get current url php get url php tutorial php get page url.
get your current web url.
php theblogosfer
php tutorials
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Thursday, 26 March 2009
dummy blog
apa yang dimaksud dengan dummy blog? temukan jawabannya di dummy blog.
anda bisa menaikkan peringkat anda di google dengan dummy blog.
semakin banyak dummy blog semakin bagus cuy!!!!!
aku punya bbrp dummy blog
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
FDA seeks rapid test for salmonella
Send plans and specifications to Uncle Sam, care of the Food and Drug Administration.
Frustrated that conventional lab methods can now take as long as nine days to identify the most common of food bugs, the FDA is searching for a rapid test for salmonella.
Two recent outbreaks — one involving peanut butter, the other blamed on tomatoes and hot peppers — have put the agency on the spot.
Each time the FDA had pieces of the puzzle, but it took a while to fill in the complete picture. The uncertainty made consumers nervous about eating everyday foods. Food producers lost millions in forgone sales and recalled products. Lawmakers fumed. One congressman likened the government's disease detectives to the Keystone Kops.
Since other outbreaks are likely to happen, FDA officials are desperately seeking anything that would make their response more efficient.
"The goal here isn't to design some sort of 'Star Trek' gizmo," said Dr. David Acheson, assistant commissioner for food safety. "We're looking for something that can save us 12 hours here, 12 hours there. If we can shave it to five days, that would be a step forward."
Michael Doyle, head of the food safety program at the University of Georgia, said the FDA should aim high. "To identify an outbreak can take two to three weeks, if they can get that down to three days, it would be a major step forward."
The FDA has asked the Pentagon, the Homeland Security and Agriculture departments, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lend their expertise. The Agriculture Department and the CDC also contend with salmonella outbreaks. Homeland Security has responsibility for combatting bioterrorism. And the Pentagon is skilled at evaluating all kinds of technology.
"We approached these guys, and they're interested in working jointly," said Acheson.
The first step is to see whether any private companies or academic research centers are working on a rapid test. Then Acheson wants to select two or three methods to evaluate more closely. Finally he'd compare specific techniques and devices in head-to-head lab tests.
One of the reasons it can take so long to identify salmonella is that samples submitted to the lab may not have enough of the bacteria. More bacteria have to be cultured in a nutrient-rich broth to make an identification.
"I can't make the bugs divide any quicker," said Acheson. "But what if we had tools that could work off a smaller number of organisms? I think there is time to be shaved there."
If the initial screening finds salmonella, more testing is needed to match its particular genetic fingerprint to the outbreak strain.
The easiest thing would be to have a portable device that inspectors could carry with them. They could take a tomato, pulverize it, inject the juice into the device, and get an answer in a matter of hours.
"That would be the Holy Grail," said Acheson.
___
On the Net:
CDC salmonella page: http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/
Frustrated that conventional lab methods can now take as long as nine days to identify the most common of food bugs, the FDA is searching for a rapid test for salmonella.
Two recent outbreaks — one involving peanut butter, the other blamed on tomatoes and hot peppers — have put the agency on the spot.
Each time the FDA had pieces of the puzzle, but it took a while to fill in the complete picture. The uncertainty made consumers nervous about eating everyday foods. Food producers lost millions in forgone sales and recalled products. Lawmakers fumed. One congressman likened the government's disease detectives to the Keystone Kops.
Since other outbreaks are likely to happen, FDA officials are desperately seeking anything that would make their response more efficient.
"The goal here isn't to design some sort of 'Star Trek' gizmo," said Dr. David Acheson, assistant commissioner for food safety. "We're looking for something that can save us 12 hours here, 12 hours there. If we can shave it to five days, that would be a step forward."
Michael Doyle, head of the food safety program at the University of Georgia, said the FDA should aim high. "To identify an outbreak can take two to three weeks, if they can get that down to three days, it would be a major step forward."
The FDA has asked the Pentagon, the Homeland Security and Agriculture departments, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lend their expertise. The Agriculture Department and the CDC also contend with salmonella outbreaks. Homeland Security has responsibility for combatting bioterrorism. And the Pentagon is skilled at evaluating all kinds of technology.
"We approached these guys, and they're interested in working jointly," said Acheson.
The first step is to see whether any private companies or academic research centers are working on a rapid test. Then Acheson wants to select two or three methods to evaluate more closely. Finally he'd compare specific techniques and devices in head-to-head lab tests.
