And yet another BPA bottle problem

As a long time user of Nagel bottles, I was disappointed to discover the problems with BPA. (I also have a hard plastic though not necessarily clear Nagel that I still love as well as the collapsible Nagel bottles that do not have BPA, fortunately.) One of my backup bottles was the Swiss-made Sigg bottle. Aluminum on the outside and yes, BPA "traces" on the inside. I immediately went to their site to figure out how to trade it in and am waiting for a response. Their blog is full of weasel words written by attorneys but hopefully they are sincere with the trade-in policy. Traces or not, wouldn't it be nice if a business could be upfront and honest for once? And of course, who knows what funny chemicals might be in the new bottles.

Now this shocker from Sigg Switzerland: Bottles made by the company before August 2008 had "trace amounts" of BPA in the epoxy liners. Sigg officials knew it since June 2006, but didn't announce it until last month.

Indignant Sigg owners like Farber have been blogging and tweeting up a tsunami. After all, the colorful bottles — which can sell for more than $20 — have serious green cred among the stylish and health conscious. Bottle designs include not only funky graphic patterns, pictures of Hello Kitty or skulls, but also slogans like "SIMPLY ECO LOGICAL."

"I did feel betrayed by a company that was putting itself out there as a green and safe company," said Farber, whose girls are now 2 and 4. "Why wasn't this disclosed earlier?"

Concerns about BPA stem from the fact that it can mimic estrogen, a powerful hormone. The Food and Drug Administration is reviewing its conclusion from last year that its use in baby bottles and food containers is safe for infants.

Read the rest of this post...

WSJ: Obama reached out to Tom Coburn for advice on health care reform

Yes, it's the WSJ, and it's owned by Murdoch. Once upon a time, you could trust the Journal's news division, even though their editorial stance was staunchly conservative. Sadly, with Murdoch in charge, we have no idea if the Wall Street Journal's news division is real, or simply a wholly-own subsidiary of FOX News. Still, Jonathan Weisman, who wrote the story, is a real journalist, formerly of the Washington Post, so it's worth exploring what he says:

Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) got a call at home from Mr. Obama on a Saturday morning in late July. The two have been close since the president was a senator. "You need to take what you want to do and really spell it out," Mr. Coburn says he told the president. "You need to see if you can get some of us to come across the line, and accomplish 80% of what you want to do."

"I understand what you're saying," Mr. Coburn says Mr. Obama told him, "but I don't think we're there yet."

It's hard to tell what's more disturbing, that Obama would ask arch-conservative Tom Coburn for advice, or that Coburn's advice was actually worthwhile, and Obama blew it off.

Some Democrats say the president exacerbated the message problem by being too distant from the legislative process and too vague to the public about his aims. (The White House says it was right to stay aloof from the process but is now ready to wade in.) Democrats also say that for all their preparations, they never anticipated Republicans and their allies rolling out incendiary accusations that the Obama plan would empower "death panels," help illegal immigrants and raid Medicare.

I'm simply not familiar with an effective battle strategy that consists of sitting back and doing nothing for 90% of the war, while the enemy destroys you. Slow and steady does not win the race when you refuse to even defend yourself, let alone go on the attack. Also, this notion of no one anticipating that the Republicans would be so mean. With all due respect, anyone who didn't anticipate the Republicans would go all out to stop health care reform should resign their job immediately. Read the rest of this post...

Report: YouTube to rent movies

This would be pretty big news if it works out. More competition would definitely be a good thing. Reuters:

Online video site YouTube is in talks with several major movie studios about renting movies to users by streaming the movies over the Internet according to a person familiar with the talks Wednesday.

YouTube, which is owned by Internet search giant Google, has held discussions with Lions Gate Entertainment, Sony Pictures, a unit of Sony, and Time Warner's Warner Brothers about online movie rentals, the person said.

In many cases, the movies would be available for rental for a fee in a system similar to Web rental programs from Apple's iTunes with newer movies. It would mark the first time YouTube has charged users to watch videos.

Read the rest of this post...

