spent fuel are stored at 77 sites around the country. That's more than 145 million pounds….Plans to make Yucca Mountain in Nevada a long-term storage site were scuttled by the Obama administration a year ago, after 20 years of planning costing $ 14 billion."
In a follow-up piece on Thursday's Evening News, correspondent Armen Keteyian went further in laying blame on the Obama administration: "There was one site designed to hold all of our nation's nuclear waste and it's right here in the high desert of Nevada, at a place called Yucca Mountain. Today, the federal government won't let our cameras anywhere near it. It's shut down, locked up, caught up in what critics charge is nothing more than pure politics."
Fill-in anchor Erica Hill teased Keteyian's report at the top of the broadcast: "Why did plans to bury nuclear waste inside Nevada's Yucca Mountain get killed? Was it safety fears or politics?" Keteyian described how the, "Obama administration kept its campaign promise….And shut down Yucca Mountain. Now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must decide if it wants to restart what is already a 25-year, $ 14 billion project, in the face of tough opposition, like that from Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate majority leader from Nevada."
Keteyian also pointed out the political background of the head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Obama: "A former staffer for Senator Reid, Greg Jaczko, now chairs the NRC. Jaczko recently came under fire after shutting down the agency's safety review of Yucca Mountain and after key safety recommendations were redacted, cut out, from a long-awaited NRC report."
In the March 22 report, Axelrod noted: "The head of the NRC may not see a pressing problem, but the states now suing did not want to take that risk before Japan's disaster and certainly don't want to now."
On Thursday, Keteyian challenged Jaczko: "Critics charge that you were simply doing the bidding of your former boss, Senator Harry Reid, a fierce opponent of this project."
Keteyian concluded his piece: "The NRC inspector general and Congress are now investigating the decision to shut down the safety review. Still, nuclear waste is scattered across 35 states, and Yucca Mountain sits silent and empty."
Here is a full transcript of Keteyian's March 31 report:
6:30PM ET TEASE:
ERICA HILL: Why did plans to bury nuclear waste inside Nevada's Yucca Mountain get killed? Was it safety fears or politics?
6:38PM ET TEASE:
HILL: And when we come back, it was supposed to store all of America's nuclear waste, so why then is this desert facility now deserted?
6:40PM ET SEGMENT:
HILL: For more than 50 years a debate has raged over where to store radioactive nuclear waste in this country. And that debate has been reignited by the crisis in Japan. The solution was supposed to be here at a place called Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but the multibillion-dollar storage project has been shelved and as chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian explains, a congressional committee wants to find out why.
ARMEN KETEYIAN: Nuclear waste – the radioactive guest on the doorstep of many of America's most populous cities. Nearly 70,000 tons from 104 reactors often piling up within 50 miles from cities like New York, Chicago, and San Diego.
There was one site designed to hold all of our nation's nuclear waste and it's right here in the high desert of Nevada, at a place called Yucca Mountain. Today, the federal government won't let our cameras anywhere near it. It's shut down, locked up, caught up in what critics charge is nothing more than pure politics.
Gary Holis and Darrell Lacey are key officials in Nye County, Nevada. They want the waste at Yucca Mountain for the jobs and money it would bring.
DARRELL LACY [NYE COUNTY NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY PROJECT OFFICE]: The people in this area are all fairly comfortable with Yucca Mountain. Many of them have worked at Yucca Mountain.
KETEYIAN: Four previous presidents funded safety reviews of the project but last year the Obama administration kept its campaign promise.
CAMPAIGN AD: Barack Obama opposes opening Yucca.
KETEYIAN: And shut down Yucca Mountain. Now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must decide if it wants to restart what is already a 25-year, $ 14 billion project, in the face of tough opposition, like that from Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate majority leader from Nevada.
JEFFREY LEWIS [PH.D., NUCLEAR SAFETY EXPERT]: If the U.S. government wanted to do Yucca Mountain, it would have had to shove it down Harry Reid's throat.