One of the reasons it can take so long to identify salmonella is that samples submitted to the lab may not have enough of the bacteria. More bacteria have to be cultured in a nutrient-rich broth to make an identification.
"I can't make the bugs divide any quicker," said Acheson. "But what if we had tools that could work off a smaller number of organisms? I think there is time to be shaved there."
If the initial screening finds salmonella, more testing is needed to match its particular genetic fingerprint to the outbreak strain.
The easiest thing would be to have a portable device that inspectors could carry with them. They could take a tomato, pulverize it, inject the juice into the device, and get an answer in a matter of hours.
"That would be the Holy Grail," said Acheson.
___
On the Net:
CDC salmonella page: http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/
Less body armor might be the answer in Afghanistan
Heavy layers of body armor, a proven lifesaver of U.S. troops, also may be an impediment to winning the fight in Afghanistan, where 17,000 additional American forces are being sent to quell rising violence.
Weighing as much as 34 pounds each, the protective vests hinder American forces hunting down more agile insurgents who use the country's rugged peaks and valleys to their advantage, according to military officials.
The proper balance between troop safety and mobility will be examined this week during a series of oversight hearings by the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. Beginning Tuesday, senior Army and Marine Corps leaders are scheduled to testify on a wide range of subjects, including force protection, readiness levels and ergonomic injuries.
When body armor is added to the assault rifles, ammunition, water and other essential gear troops are required to carry, they can be lugging as much as 80 pounds into combat. Besides moving more slowly, overburdened troops tire more quickly and are prone to orthopedic injuries that can take them out of action, the officials say.
But convincing a war-weary public of a less-is-more approach won't be easy, they acknowledge. If a commander decides the gear shouldn't be used for a particular mission and a service member is killed, there could be a backlash, said Jean Malone, deputy director of experiment plans at the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab in Quantico, Va.
"We've got to have the internal fortitude to come back and say: 'We have the data. We made the right decision. We can't guarantee you that nobody will die in this war,'" he said.
Paring down the amount of armor could actually make troops safer on the battlefield, officials say. Speed and maneuverability give them the best chance of killing or capturing the Taliban and other militants before they can set roadside bombs or get in position for an ambush.
"Being able to maneuver and fight and chase down a fleeing enemy; that's actually where your protection is (versus) armoring up and being more static," said Brig. Gen. Tim Hanifen, deputy commanding general of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command at Quantico.
The loads carried by modern American troops are equivalent to those "the medieval knight wore into and out of battle back in the year 1000 until about the 16th century," he said.
Bomb-resistant vehicles that are light and nimble enough to handle Afghanistan's primitive roads are also needed, according to Hanifen. Trucks that worked well in Iraq, which has a comparatively sophisticated transportation network, may be less suitable in harsher terrains.
As troop levels are surging in Afghanistan, so are roadside bomb attacks, according to the Pentagon's Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.
In January and February, 52 IED attacks in Afghanistan killed 32 coalition troops and wounded 96 more, according to preliminary figures from the organization. During the same two months in 2008, 21 IED attacks killed 10 troops and wounded 39.
Body armor has become a focus of Marine Corps efforts to lighten troop loads because it weighs so much more than the other gear. The standard kit consists of hardened composite plates inserted into a ballistic vest. The vest and plates protect the upper body from armor-piercing bullets and shrapnel.
Personal armor made of substantially lighter composite materials that are more effective than current models won't be available for several years. So the Marine Corps is looking for near-term solutions.
The Marine Corps is buying 65,000 vests called "scalable plate carriers" that weigh under 20 pounds. The carrier, which uses the same plates as the standard vest, doesn't cover as much of the torso. About 14,000 of the plate carriers have been fielded and the feedback has been positive, according to Marine Corps officials.
Over the next two weeks, the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab is conducting an experiment at Camp Pendleton, Calif., to assess the risks of using less armor. The results of the trials will help guide battlefield commanders who make the final call on what gear troops should use.
Weighing as much as 34 pounds each, the protective vests hinder American forces hunting down more agile insurgents who use the country's rugged peaks and valleys to their advantage, according to military officials.
The proper balance between troop safety and mobility will be examined this week during a series of oversight hearings by the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. Beginning Tuesday, senior Army and Marine Corps leaders are scheduled to testify on a wide range of subjects, including force protection, readiness levels and ergonomic injuries.