Is this a wise thing to telegraph publicly?

From today's NYT:

By signaling that they would seek to revise existing versions of legislation moving through the House and Senate, administration officials and Democratic leaders in Congress — many of whom had said earlier in the summer that they saw no need to scale back their ambitions — made clear that their political calculations had changed. With Congressional Republicans standing almost unanimously in opposition to the Democratic approach, the target now for Mr. Obama is primarily a handful of moderate Democrats and the one Republican who seems open to a deal, Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine.

“It’s so important to get a deal,” a White House official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to be candid about strategy. “He will do almost anything it takes to get one.”

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but this doesn't read like determination, it reads like desperation - an admission that Obama will agree to almost anything in order to get "some" deal, any deal. Why admit that fact publicly - as disturbing as it would be privately - and why does this not give the Republicans that much more incentive to go for broke, and either bring the deal down entirely (since Obama is so desperate for it), or so pervert health care reform that it becomes virtually unrecognizable (think: giving away 40% of the stimulus bill as worthless tax cuts in order to buy 3 votes).

UPDATE: It's not just me, Barb and Jed over at DKos read this the same way. Read the rest of this post...

Progressive House leaders to Obama: No bill without public option. And, they want to meet with him.

Via Greg Sargent, the progressives in the House -- the folks who someone in the White House wants to Sister Souljah -- aren't playing games anymore. And, they're not dealing with Rahm Emanuel. They're going right to the President to tell him their position on the public option: They won't support a bill without it. And, they want to tell him to his face:

In a letter delivered to the White House moments ago, the two leaders of the bloc of House progressives bluntly told President Obama that they will not support any health care plan without a public option in it — and demanded a meeting to inform him face to face.

The [not-yet-released] letter — the first joint statement from progressives since news emerged that Obama might not address the public option in next week’s speech — is their sharpest challenge yet to the president, given the extraordinary sensitivity of this political moment. The letter urges him to mention the public option in his speech.

So, we know Obama has met with the Blue Dogs to discuss health care. And, he spent an evening in early August with the "Gang of Six." Both of those groups tend to undermine Obama's agenda. Will he meet with the Congressional Progressive Caucus? This is a group that actually shares Obama's vision and supports him on the issues. So, we look forward to hearing about this meeting, when and if it happens. Read the rest of this post...

TPM: White House staffers warn groups not to spend money pushing public option

Another warning from the White House for liberal groups:

Low-level White House officials have reached out to certain reform groups that have staked their ground on the need for a public option, I'm told, and warned them not to spend any more money advocating for the policy--that it's just not worth it. That suggestion hasn't been heeded--at least for now. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and Democracy for America raised over $100,000 to continue running this ad in Iowa after Congress returns from recess.

So, this is where the White House staffers are putting their energy. Brian Buetler, who wrote this piece, is a very good reporter with excellent sources.

But, I'd like to take this a step further: Which groups got called by the White House? And, which low-level staffers made the calls? And, does anyone listen to these White House staffers anymore? Specifically, what about the institutional groups in DC?

Sounds like those groups are heading for another screaming, swearing hissy fit from Rahm Emanuel. That's his schtick. He did that a couple weeks ago. When Rahm swears, all of Washington must cower. The blogs don't. But, much of institutional D.C. still does.

Rahm and his cohorts have done enormous damage to this presidency already. The White House staffers don't fight for what Obama purports to believe in. Instead, they fight and threaten and warn groups that are doing the work to enact Obama's stated agenda. If only the White House put as much energy into formulating an effective, coherent message as it did to thwart the allied groups, we might make some progress.

So, any groups want to come forward and spill the beans? A couple months ago, it seemed like every group in town cowered before this White House. No one would speak up in fear of not being invited to a meeting or a party. Those days should be long gone. If the groups don't challenge this White House, this White House will forsake it's stated policy goals in a second. That's what we learned from the DOMA battle. And, while that's we'd expect from a White House run by Rahm Emanuel, it's not what we were led to believe would happen in a White House led by Barack Obama. Read the rest of this post...