KETEYIAN: A former staffer for Senator Reid, Greg Jaczko, now chairs the NRC. Jaczko recently came under fire after shutting down the agency's safety review of Yucca Mountain and after key safety recommendations were redacted, cut out, from a long-awaited NRC report. Three NRC staffers formally protested the decision to derail the safety review, charging it caused 'confusion, chaos, and anguish'. Today, Jaczko told us the safety report was preliminary, a draft, and that he had nothing to do with the redactions.
Critics charge that you were simply doing the bidding of your former boss, Senator Harry Reid, a fierce opponent of this project.
GREGORY JACZKO [PH.D., CHAIRMAN, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION: It was a difficult decision and – because it is such a controversial program – but, again, it was one that was made in, I believe, in the best interest of the agency.
KETEYIAN: The NRC inspector general and Congress are now investigating the decision to shut down the safety review. Still, nuclear waste is scattered across 35 states, and Yucca Mountain sits silent and empty. Armen Keteyian, CBS News, Nye County, Nevada.
— Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.
Transparency was supposed to be one of those “changes” that Barack Obama promised to bring to Washington DC. Remember this post on Whitehouse.gov?
Transparency like you’ve never seen before October 30, 2009 at 04:31 PM EDT ..Today marks a major milestone in government transparency — and an important lesson in the unintended consequences of such vigorous disclosure. We previously announced that the White House in December of this year would — for the first time in history — begin posting all White House visitor records under the terms of our new voluntary disclosure policy. As part of that initiative, we also offered to look back at the records created before the announcement of the policy and answer specific requests for visitor records created earlier in the year.
We’ve seen that promise broken many times, for example the crafting of the Obamacare bill behind Harry Reid’s closed door or the SHMOTUS (Joe Biden) closed door meeting on transparency (I kid you not).
Today the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a report detailing politicaly-based interference by Obama Administration political appointees in the Department of Homeland Security Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process and the Department’s efforts to obstruct the House committee’s investigation.
The report’s findings include:
- Senior Political Appointees reviewed and approved responses. By the end of September 2009, copies of all significant FOIA requests were required to be forwarded to the Secretary’s political staff for review. The career staff in the FOIA Office was not permitted to release responses to these requests without approval from political staff.
- Political appointees do not acknowledge the approval process. Political appointees refused to acknowledge that approval from the Secretary’s political staff was required to release a response to a significant FOIA request as of September 29, 2009. Their position during transcribed interviews was that the policy was implemented for awareness purposes only. Documents show this position is indefensible.
- Political appointees conduct their own searches.Documents and witness testimony show political appointees run weak and incomplete searches for their own documents. They were allowed to choose their own search terms despite lacking basic understanding of the statute.
- The Department abused the (b)(5) exception. Original versions of documents that were heavily redacted before being released to the Associated Press show the Office of General Counsel relied on exception (b)(5) – normally meant to protect pre-decisional records– to prevent the release of embarrassing records.
- The Secretary’s political staff stopped using e-mail. Political appointees stopped using e-mail to clear response packages in the second quarter of 2010. Instead, they contacted the career staff in the FOIA Office by telephone.
- The Secretary’s political staff marginalized and mismanaged the career FOIA staff. The intrusion of the political staff into the FOIA process wasted the time and resources of the Privacy Office. The deterioration of the relationship between the Front Office and the FOIA Office was accelerated by constant changes to the significant FOIA response process. The constantly-evolving process and burdensome questions from the Secretary’s political staff delayed responses.
That’s not all DHS Attorneys tried to block the Committee’s investigation. For example:
- On January 14, 2011, Chairman Issa requested documents from DHS no later than January 29. While the Department pledged to cooperate with the investigation and did not indicate it would not meet the January 29 deadline, the committee subsequently obtained an e-mail dated January 20, 2011, from the Department’s General Counsel’s office instructing staff not to search for responsive documents.