When body armor is added to the assault rifles, ammunition, water and other essential gear troops are required to carry, they can be lugging as much as 80 pounds into combat. Besides moving more slowly, overburdened troops tire more quickly and are prone to orthopedic injuries that can take them out of action, the officials say.
But convincing a war-weary public of a less-is-more approach won't be easy, they acknowledge. If a commander decides the gear shouldn't be used for a particular mission and a service member is killed, there could be a backlash, said Jean Malone, deputy director of experiment plans at the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab in Quantico, Va.
"We've got to have the internal fortitude to come back and say: 'We have the data. We made the right decision. We can't guarantee you that nobody will die in this war,'" he said.
Paring down the amount of armor could actually make troops safer on the battlefield, officials say. Speed and maneuverability give them the best chance of killing or capturing the Taliban and other militants before they can set roadside bombs or get in position for an ambush.
"Being able to maneuver and fight and chase down a fleeing enemy; that's actually where your protection is (versus) armoring up and being more static," said Brig. Gen. Tim Hanifen, deputy commanding general of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command at Quantico.
The loads carried by modern American troops are equivalent to those "the medieval knight wore into and out of battle back in the year 1000 until about the 16th century," he said.
Bomb-resistant vehicles that are light and nimble enough to handle Afghanistan's primitive roads are also needed, according to Hanifen. Trucks that worked well in Iraq, which has a comparatively sophisticated transportation network, may be less suitable in harsher terrains.
As troop levels are surging in Afghanistan, so are roadside bomb attacks, according to the Pentagon's Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.
In January and February, 52 IED attacks in Afghanistan killed 32 coalition troops and wounded 96 more, according to preliminary figures from the organization. During the same two months in 2008, 21 IED attacks killed 10 troops and wounded 39.
Body armor has become a focus of Marine Corps efforts to lighten troop loads because it weighs so much more than the other gear. The standard kit consists of hardened composite plates inserted into a ballistic vest. The vest and plates protect the upper body from armor-piercing bullets and shrapnel.
Personal armor made of substantially lighter composite materials that are more effective than current models won't be available for several years. So the Marine Corps is looking for near-term solutions.
The Marine Corps is buying 65,000 vests called "scalable plate carriers" that weigh under 20 pounds. The carrier, which uses the same plates as the standard vest, doesn't cover as much of the torso. About 14,000 of the plate carriers have been fielded and the feedback has been positive, according to Marine Corps officials.
Over the next two weeks, the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab is conducting an experiment at Camp Pendleton, Calif., to assess the risks of using less armor. The results of the trials will help guide battlefield commanders who make the final call on what gear troops should use.
Runway safety improvements lag at busy airports
Six-year-old Joshua Woods was singing Christmas songs on Dec. 8, 2005, when a runaway plane at Chicago's Midway Airport crashed through a fence and collided with his family's car, killing the boy. The tragedy underscores what the government says is an urgent safety problem.
Eleven major airports are struggling to meet federal requirements that runways be surrounded by safety areas that give runaway planes extra room to stop, according to a new report from the Transportation Department's inspector general. The airports account for nearly one quarter of the nation's air passenger travel.
All the airports have been working for years to come up with solutions, but often there's no place to send runaway planes because the airports are hemmed in by highways, water, buildings or other obstructions.
The airports are located in Baltimore, Boston, Charlotte, N.C., Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Francisco and Washington. Midway made safety improvements two years after Woods' death.
Between 1997 and 2007, 75 aircraft overran or veered off runways, resulting in nearly 200 injuries and 12 deaths, the report said. In just three of the accidents cited in the report, 80 injuries and Woods' death could have been prevented if safety improvements to runways made after the accidents had been in place beforehand, report said.
Safety areas typically are 1,000 feet long and 500 feet wide at each end of a runway, plus 250 feet along both sides of the runway.
The Federal Aviation Administration has allowed some airports that don't have enough room for full-size safety areas to install crunchable concrete beds called "engineered material arresting systems" at the ends of runways. The beds are designed to stop or slow planes, not unlike the way gravel-covered ramps on highways stop runaway trucks.
The beds are typically about 600 feet long instead of 1,000 feet, saving space. Beds at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport have already halted three runaway planes. But even that requires more room than is feasible at some airports.
