Survey: Half of EPA Scientists Complain of
Political Interference, Waxman to Investigate

post from TPMMuckraker on 23 April 2008 12:40:00 PM. © TPMMuckraker

The Union of Concerned Scientists said that more than half of the nearly 1,600 EPA staff scientists who responded online to a detailed questionnaire reported they had experienced incidents of political interference in their work....
Nearly 400 scientists said they had witnessed EPA officials misrepresenting scientific findings, 284 said they had witness the "selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome" and 224 scientists said they had been directed to "inappropriately exclude or alter technical information" in an EPA document.

Just another indication that the EPA has been possibly the most politicized agency in the Bush administration (a bold claim, I know). And what does the EPA have to say about it?

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar attributed some of the discontent to the "passion" scientists have toward their work.

Update: You can see the report here. In response to the UCS survey, one scientist at an EPA regional office wrote: "Do not trust the Environmental Protection Agency to protect your environment."

Update: In a letter to EPA chief Stephen Johnson today, House oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) warned Johnson that he can expect some questions about this when he testifies before the committee in May. That letter is below.

Update: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), calling the report "a scathing indictment of the Bush administration's repeated efforts to twist, misuse, and ignore scientific facts in favor of special interests" has also let it be known that the Senate environmental committee will be digging in on this.

Dear Administrator Johnson:
Today the Union of Concerned Scientists released the results of its survey of nearly 1,600 EPA scientists. The survey's disturbing findings indicate that EPA scientists face significant political interference with their work. I have enclosed the report for your convenience and ask that you be prepared to respond to its findings at May's Oversight Committee hearing.
Almost 1,600 EPA scientists completed the Union of Concerned Scientists survey questionnaire. Over 22% of these scientists reported that "selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome" occurred "frequently" or "occasionally" at EPA. 94 EPA scientists reported being frequently or occasionally "directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from an EPA scientific document." Nearly 200 EPA scientists said that they have frequently or occasionally been in "situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings."
Political appointees at EPA and other agencies appear to be a major source of political interference. Over 500 EPA scientists knew of "many" or "some" cases "where EPA political appointees had inappropriately involved themselves in scientific decisions." Even more EPA scientists knew of "many" or "some" cases "where political appointees from other federal agencies," including the White House, "had inappropriately involved themselves in decisions." In open-ended essay responses, "nearly a hundred EPA scientists identified the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as a primary culprit." These essays included numerous comments like "OMB should stop interfering in EPA Science" and "[t]he unprecedented and unwarranted influence of the EPA's scientific work and findings by the White House and OMB must end."
Overall, 889 EPA scientists said they "personally experienced at least one incident of political interference during the past five years." Based on the survey, there may have been as many as 2,604 incidents of political interference at EPA during that period of time.
When asked about the role of science in EPA decisionmaking, the scientists provided some troubling responses. Nearly half of the scientists said that EPA determinations "occasionally, seldom, or never make use of the best judgment of its scientific staff." Over 550 scientists reported that the agency "occasionally, seldom, or never heeds advice from independent scientific advisory committees."
These survey results suggest a pattern of ignoring and manipulating science in EPA's decisionmaking. At May's hearing, the Committee will examine one apparent example of this disturbing trend: EPA's recent revision of the national air quality standards for ozone. You should also expect members of the Committee to ask about these survey results and other evidence of political interference with science at EPA.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Chairman

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TPMmuckraker/~3/276281616/survey_half_of_epa_scien
tists.php

Digg this

Survey: Half of EPA Scientists Complain of
Political Interference

post from TPMMuckraker on 23 April 2008 12:40:00 PM. © TPMMuckraker

From the AP:

The Union of Concerned Scientists said that more than half of the nearly 1,600 EPA staff scientists who responded online to a detailed questionnaire reported they had experienced incidents of political interference in their work....
Nearly 400 scientists said they had witnessed EPA officials misrepresenting scientific findings, 284 said they had witness the "selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome" and 224 scientists said they had been directed to "inappropriately exclude or alter technical information" in an EPA document.