- Department lawyers did not negotiate the terms of witness interviews in good faith. Over three weeks of negotiation, the Department did not communicate to witnesses that the choice to appear was theirs to make, despite representing to the Committee that they would do so. Additionally, DHS Office of General Counsel representatives pressured one witness to allow them to participate in the planning of, and be present during, her interview.
- After a witness interview on March 4, 2011, a Department lawyer attempted to remove Committee documents from the interview room. DHS Attorney Reid Cox attempted to leave the room with the Committee’s exhibits in his bag. Committee staff asked Cox if he had the exhibits in his bag, and he confirmed that he did. Cox was admonished by Republican and Democratic staff that he was not permitted to leave with the exhibits. Democratic staff advised Cox that the exhibits are Committee documents and as such, they are the property of the Committee and cannot be removed without permission. Cox explained that the Department disagreed with that position and he moved toward the door. Republican staff advised Cox to leave the exhibits and contact the Committee to discuss the matter. Cox had a counter-proposal: “How about I take the exhibits, and you call me?” While Cox ultimately left the documents, any attempt to steal Committee documents is a serious matter. If the motive for stealing Committee documents is to use them to conduct a forensic investigation to identify a Committee source, it creates an extremely sensitive situation.
In the administration of Barack Obama there is a huge divide between spin and reality. Transparency is one area where what the President talks a good game but has no intention of keeping his promises.
Please email me at [email protected] to be put onto my mailing list.
Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com![]()
Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com
Transparency was supposed to be one of those “changes” that Barack Obama promised to bring to Washington DC. Remember this post on Whitehouse.gov?
Transparency like you’ve never seen before October 30, 2009 at 04:31 PM EDT ..Today marks a major milestone in government transparency — and an important lesson in the unintended consequences of such vigorous disclosure. We previously announced that the White House in December of this year would — for the first time in history — begin posting all White House visitor records under the terms of our new voluntary disclosure policy. As part of that initiative, we also offered to look back at the records created before the announcement of the policy and answer specific requests for visitor records created earlier in the year.
We’ve seen that promise broken many times, for example the crafting of the Obamacare bill behind Harry Reid’s closed door or the SHMOTUS (Joe Biden) closed door meeting on transparency (I kid you not).
Today the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a report detailing politicaly-based interference by Obama Administration political appointees in the Department of Homeland Security Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process and the Department’s efforts to obstruct the House committee’s investigation.
The report’s findings include:
- Senior Political Appointees reviewed and approved responses. By the end of September 2009, copies of all significant FOIA requests were required to be forwarded to the Secretary’s political staff for review. The career staff in the FOIA Office was not permitted to release responses to these requests without approval from political staff.
- Political appointees do not acknowledge the approval process. Political appointees refused to acknowledge that approval from the Secretary’s political staff was required to release a response to a significant FOIA request as of September 29, 2009. Their position during transcribed interviews was that the policy was implemented for awareness purposes only. Documents show this position is indefensible.
- Political appointees conduct their own searches.Documents and witness testimony show political appointees run weak and incomplete searches for their own documents. They were allowed to choose their own search terms despite lacking basic understanding of the statute.
- The Department abused the (b)(5) exception. Original versions of documents that were heavily redacted before being released to the Associated Press show the Office of General Counsel relied on exception (b)(5) – normally meant to protect pre-decisional records– to prevent the release of embarrassing records.
- The Secretary’s political staff stopped using e-mail. Political appointees stopped using e-mail to clear response packages in the second quarter of 2010. Instead, they contacted the career staff in the FOIA Office by telephone.
- The Secretary’s political staff marginalized and mismanaged the career FOIA staff. The intrusion of the political staff into the FOIA process wasted the time and resources of the Privacy Office. The deterioration of the relationship between the Front Office and the FOIA Office was accelerated by constant changes to the significant FOIA response process. The constantly-evolving process and burdensome questions from the Secretary’s political staff delayed responses.