The report said some of the 11 airports may not be able to meet a congressional deadline of 2015 to put runway safety areas in place. Putting safety areas in place can require filling in wetlands, requiring environmental reviews that can take as long as 12 years to complete. Community opposition to airport expansion because of noise concerns has also been a factor.
"Until these challenges and problems are addressed, aircraft will remain vulnerable to damage and, what is more important, their passengers remain at risk of potential injury from flights that undershoot, overrun or veer off a runway lacking a standard (runway safety area)," the report said. "Improvements need to be made at the 11 large airports sooner rather than later."
The FAA has already spent $2 billion helping hundreds of airports put runway safety areas in place, said Laura Brown, a spokeswoman for the agency. In addition to the roughly $300 million budgeted annually for the program, the economic stimulus plan pushed by President Barack Obama contains millions of extra dollars, she said.
"We're working with all these airports to see if we can do all these things as quickly as possible," Brown said.
Chris Oswald, vice president for safety and technical operations at the Airports Council International-North America, which represents airports in the United States and Canada, said runway safety areas are one of the most difficult problems facing urban airports.
"You are talking about very significant geographic impediments to expanding runway safety areas," Oswald said.
Reagan National Airport outside Washington, for example, is sandwiched between the Potomac River and the George Washington Parkway. The airport has been reluctant to install a crunchable concrete bed because periodic flooding could damage the system, the report said.
__
On the Net:
Transportation Department's inspector general: http://www.oig.dot.gov/
Federal Aviation Administration: http://www.faa.gov/
Eleven major airports are struggling to meet federal requirements that runways be surrounded by safety areas that give runaway planes extra room to stop, according to a new report from the Transportation Department's inspector general. The airports account for nearly one quarter of the nation's air passenger travel.
All the airports have been working for years to come up with solutions, but often there's no place to send runaway planes because the airports are hemmed in by highways, water, buildings or other obstructions.
The airports are located in Baltimore, Boston, Charlotte, N.C., Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Francisco and Washington. Midway made safety improvements two years after Woods' death.
Between 1997 and 2007, 75 aircraft overran or veered off runways, resulting in nearly 200 injuries and 12 deaths, the report said. In just three of the accidents cited in the report, 80 injuries and Woods' death could have been prevented if safety improvements to runways made after the accidents had been in place beforehand, report said.
Safety areas typically are 1,000 feet long and 500 feet wide at each end of a runway, plus 250 feet along both sides of the runway.
The Federal Aviation Administration has allowed some airports that don't have enough room for full-size safety areas to install crunchable concrete beds called "engineered material arresting systems" at the ends of runways. The beds are designed to stop or slow planes, not unlike the way gravel-covered ramps on highways stop runaway trucks.
The beds are typically about 600 feet long instead of 1,000 feet, saving space. Beds at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport have already halted three runaway planes. But even that requires more room than is feasible at some airports.
The report said some of the 11 airports may not be able to meet a congressional deadline of 2015 to put runway safety areas in place. Putting safety areas in place can require filling in wetlands, requiring environmental reviews that can take as long as 12 years to complete. Community opposition to airport expansion because of noise concerns has also been a factor.
"Until these challenges and problems are addressed, aircraft will remain vulnerable to damage and, what is more important, their passengers remain at risk of potential injury from flights that undershoot, overrun or veer off a runway lacking a standard (runway safety area)," the report said. "Improvements need to be made at the 11 large airports sooner rather than later."
The FAA has already spent $2 billion helping hundreds of airports put runway safety areas in place, said Laura Brown, a spokeswoman for the agency. In addition to the roughly $300 million budgeted annually for the program, the economic stimulus plan pushed by President Barack Obama contains millions of extra dollars, she said.
"We're working with all these airports to see if we can do all these things as quickly as possible," Brown said.
Chris Oswald, vice president for safety and technical operations at the Airports Council International-North America, which represents airports in the United States and Canada, said runway safety areas are one of the most difficult problems facing urban airports.
"You are talking about very significant geographic impediments to expanding runway safety areas," Oswald said.
Reagan National Airport outside Washington, for example, is sandwiched between the Potomac River and the George Washington Parkway. The airport has been reluctant to install a crunchable concrete bed because periodic flooding could damage the system, the report said.
__
On the Net:
Transportation Department's inspector general: http://www.oig.dot.gov/
Federal Aviation Administration: http://www.faa.gov/
House considers money for border, Mexico drug war
House subcommittees are considering spending requests for security along the U.S.-Mexico border and ways to help curb Mexican drug violence.