Just another indication that the EPA has been possibly the most politicized agency in the Bush administration (a bold claim, I know). And what does the EPA have to say about it?

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar attributed some of the discontent to the "passion" scientists have toward their work.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TPMmuckraker/~3/276281616/survey_half_of_epa_scien
tists.php

Digg this

Counting the people

post from MyDD on 23 April 2008 12:37:54 PM. © MyDD

Via the Fact Hub this morning: After last night's decisive victory in Pennsylvania, more people have voted for Hillary than any other candidate, including Sen. Obama. Estimates vary slightly, but according to Real Clear Politics, Hillary has received[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/mydd/~3/276251163/921

Digg this

Yesterday's Other Primary

post from Daily Kos on 23 April 2008 12:36:33 PM. © Daily Kos

A one would expect, turnout in Pennsylvania's Democratic primary was far higher than the Republican turnout. With a handful of precincts still yet to report, we have 2,280,870 Democratic votes and only 791,205 Republican votes. But check out the percentages:

99.34% precincts reporting.

McCain 72.7 Paul 15.9 Huckabee 11.4

Over a quarter of the Republicans who showed up voted against their certain nominee, John McCain. Combined with the Republicans' failure to defeat Democratic Travis Childers in heavily Republican MS-01, what we see is a Republican party with some serious problems.

Some will argue that Republican weakness means that there's no damage being done by Hillary Clinton staying in a contest she can't win. That's not true, especially when one considers the tremendous opportunity costs being paid by not running exclusively against a weakened John McCain. But it is heartening to see that while we're missing an opportunity to pound John McCain early and work toward exposing him to the American people as anything but a reforming "maverick," there are at least some serious weaknesses in the Republican brand, and some evident dissatisfaction among Republicans with their presumptive nominee.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/276249550/241

Digg this

Hillary won't stop, even if Obama gets enough
SuperDelegates to become the nominee

post from AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth on 23 April 2008 12:25:00 PM. © AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth

It's time to stop playing this game where we pretend the Clintons play politics like normal Democrats. They don't. They're vicious and nasty and have perfect the art of personal destruction after years of being on the receiving end. (Talk about the abused becoming the abuser.) Hillary isn't going to stop when the SuperDs finally give Obama the majority he needs. She's taking this all the way to the convention and she's going to contest the Michigan and Florida delegates. She's already told us she's taking this to the convention. After she's pulled the most racist presidential campaign since Willy Horton, after she's been willing to bring up Swift Boat-style attacks against Obama that even the GOP won't touch, why does anyone think she won't risk the utter destruction of the party by taking this thing to the nomination? She's told us that's exactly what she's planning on doing. Has she shown any self-restraint, or higher concern for the party, up until now? At some point, Hillary is going to cross one line too many, and she's going to get the civil war she seems to be itching for. And if she thinks the party is going to unite around her after she steals the election, then she hasn't spent a lot of time reading blogs or following the grassroots. She's going to get an all-out war, she's going to split the party, and if she steals the nomination, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Democrats actively try to make her lose the general election. And there will be nothing the party elders can do about it once it happens.

Can we impeach a nominee?

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Americablog/~3/276409486/hillary-wont-stop-even-if
-obama-gets.html

Digg this

Get Fitzgerald!

post from TPMMuckraker on 23 April 2008 12:18:00 PM. © TPMMuckraker

Call it a missed opportunity. The Chicago Tribune reports this morning that Ali Ata, a former official from Gov. Rod Blagojevich's (D) administration who's pleaded guilty to corruption charges, will testify that Tony Rezko told him that he had an inside track to getting U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald canned.

This all apparently happened back in 2004, when the Rezko investigation was just getting off the ground. Now Rezko is on trial for rigging state boards for contracts. And Ata will apparently testify that Rezko told him that Bob Kjellander, a connected Republican who's currently vice chairman of the Republican National Convention, "was working with Karl Rove to have Mr. Fitzgerald removed."