Wonk Room's analysis of new White House game plan on health care spending

From Think Progress' Health Care Wonk Room:

Meanwhile, Jonathan Cohn explains that extending affordable coverage to all Americans would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5 trillion “if done properly.” “Anything less and you have to start cutting back. You offer lower subsidies. You provide people with weaker, less protective insurance. You roll out changes over time.” Cohn believes that the administration is trying to lower the cost of the reform to around $700 billion, a number that would require very serious cut backs in subsidies and could potentially endanger the effectiveness of an individual mandate. “[Y]]ou’ll end up reducing them down to levels where large numbers of people still couldn’t afford insurance. And if people can’t afford insurance, you can’t make them buy it,” Cohn concludes.

In other words, at $700 billion, health reform becomes somewhat ineffectual or at best, incremental; it’s certainly not universal. At $700 billion, the final bill would likely include “the structural and regulatory changes around which universal coverage could eventually be built,” but it would further put off “the dream” of universal coverage and would likely do very little to lower long-term health care spending.

Ultimately, the President has a choice to make. He can either scale down reform — in an effort to please conservative Democrats and Olympia Snowe — and abandon good policy and his liberal base, or he can throw his support behind a robust reform plan and stake his entire presidency on seeing it pass.

Read the rest of this post...

'Mission Accomplished' moment on the economy

Maybe everyone should sit tight and see how everything plays out before crowning the savior of the economy. Yes, there are positive signs out there and the economy may be coming out of recession. The economy could very easily slip back into recession soon after and the full extent of the costs are not yet known. Will taxes increase? Will more services be slashed? Inflation? Less competition and higher costs for investments due to failure to act? We're at least a year out from deciding who saved us, if anyone actually did save us from depression. CNNMoney:

Although the recession isn't officially over yet, there is a growing sense that the economy is now in a recovery. But there is also a growing debate about who deserves the credit.

The question of who should receive praise for helping to get the economy back on track may seem trivial. But knowing what policies worked, and which ones need to stay in place, could keep the recovery from stalling out.

Many in Washington have gone to extraordinary lengths to try and turn around the economy over the past year or so.

Read the rest of this post...

Why Grassley turned on Obama

This assumes, of course, that Grassley's intent was ever pure. From TIME:

Grassley is not immune to the pressures from his party. Iowa Republicans have been trending rightward; socially conservative Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee won last year's presidential caucuses there. Opposition groups have been running ads in the state criticizing Grassley for his role in the health-care negotiations, and back in Washington, Senate GOP leaders have made no secret of their anxiety about it. "Senator Grassley has been given no authority to negotiate anything by all of us Republicans on that committee," said Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Senate GOP whip. What's more, Grassley's term as ranking Republican on the powerful tax-writing panel will expire at the end of 2010; he stands to assume that spot on the Judiciary Committee, but the Republican leadership could block him from getting it. Things have become so uncomfortable for Grassley at times that he has mused privately about retiring, telling colleagues, "Maybe I should just go home and ride my tractor."

Read the rest of this post...

Oh yeah, about that gay rights promise... never mind

I really don't like being right about these things. Joe and I, and everyone else in the Netroots, went all out to elect a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress. It doesn't make us happy to see our concerns about their competence and character come to fruition. But today we have word from the Democrats that this year is a bad time to lift the ban on gays in the military, and next year won't work because - as Joe and I predicted repeatedly - it's a congressional election year, and keeping the Democrats' civil rights promises may anger the religious right (duh), the Dems are now telling us. So the next two years won't work for Don't Ask Don't Tell (and apparently any other gay rights promise). Of course, that means that the next year, 2011, won't work either, because it is the beginnings of the presidential primaries, and the year after that won't work, 2012, since it's a presidential election year and a congressional election year.

That means that the President and the Congress might keep the civil rights promises to tens of millions of gay and lesbian Americans some time in 2013, assuming Obama wins re-election or another Democrat takes his place. That of course assume that we aren't facing another economic crisis, or are fighting a war, or have the need to pass some other large piece of legislation - then the gays may have to wait until 2017, provided another Democrat wins the presidency, and the nation has no other important issues to address for a while. Barb over at DKos has a bit more. Read the rest of this post...