An appropriations panel is holding hearings Tuesday for Homeland Security Department officials to talk about staffing to secure the Mexican border and the 670-mile fence there. The lawmakers also are looking at what role Homeland Security might play in combatting border violence.
About the same time, a separate subcommittee will hear testimony on the Merida Initiative. That's the U.S. program to help Mexico pay for equipment to combat drug trafficking and improve its police and judicial institutions.
An appropriations panel is holding hearings Tuesday for Homeland Security Department officials to talk about staffing to secure the Mexican border and the 670-mile fence there. The lawmakers also are looking at what role Homeland Security might play in combatting border violence.
About the same time, a separate subcommittee will hear testimony on the Merida Initiative. That's the U.S. program to help Mexico pay for equipment to combat drug trafficking and improve its police and judicial institutions.
Obama decision on stem cells cheers scientists
President Barack Obama's decision to lift the contentious Bush-era restraints on stem-cell research came with a larger message for all scientists: Follow the data, not political ideology.
"Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Obama declared as he signed documents changing U.S. science policy and removing what some researchers have said were shackles on their work.
"It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology," Obama said.
Researchers said the new president's message was clear: Science, which once propelled men to the moon, again matters in American life.
Opponents saw it differently: a defeat for morality in the most basic questions of life and death.
"The action by the president today will, in effect, allow scientists to create their own guidelines without proper moral restraints," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said.
In a crowded East Room, there were more scientists in the White House than Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, had seen in his 30 years in Washington. "More happy scientists than I've seen," he added.
The most immediate effect of the order will be to allow federally funded researchers to use hundreds of new embryonic stem cell lines for promising but long-range research in hopes of creating better treatments, possibly even cures, for conditions ranging from diabetes to paralysis. Until now, those researchers had to limit themselves to just 21 stem cell lines created before August 2001, when President George W. Bush limited funding because of "fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science."
Science, politics and religion have long intertwined and conflicted. In his actions Monday, especially with the stem cell decision, Obama is emphasizing more the science than the religion, when compared with his predecessor, science policy experts say. But they acknowledged that politics is still involved.
Don't expect stem cell cures or treatments anytime soon. One company this summer will begin the world's first study of a treatment using human embryonic stem cells, in people who recently suffered spinal cord injuries. Research institutions on Monday were gearing up to ask for more freely flowing federal money, and the National Institutes of Health was creating guidelines on how to hand it out and include ethical constraints. It will be months before the stem cell money flows; the average NIH stem cell grant is $1.5 million spread out over four years.
Scientists focused on a new sense of freedom.
"I think patients everywhere will be cheering us on, imploring us to work faster, harder and with all of our ability to find new treatments," said Harvard Stem Cell Institute co-director Doug Melton, father of two children with Type I diabetes who could possibly be treated with stem cells. "On a personal level, it is an enormous relief and a time for celebration. ... Science thrives when there is an open and collaborative exchange, not when there are artificial barriers, silos, constructed by the government."
Opponents framed their opposition mostly, but not exclusively, on moral grounds and the scientifically contested claims that adult stem cells work just as well.
Said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America: "President Obama's order places the worst kind of politics above ethics. Politics driven by hype makes overblown promises, fuels the desperation of the suffering, and financially benefits those seeking to strip morality from science. It is politics at its worst."
In Congress, Reps. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., and Mike Castle, R-Del., said they would seek a quick vote on legislation to codify Obama's order, having failed twice in the past to overturn Bush's restrictions. DeGette said she doesn't want stem cell research to become "a pingpong ball going back and forth between administrations."
But Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative lawmakers, said the president's new policy would "force taxpayers to subsidize research that will destroy human embryos." DeGette and Castle said their legislation tries to minimize destruction of embryos.
Stem cells are typically derived from fertility clinic surplus that is destined for destruction.
Obama also said the stem cell policy is designed so that it "never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction." Such cloning, he said, "is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society or any society."
In addition to the stem cell order, Obama issued a memo designed to ensure openness about scientific research and give whistle-blower protection to scientists.
Promoting science "is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient — especially when it's inconvenient," Obama said.
Many scientists and environmental activists complained that the Bush administration had censored and marginalized science. That's a perception that Bush science adviser John Marburger repeatedly called untrue and unfair.