Now, at the time, Rove would have had his own reasons to see Fitzgerald canned -- he'd just been tapped in December, 2003 as the special counsel to investigate CIA agent Valerie Plame's outing. But that would sure have been a bold move even for Rove. We've put in a call to Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin and we'll let you know if he responds.

This was not the last time that an administration official might have mulled firing Fitzgerald. Former chief of staff to Alberto Gonzales Kyle Sampson testified last year that he'd suggested canning the U.S. attorney in a conversation in the White House with Harriet Miers and her deputy in 2006. The two of them "just looked" at him, he said. When asked why he'd suggested it, Sampson testified that maybe it was just to "get a reaction out of them."

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TPMmuckraker/~3/276263200/get_fitzgerald.php

Digg this

Democratic Primary Election Map: Clintons
Pennsylvania Win Keeps Her Alive

post from Jutia Group on 23 April 2008 12:05:10 PM. © Jutia Group

For all of you political junkies looking for a quick recap of last night’s primary contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, I’ve compiled a projection video and a few maps for you to view. Clinton scored a much needed 55% to 45% victory and has already begun to pull in the necessary donations to [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/jutiagroup/~3/276258543/

Digg this

FOX and Clintonite Davis Attack Howard Dean

video details and more

Lanny Davis on FOX News, April 22, 2008

Read The Full Article:
http://foxattacks.com/blog/36697-fox-and-clintonite-davis-attack-howard-dean

Digg this

Prison Nation Update

More essential reading from Adam Liptak -- the lead paragraph says it all:

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population. But it has almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners.

The U.S. leads the world in imprisoning its population: 751 people are in prison for every 100,000 in the population. Russia comes in second, with 627 out of 100,000 behind bars. The numbers for England and Germany are 151 and 88 per 100,000, respectively. Why are the U.S. numbers so high?

Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.

How is America's "lock 'em up" mentality perceived in the rest of the world? (more ...)

Criminologists and legal scholars in other industrialized nations say they are mystified and appalled by the number and length of American prison sentences. ... “Far from serving as a model for the world, contemporary America is viewed with horror,” James Q. Whitman, a specialist in comparative law at Yale, wrote last year in Social Research.

A good number of people involved in the American legal system feel the same way. Politicians, ever fearful of being labeled soft on crime, not so much.

As Liptak notes, many argue that long sentences equate to less crime, but evidence in support of that proposition is sketchy at best. Is there significantly less drug use now than there was 30 years ago, when politicians declared war on drugs?

Some of the pro-incarceration arguments are misleading. Consider the comments of Paul Cassell, a former federal judge:

From 1981 to 1996, according to Justice Department statistics, the risk of punishment rose in the United States and fell in England. The crime rates predictably moved in the opposite directions, falling in the United States and rising in England.
“These figures,” Mr. Cassell wrote, “should give one pause before too quickly concluding that European sentences are appropriate.”

There is a difference between "risk of punishment" and "severity of punishment." The notion that potential burglar, who serves an average of 16 months if convicted in the U.S., would be more inclined to commit burglaries if the average were only 5 months, as it is in Canada, is ridiculous. Potential criminals might be deterred by the risk of being caught, but there's no evidence that they factor the potential length of sentence into their decision-making about whether to commit a crime.

Liptak notes that Canada provides an interesting comparison that suggests ever-increasing incarceration rates have little impact on crime:

“Rises and falls in Canada’s crime rate have closely paralleled America’s for 40 years,” [Michael] Tonry wrote last year. “But its imprisonment rate has remained stable.”</blockquote
It's time to reassess the costs and benefits of living in prison nation.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TalkleftThePoliticsOfCrime/~3/276235211/70518

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Post to Furl Add to reddit Add to myYahoo!

Untangling The Republican Corruption Web

Looks like the Abramoff corruption mess has netted another plea deal. This time, it's one that puts a whole host of "other officials" (note the plural in that) -- both within the Department of Justice and within the government at large -- on the[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/23/untangling-the-republican-corruption-web/

Digg this