That’s not all DHS Attorneys tried to block the Committee’s investigation. For example:
- On January 14, 2011, Chairman Issa requested documents from DHS no later than January 29. While the Department pledged to cooperate with the investigation and did not indicate it would not meet the January 29 deadline, the committee subsequently obtained an e-mail dated January 20, 2011, from the Department’s General Counsel’s office instructing staff not to search for responsive documents.
- Department lawyers did not negotiate the terms of witness interviews in good faith. Over three weeks of negotiation, the Department did not communicate to witnesses that the choice to appear was theirs to make, despite representing to the Committee that they would do so. Additionally, DHS Office of General Counsel representatives pressured one witness to allow them to participate in the planning of, and be present during, her interview.
- After a witness interview on March 4, 2011, a Department lawyer attempted to remove Committee documents from the interview room. DHS Attorney Reid Cox attempted to leave the room with the Committee’s exhibits in his bag. Committee staff asked Cox if he had the exhibits in his bag, and he confirmed that he did. Cox was admonished by Republican and Democratic staff that he was not permitted to leave with the exhibits. Democratic staff advised Cox that the exhibits are Committee documents and as such, they are the property of the Committee and cannot be removed without permission. Cox explained that the Department disagreed with that position and he moved toward the door. Republican staff advised Cox to leave the exhibits and contact the Committee to discuss the matter. Cox had a counter-proposal: “How about I take the exhibits, and you call me?” While Cox ultimately left the documents, any attempt to steal Committee documents is a serious matter. If the motive for stealing Committee documents is to use them to conduct a forensic investigation to identify a Committee source, it creates an extremely sensitive situation.
In the administration of Barack Obama there is a huge divide between spin and reality. Transparency is one area where what the President talks a good game but has no intention of keeping his promises.
Please email me at [email protected] to be put onto my mailing list.
Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com![]()
Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com
Washington (CNN) – You can tell baseball season is just around the corner: Just listen to the House of Representatives debate education reform. During Wednesday’s debate over restarting a school voucher program for District of Columbia residents, lawmakers quoted from the noted educators Leo Durocher, Yogi Berra, Satchel Paige (Twice!) and Casey Stengel.
The baseball greats were on the minds of members from both sides of the aisle.
Republican Representative Rob Bishop of Utah led off: “Durocher always said for his team, that, ‘I make a great effort to argue for the issues but there are two things against me: The Umpires and the Rules.’” Bishop explained his analogy by saying opponents of vouchers have two things against them: The unique Constitutional relationship between the Congress and the District of Columbia and the “underprivileged kids” who will benefit from the bill.
Florida Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings noted a previous Democratic Congress had allowed a DC voucher program to expire and dismissed the effort to revive it as a “shallow attempt” to “appease the right wing of the Republican party.” “My colleague used Leo Durocher. He played with and against Yogi Berra,” Hastings continued. “Yogi Berra reminds me, if I were to use an analogy, this is ‘Déjà vu all over again.’”
In his next at-bat in the debate, Bishop said, “Since, Mister Hastings also used a baseball reference to tie me, I have to one up him one more time. In the words of the great Satchel Paige, who was consulting a struggling pitcher who was failing to get it over on the corners, he just said, ‘Throw the pitch. Just throw strikes. Home plate don’t move.’” Bishop explained the voucher program is “one of those strikes.”
Hastings tossed it right back at Bishop: “Satchel Paige also said, ‘Don’t look back.’”
Later in the debate, Bishop tossed-out another baseball analogy. “Casey Stengel, at one time, -talking about, I think, one of the best second basemen ever, Bobby Richardson- said ‘I just can’t understand it. He doesn’t smoke, he doesn’t drink, he doesn’t stay out at night and he still can’t hit .250.” Admitting it was a non-sequitur, Bishop then complained he couldn’t understand why anyone would oppose the voucher bill because it, “only expands choices for DC’s least-financially-blessed school kids.”
DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton took the floor to complain about the use of “public money for private schools” and, her voice raised, condemned the Republican proposal: “Self government means nothing if the District of Columbia can still be a dumping ground for every pet project and pet idea of the majority. We have our own pet ideas and will insist on the respect for our own pet ideas and not yours!”
She struck out.
The voucher bill passed 225- 195.
San Salvador, El Salvador (CNN) – In the end, President Barack Obama apparently decided that photos of himself touring historic remnants of a collapsed society might not be the best image for a commander in chief fending off charges even from Democrats that his Libya policy is in shambles.
The controversy over the decision to use U.S. military force has gotten so intense that at a news conference here Tuesday, Obama calmly pushed back at his critics by declaring the effort to stem the humanitarian crisis in Libya has paid important dividends by avoiding a massacre of civilians.
San Salvador, El Salvador (CNN) – In the end, President Barack Obama apparently decided that photos of himself touring historic remnants of a collapsed society might not be the best image for a commander in chief fending off charges even from Democrats that his Libya policy is in shambles.
The controversy over the decision to use U.S. military force has gotten so intense that at a news conference here Tuesday, Obama calmly pushed back at his critics by declaring the effort to stem the humanitarian crisis in Libya has paid important dividends by avoiding a massacre of civilians.
San Salvador, El Salvador (CNN) – In the end, President Barack Obama apparently decided that photos of himself touring historic remnants of a collapsed society might not be the best image for a commander in chief fending off charges even from Democrats that his Libya policy is in shambles.
The controversy over the decision to use U.S. military force has gotten so intense that at a news conference here Tuesday, Obama calmly pushed back at his critics by declaring the effort to stem the humanitarian crisis in Libya has paid important dividends by avoiding a massacre of civilians.
Union protests against a Republican governor as well as mass demonstrations aimed at an Egyptian President have been the central focus of our news media the past two months.
But as Big Government's Susan Swift reported Sunday, Brazilians protesting the imminent arrival of Barack Obama hours after he launched missiles at a country that didn't attack America is not considered newsworthy to his many fans in the press here:
In 2007 the MSNBC headline screamed “Protests greet Bush upon arrival in Brazil” and The Guardian one-upped it with “Angry crowds hunt Bush as protests mark start of Latin America tour”. Fast forward to 2011 as another U.S. President faces identical protests and riots. Funny thing, though, this time there is absolute stone cold silence on these protests and riots from the New York Times, CNN, AP, YahooNews, MSNBC, The Guardian, etc. (Politico to its credit reports it).
Politico did indeed offer the following report Friday evening:
Brazilians protesting the imminent visit of President Barack Obama struck the U.S. consulate in Rio de Janeiro with a Molotov cocktail Friday, prompting police to respond with rubber bullets, according to local news accounts.
The U.S. Consulate in Rio said one security guard was treated at a local hospital for minor injuries after the brief demonstration. A radio reporter was hit by the rubber bullets, Brazilian newspaper O Globo reported.
The crowd was protesting U.S. participation in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya, local reports said. While the demonstration outside the U.S. consulate didn't last long, some reports said protests in other parts of the city lasted longer.
This was actually preceded by an Agence France-Presse article published Friday morning and linked by the Drudge Report at 2 PM that afternoon:
President Barack Obama has cancelled a public speech he was scheduled to deliver Sunday in a Rio square during his upcoming visit to Brazil, the US embassy in Brasilia said. […]
On Thursday, members of an advance US security team were seen inspecting the surroundings of Cinelandia, where anti-US banners could be seen hanging from a road-side fence.
Some social and union groups have declared Obama a "persona non grata" and called for a protest, accusing him of a "bellicose policy of occupation" in foreign countries, and of attacking people "in the name of the war on terror."
So, American press outlets were advised no later than early Friday afternoon that Obama had cancelled a public speech in Brazil possibly due to pending protests, and were further informed by Politico that such demonstrations had indeed come to fruition.