In 2006, the White House edited out congressional testimony about public health effects of global warming by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Julie Gerberding. A 2003 EPA global warming document was edited by nonscientists at the White House. A NASA political appointee tried — and failed — to silence the agency's top climate scientist.
When Surgeon General Richard Carmona resigned in 2006, he complained about White House interference on global health issues. "The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds," he said.
Obama advisers contend that all has changed. The government has already put on hold rules about scientific input on endangered species, reinstating advice that had been excised during the Bush administration.
Public policy must "be guided by sound scientific advice," said Dr. Harold Varmus, the Nobel Prize-winning co-chairman of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. The memo Obama signed is "mainly a way of trying to prevent tampering with any advice," Varmus told MSNBC.
___
Associated Press writers Lauran Neergaard, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Philip Elliott contributed to this report.
"Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Obama declared as he signed documents changing U.S. science policy and removing what some researchers have said were shackles on their work.
"It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology," Obama said.
Researchers said the new president's message was clear: Science, which once propelled men to the moon, again matters in American life.
Opponents saw it differently: a defeat for morality in the most basic questions of life and death.
"The action by the president today will, in effect, allow scientists to create their own guidelines without proper moral restraints," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said.
In a crowded East Room, there were more scientists in the White House than Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, had seen in his 30 years in Washington. "More happy scientists than I've seen," he added.
The most immediate effect of the order will be to allow federally funded researchers to use hundreds of new embryonic stem cell lines for promising but long-range research in hopes of creating better treatments, possibly even cures, for conditions ranging from diabetes to paralysis. Until now, those researchers had to limit themselves to just 21 stem cell lines created before August 2001, when President George W. Bush limited funding because of "fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science."
Science, politics and religion have long intertwined and conflicted. In his actions Monday, especially with the stem cell decision, Obama is emphasizing more the science than the religion, when compared with his predecessor, science policy experts say. But they acknowledged that politics is still involved.
Don't expect stem cell cures or treatments anytime soon. One company this summer will begin the world's first study of a treatment using human embryonic stem cells, in people who recently suffered spinal cord injuries. Research institutions on Monday were gearing up to ask for more freely flowing federal money, and the National Institutes of Health was creating guidelines on how to hand it out and include ethical constraints. It will be months before the stem cell money flows; the average NIH stem cell grant is $1.5 million spread out over four years.
Scientists focused on a new sense of freedom.
"I think patients everywhere will be cheering us on, imploring us to work faster, harder and with all of our ability to find new treatments," said Harvard Stem Cell Institute co-director Doug Melton, father of two children with Type I diabetes who could possibly be treated with stem cells. "On a personal level, it is an enormous relief and a time for celebration. ... Science thrives when there is an open and collaborative exchange, not when there are artificial barriers, silos, constructed by the government."
Opponents framed their opposition mostly, but not exclusively, on moral grounds and the scientifically contested claims that adult stem cells work just as well.
Said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America: "President Obama's order places the worst kind of politics above ethics. Politics driven by hype makes overblown promises, fuels the desperation of the suffering, and financially benefits those seeking to strip morality from science. It is politics at its worst."
In Congress, Reps. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., and Mike Castle, R-Del., said they would seek a quick vote on legislation to codify Obama's order, having failed twice in the past to overturn Bush's restrictions. DeGette said she doesn't want stem cell research to become "a pingpong ball going back and forth between administrations."
But Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative lawmakers, said the president's new policy would "force taxpayers to subsidize research that will destroy human embryos." DeGette and Castle said their legislation tries to minimize destruction of embryos.
Stem cells are typically derived from fertility clinic surplus that is destined for destruction.
Obama also said the stem cell policy is designed so that it "never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction." Such cloning, he said, "is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society or any society."
In addition to the stem cell order, Obama issued a memo designed to ensure openness about scientific research and give whistle-blower protection to scientists.
Promoting science "is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient — especially when it's inconvenient," Obama said.
Many scientists and environmental activists complained that the Bush administration had censored and marginalized science. That's a perception that Bush science adviser John Marburger repeatedly called untrue and unfair.
In 2006, the White House edited out congressional testimony about public health effects of global warming by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Julie Gerberding. A 2003 EPA global warming document was edited by nonscientists at the White House. A NASA political appointee tried — and failed — to silence the agency's top climate scientist.
When Surgeon General Richard Carmona resigned in 2006, he complained about White House interference on global health issues. "The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds," he said.