Conservative David Brooks thinks Obama should move more to the center

Enough said.

Amazingly, some liberals are now lashing out at Obama because the entire country doesn’t agree with The Huffington Post. Some now argue that the administration should just ignore the ignorant masses and ram health care through using reconciliation, the legislative maneuver that would reduce the need for moderate votes.

This would be suicidal. You can’t pass the most important domestic reform in a generation when the majority of voters think you are on the wrong path. To do so would be a sign of unmitigated arrogance....

Most Americans still admire Obama and want him to succeed. But if he doesn’t proceed in a manner consistent with the spirit of the nation and the times, voters will find a way to stop him.

The president’s challenge now is to halt the slide. That doesn’t mean giving up his goals. It means he has to align his proposals to the values of the political center: fiscal responsibility, individual choice and decentralized authority.

Events have pushed Barack Obama off to the left. Time to rebalance.

There's a common fallacy in Brooks' piece that you often hear from Obama defenders on the left as well. That it's a radical, fringe idea to ask that Obama keep his promises. I suppose, to some degree, it is rather fringe in politics to expect that a politician not lie to you in exchange for your vote.

The second flawed argument is that those promises are so extreme that they can't be kept. A few problems here. First, the majority of the public supports the public option. Second, even if the public option weren't doing well in the polls, first you fight like mad for it, then you decide if you have to give it up during negotiations. Obama's approach on issue after issue is to cave at the beginning of a negotiation in order to avoid a fight at all costs. Read the rest of this post...

Azerbaijan jails two kids for making funny YouTube video critical of government

Find the phone number and general email address for the Azerbaijani embassy in your country here.

Azerbaijan embassy in DC: 202-337-3500 / 202-337-5912
UN Mission: 212-371-2559

Email a number of Azerbaijani officials by clicking here.

MESSAGE: Free Andnan Hajizade and Emin Milli.

The video is actually pretty funny (you can see it below) - it's subtitled in that almost-intentional Soviet-speak English that makes it even more unintentionally funny. Of course, being a good former-Soviet state, the Azeri government is still longing for the old days when citizens knew their place (somewhere in a gulag, if they were lucky):

Two video bloggers from Azerbaijan are being held in prison by local authorities after uploading a satirical video to YouTube, according to a BBC News report. Andnan Hajizade and Emin Milli are part of a youth movement known as “OL !” that works towards a democratic civil society in Azerbaijan. The duo produced and uploaded a video of a press conference with a guy in a donkey suit in late June. The clip criticized Azerbaijan’s government for new laws against NGOs while making fun of staged government press conferences.

The video makers were arrested in early July after allegedly taking part in a scuffle at a restaurant — a charge that has been widely criticized as being politically motivated and an attempt to legitimize censorship of the duo. Hajizade and Milli were officially charged with hooliganism, which could land them in prison for up to five years. Their trial is scheduled to begin this Friday.

The video in question shows a donkey at a press conference, where uncritical journalists ask him questions like what kind of animal he would like to be in his next life. His answer is full of praise for his host country: “In Azerbaijan possibilities for donkeys are enormous. If you are donkey enough, you can succeed in possibly everything.”

Read the rest of this post...

"High-minded fecklessness" - "gutless wonder"

As Joe and I warned, the debate has now moved from policy to Obama's character. This is dangerous territory for the President. If enough Democrats question whether Obama has what it takes to be president, that message will seep into the public at large. I suspect it already has. And conclusions about your character are very difficult to ever recover from. Thus, the issue isn't whether "the left of the left" is losing confidence in Obama, it's whether disaffection with the president in the Democratic base will poison his credibility, and damage his brand, with all voters.

From Gene Lyons at Salon:

Striking poses cost them nothing. Stimulus money found its way into their districts anyway. Remarkably, Obama failed to get the message. Seemingly preoccupied with the president's image as a transformative figure, the White House keeps trying to negotiate with people who seek his political destruction.