On Saturday, China's Xinhua reported the Brazilian Workers' Party disapproved these demonstrations:
Brazil's ruling Workers' Party on Friday said it disapproved of its members who want to participate in demonstrations against U.S. President Barack Obama during his visit to the South American country this weekend.
Humberto Costa, ruling party leader in the Senate, recommended that the party commit to act as the corner stone of Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff's government, adding that participation in anti-Obama protests would be subject to a political incoherence.
"The party must act as the main ally of the government and not just as a party linked to social movements," he said.
Organizations including the Movement of Landless Workers, the National Students Union and a number of labor groups issued a manifesto declaring Obama a "persona non grata" and promised to organize demonstrations on Sunday during his visit to Rio de Janeiro.
Breitbart published a video on Saturday of Brazilian military members breaking up such an anti-Obama protest:
You would think given the media's recent fascination with virtually every protest going on around the globe this would have been right up their collective alley.
Apparently not, as LexisNexis and Google news searches have identified that with the exception of Politico and Forbes.com, no major American media outlet bothered reporting these protests.
From what I can tell, through Sunday evening, not one report concerning these demonstrations was filed by ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, NPR, or PBS. In print, I find absolutely nothing including our wire services.
Not one word.
Readers are reminded that whenever former President George W. Bush was greeted with protests abroad, America's press would cover it like it was a Super Bowl.
And, of course, the demonstrations against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker have been on the press's center stage for over a month.
But when a beloved Democrat President is protested in a foreign land hours after he orders missile strikes on a country that didn't attack us, crickets.
On the other hand, Obama playing soccer with some kids in Rio de Janeiro did get the attention of media outlets such as the Associated Press, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, CNN, the Christian Science Monitor, the Daily News, the Los Angeles Times, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and the Washington Post
And people wonder why this President's poll numbers remain as high as they do despite mass dissatisfaction with his policies: his sycophant devotees in the press do everything in their power to shield the public from any criticism of Obama while hyping every possible positive human interest story involving him, his wife, and his children.
Must be nice to be treated this way by media that are supposed to scrutinize every step you take with a fine-tooth comb.
Readers are advised that ABC has yet to post transcripts for any of its news programs since Sunday morning's "This Week."
In a report for the Associated Press on Sunday, Jim Kuhnhenn fawned over President Obama's tour of Rio De Janeiro during a trip to Brazil: "Obama played grand tourist….The president's sightseeing Sunday was sure to endear him even more to a diverse and multicultural country where his personal story already makes him popular."
The article described how Obama, while visiting a community center in one of Rio's poorest slums, "shed his coat and tie, rolled up his sleeves and dribbled one-on-one soccer with one surprised boy." And noted: "The president walked out into the streets and waved to throngs of residents who cheered him from rooftops and balconies. Dozens of young children pressed up against a chainlink fence trying to get a look."
Kuhnhenn mentioned U.S. military action in Libya as if it were a distraction from Obama's real job: "The president had been on a conference call with his top advisers earlier Sunday to get briefed on the effort as juggled his touristing and economic outreach in Latin America with the unceasing demands of being commander-in-chief."
He went on to observe: "Obama's attention has been divided. He's been forced to shuttle from meetings with his host, President Dilma Rousseff, and with Brazilian and U.S. executives to briefings and secure calls with his national security team. With the conflict in North Africa sure to continue to intrude, Obama was heading from his shanty town tour to deliver a speech promoted as an address to the Brazilian people."
CBS's Sunday edition of the Evening News seemed to pick up on the tone of the AP article, as White House correspondent Chip Reid declared: "It's being called the split-screen presidency – on one side the military operation in Libya; on the other President Obama in Brazil, visiting a Rio de Janeiro shanty town known as the City Of God. And refusing to allow the turmoil in Libya to distract him from what he insists is vitally important business here."
As TimesWatch's Clay Waters reported, Monday's New York Times also praised Obama's stop in Brazil: "Brazilians who gathered at a plaza trying to catch a glimpse of him said that he had inspired millions in this country because of his African heritage."