Obama advisers contend that all has changed. The government has already put on hold rules about scientific input on endangered species, reinstating advice that had been excised during the Bush administration.
Public policy must "be guided by sound scientific advice," said Dr. Harold Varmus, the Nobel Prize-winning co-chairman of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. The memo Obama signed is "mainly a way of trying to prevent tampering with any advice," Varmus told MSNBC.
___
Associated Press writers Lauran Neergaard, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Philip Elliott contributed to this report.
Attacks on Obama fall short
The sharp tone House GOP leaders have recently taken toward President Barack Obama may appeal to the conservative base, but don’t expect the whole conference to follow suit. With nearly three dozen Republicans sitting in congressional districts carried by the president in 2008, there’s still quite a bit of reticence when it comes to Obama-bashing.
“We recognize that the president has high poll numbers at the moment,” said freshman Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.), who won an open seat in November despite Obama’s 51 percent victory in his district. “It would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise.”
Lance’s North Jersey-based seat is one of 31 Republican-held districts that Obama won, according to unofficial election results compiled by the website Swing State Project, and interviews with GOP House members who hold those seats suggest they are reluctant to embrace any new offensive that targets the president himself.
“I’m not critical of the president,” said Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.). “I’m critical of the process and the legislation that is getting shoved down our throats constantly.”
So, at the moment, vulnerable members like Reichert are careful to keep their criticism directed toward the policy side — without invoking Obama by name.
“It’s appropriate to keep criticisms focused by way of policy suggestions,” said Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.), who represents an Obama-friendly suburban Philadelphia district.
“I don’t think this is a direct criticism of Obama, but of his policies,” added Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who said his constituents “understand that you can’t spend more money than you take in every month.”
GOP leadership hasn’t been so shy about dinging the president.
In a closed-door meeting last Wednesday, House GOP leaders unveiled the new anti-Obama tack and told the rank and file they should feel free to criticize the president, especially on the economy. They argued that Obama’s massive budget proposal provided leeway to attack the new president as a tax-and-spender.
Seizing on a recent comment Obama made comparing the stock market to a tracking poll, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor said in an interview following the meeting, “It’s not a tracking poll. It’s real.”
“The stock market reflects real money; it reflects real loss,” Cantor said. “I shudder to think of the massive losses Americans are experiencing in their portfolios right now.”
Democrats, for their part, believe a more aggressive approach toward Obama will backfire because it will afford them the opportunity to tie members from moderate-minded districts to the GOP’s conservative leadership.
“If you look deep in the numbers, people believe [Obama is] trying to get something done,” said John Anzalone, a Democratic pollster who works on House races. “Republicans proceed at their own risk.”
“To go after [Obama] in a personal sense is a bad idea in principle; it’s a bad idea in politics,” said Anzalone.
Some GOP strategists concede that an offensive against the president presents considerable risk for Republicans in Obama-leaning districts. But they also say that taking on Obama makes sense for a party that, at the moment, has little else to work with.
“We’re kind of at a point where we don’t have a choice,” said John Hishta, a veteran GOP strategist who ran the National Republican Congressional Committee’s television advertising campaign in the last election cycle. “We need to engage the Democrats in an actual debate about what fixes an ailing economy. There’s no way of doing that without getting personal.”
“I think moderates ought to be out there talking about the size of these spending bills,” Hishta added.
In interviews, GOP members from Obama districts suggested that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi presented a more promising target for their criticism. A Newsweek poll last week showed Pelosi with a mere 35 percent favorability rating, compared with Obama’s 72 percent.
“I think there is a rift between the popularity of the president and the unpopularity of Speaker Pelosi,” said Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who represents a suburban Chicago district that delivered 61 percent to Obama.
When asked if Republicans should focus their fire on Obama or Pelosi, Rep. Charles W. Dent (R-Pa.), whose constituents gave Obama 56 percent of the vote, hinted that the answer was self-evident.
“Who do you think?” he said.
“We recognize that the president has high poll numbers at the moment,” said freshman Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.), who won an open seat in November despite Obama’s 51 percent victory in his district. “It would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise.”
Lance’s North Jersey-based seat is one of 31 Republican-held districts that Obama won, according to unofficial election results compiled by the website Swing State Project, and interviews with GOP House members who hold those seats suggest they are reluctant to embrace any new offensive that targets the president himself.