On healthcare reform, Obama has mainly his own high-minded fecklessness to blame. To alter the cliché, he hasn't just brought a knife to a gunfight, he's brought a cake knife. The GOP's armed for war; he's showed up with a multilayered birthday cake of a bill hardly anybody understands.

While insurance reform's opponents peddle hysterical falsehoods, Obama counters with professorial explanations. Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley's shameful endorsement of "death panels" should have taught Obama the futility of making nice.

Does being compared to Hitler annoy Obama? How can anybody tell?

....You won't hear this on TV, but Obama's slumping approval numbers reflect that many Democrats now worry he's a gutless wonder.

Read the rest of this post...

First ad from No on 1/Protect Maine Equality: Meet the Putnam family

Yesterday, the Maine Secretary of State certified that the anti-gay forces collected enough signatures to get the measure to repeal marriage equality on the ballot. So, game on. Voting begins in a month, as Maine has very liberal absentee voting laws. With no time to waste, today, the No on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign launched its first campaign t.v. ads.

Meet the Putnam Family:


I really like this ad. It's powerful and is a great way to start. There's another ad featuring the father of a lesbian who delivers a strong message of support for equality. That ad is here.

No on 1/Protect Maine Equality is running a very aggressive, pro-active campaign to save the state's new marriage equality law. The people managing our campaign know Maine and they learned from Prop. 8 in California last year -- and the same firm, Schubert-Flint, which led the anti-gay "Yes on Prop. 8" side to victory, is running the campaign in Maine.

Our side needs help. Our ActBlue page is here. Our readers from across the country have been very, very generous, knowing that what happens in Maine matters to all of us. AMERICAblog has the top ActBlue page supporting marriage equality in Maine. Now, we can see how our money is being used. Help keep this ad -- and others -- on the air. We're off to a good start. Read the rest of this post...

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

I'm running a little late today. Not sure if it's because the weather has cooled down and it's good sleeping weather or because I've got that same sense of anger I had a year ago, two years ago, three years ago...etc. I don't want to be angry. I thought this year was going to be fun. It hasn't been. The most annoying part is how the White House brain trust is angry at Obama's base because we actually expected Obama to keep his promises (like he said he would.) Some day, people will study how Rahm Emanuel, Jim Messina, David Axelrod and others destroyed the Obama brand in such a short amount of time. I want Obama to succeed. But, I want the Obama from the campaign to succeed. Is that too much to ask?

Anyway, let's get started... Read the rest of this post...

Please take our "Obama Approval Rating" poll

It's been a while since we've done a poll. Now seems a rather opportune time. You'll find our poll in the top of the next column, to the right. It will be open all day, and close this evening. Thanks. Read the rest of this post...

Americans delaying retirement due to financial stress

It's an understandable problem for many Americans yet the response from Washington on the crisis remains a mystery. In a normally functioning system, older workers retire which opens up space for younger workers to enter. Thanks to changes by the Republicans back in the 1980s, many Americans are much more reliant on the whims of Wall Street for their financial security. Somehow both Congress and the White House thought that it was OK to talk about the Wall Street failures without actually doing anything about it. The made-for-TV moments were all great fun but wouldn't it have been nice to see someone bother to rein in the gamblers of Wall Street who pilfered other peoples money?

Now we are faced with the problem of backlog in employment when we need to inject new workers yet it will take some time. Wall Street has nicely bounced back with bonuses that are as bloated as ever though the rewards to customers are nowhere to be found. Considering how critical this issue was during the election and all of the talk about this being the worst recession since the Great Depression (the Great Recession as some call this) there remains a lack of seriousness throughout the political leadership in Washington. Tackling the tough issues was supposed to be a priority rather than an afterthought as it is today.

To the long list of reasons American companies aren’t hiring — business losses, tight credit, consumer retrenchment — add the fact that many of their older workers are unable, or afraid, to retire.

In other parts of the developed world, people are retiring as planned, because of relatively flush state and corporate pensions that await them. But here in the United States, financial security in old age rests increasingly on private savings, which have taken a beating in the last year. Prospective retirees are clinging to their jobs despite some cherished life plans.

As a result, companies are not only reluctant to create new jobs, but have fewer job openings to fill from attrition. For the 14 million Americans looking for work — a number expected to rise in Friday’s jobs report for August — this lack of turnover has made a tough job market even tougher.

Read the rest of this post...

British conservatives signing up for climate change campaign

Whether they are sincere is a side issue a this point. When is the last time we saw Republicans do anything remotely similar? The leadership today can't even admit that it's a problem so agreeing to take action against climate change would be a negative during the primary where each Republican tries to out-stupid the other. Any sign of forward thinking (and lack of knuckle-dragging) will be a sign of weakness in their circles, leading to defeat. For now, at least, the knuckle-dragging is limited to the backbenchers in the UK.

Organisers of the 10:10 campaign said last night that more than 8,000 individuals had signed up. Some 270 businesses, including law firm Pinsent Masons, Reed Recruitment, Ocado and Oracle, and four major power companies, have so far pledged their support, as well as nine councils, 42 schools and 125 other organisations, such as the thinktank Demos.

Actor Alan Rickman, comedian Shazia Mirza and former England footballer Graeme Le Saux were among those who committed to cut their own emissions yesterday, joining a roster of high profile backers that includes Delia Smith, Colin Firth, Nicholas Stern and Stella McCartney.

The shadow energy secretary, Greg Clark, said: "Conservatives strongly support this campaign. Once again it shows how voluntary action can show the way, proving that a low-carbon future is an essential, achievable and urgent priority."

Energy and climate secretary Ed Miliband spoke to the 10:10 launch event at Tate Modern from India via phone link. He pledged to cut his personal carbon footprint and emissions from his department's headquarters by 10% in 2010.

Read the rest of this post...

New Japanese first lady sounds, um, interesting

I think we've all been abducted by aliens at least once.

Miyuki Hatoyama, wife of Japan's Prime Minister-elect, Yukio Hatoyama, is a lifestyle guru, a macrobiotics enthusiast, an author of cookery books, a retired actress, a divorcee, and a fearless clothes horse for garments of her own creation, including a skirt made from Hawaiian coffee sacks. But there is more, much more. She has travelled to the planet Venus. And she was once abducted by aliens.

The 62-year-old also knew Tom Cruise in a former incarnation – when he was Japanese – and is now looking forward to making a Hollywood movie with him. "I believe he'd get it if I said to him, 'Long time no see', when we meet," she said in a recent interview. But it is her claim in a book entitled "Very Strange Things I've Encountered" that she was abducted by aliens while she slept one night 20 years ago, that has suddenly drawn attention following last Sunday's poll.

"While my body was asleep, I think my soul rode on a triangular-shaped UFO and went to Venus," she explains in the tome she published last year. "It was a very beautiful place, and it was very green."

Read the rest of this post...

Pittsburgh paper to start charging for some content

Guardian:

A newspaper in the former steel town of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, has taken a giant leap for the US news industry by starting to charge for some of the content it posts on its website.

With proprietors of many of the top US newspapers now actively considering charging for web content amid dire financial projections, the decision by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette marks one of the first examples of a general interest title to make the jump. Until now the rare examples of charging – notably the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times – have tended to be specialist financial publications.

In fact, the NYT tried this too. It didn't work.

The new charging scheme has been branded PG+, and attempts to attract paying readers to its internet content by giving them the cachet of belonging to an exclusive club. It promises to give subscribers extra content they will not find on the newspaper's website, as well as direct access through web chat conducted through the site to columnists and reporters, invitations to special events and offers and perks.

Hmm. Cachet? Not sure about that one. I feel for them. We're all trying to figure, and refigure, out how to make money in this medium. And it's real work writing for a living. So I won't knock their efforts to figure out how to make their online work viable. I'm just not sure that this is the answer. Read the rest of this post...