“I’m not critical of the president,” said Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.). “I’m critical of the process and the legislation that is getting shoved down our throats constantly.”
So, at the moment, vulnerable members like Reichert are careful to keep their criticism directed toward the policy side — without invoking Obama by name.
“It’s appropriate to keep criticisms focused by way of policy suggestions,” said Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.), who represents an Obama-friendly suburban Philadelphia district.
“I don’t think this is a direct criticism of Obama, but of his policies,” added Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who said his constituents “understand that you can’t spend more money than you take in every month.”
GOP leadership hasn’t been so shy about dinging the president.
In a closed-door meeting last Wednesday, House GOP leaders unveiled the new anti-Obama tack and told the rank and file they should feel free to criticize the president, especially on the economy. They argued that Obama’s massive budget proposal provided leeway to attack the new president as a tax-and-spender.
Seizing on a recent comment Obama made comparing the stock market to a tracking poll, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor said in an interview following the meeting, “It’s not a tracking poll. It’s real.”
“The stock market reflects real money; it reflects real loss,” Cantor said. “I shudder to think of the massive losses Americans are experiencing in their portfolios right now.”
Democrats, for their part, believe a more aggressive approach toward Obama will backfire because it will afford them the opportunity to tie members from moderate-minded districts to the GOP’s conservative leadership.
“If you look deep in the numbers, people believe [Obama is] trying to get something done,” said John Anzalone, a Democratic pollster who works on House races. “Republicans proceed at their own risk.”
“To go after [Obama] in a personal sense is a bad idea in principle; it’s a bad idea in politics,” said Anzalone.
Some GOP strategists concede that an offensive against the president presents considerable risk for Republicans in Obama-leaning districts. But they also say that taking on Obama makes sense for a party that, at the moment, has little else to work with.
“We’re kind of at a point where we don’t have a choice,” said John Hishta, a veteran GOP strategist who ran the National Republican Congressional Committee’s television advertising campaign in the last election cycle. “We need to engage the Democrats in an actual debate about what fixes an ailing economy. There’s no way of doing that without getting personal.”
“I think moderates ought to be out there talking about the size of these spending bills,” Hishta added.
In interviews, GOP members from Obama districts suggested that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi presented a more promising target for their criticism. A Newsweek poll last week showed Pelosi with a mere 35 percent favorability rating, compared with Obama’s 72 percent.
“I think there is a rift between the popularity of the president and the unpopularity of Speaker Pelosi,” said Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who represents a suburban Chicago district that delivered 61 percent to Obama.
When asked if Republicans should focus their fire on Obama or Pelosi, Rep. Charles W. Dent (R-Pa.), whose constituents gave Obama 56 percent of the vote, hinted that the answer was self-evident.
“Who do you think?” he said.
PROMISES, PROMISES: House fails to zero out carbon
It was a bold promise: the House would "lead by example" to fight global warming, becoming the first legislative body in the world to zero out its carbon impact on the planet.
Too bold, perhaps.
The House quietly shelved the idea late last month, the word delivered in an e-mail to a couple of reporters. It turned out that the House's goal to become carbon neutral — by removing as much carbon dioxide from the air as it releases — could not be guaranteed.
"No one can really tell you if you are truly carbon neutral, and the lack of that standard bothered us," said Jeff Ventura, a spokesman for the House's chief administrative officer.
The House already had spent $89,000 to cancel out 24,000 tons of emissions that it couldn't erase by turning out lights, buying better light bulbs and making the Capitol's power plant burn more natural gas.
The money bought "offsets," which fund projects that reduce greenhouse gases, such as capturing methane from farm manure ponds, that supposedly wouldn't have happened without the investment.
It also bought bragging rights for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other congressional leaders.
"The House must lead by example and it is time for Congress to act on its own carbon footprint," Pelosi said in April 2007, when she announced the "Green the Capitol" initiative. "Today, we announce our intention to operate the House in a carbon-neutral manner at the earliest possible date, with a deadline of the end of this Congress" in December 2008.
But since such carbon markets are unregulated in the United States, it is difficult to prove their environmental benefits. And it is also difficult to know whether the House accurately calculated the amount of carbon it produces.
Still, the initiative reduced the House's carbon emissions by 74 percent by the end of 2008. The savings came from replacing more than 10,000 incandescent bulbs with more efficient compact fluorescent lights, purchasing wind power from the company that provides the House electricity and increasing the share of natural gas used to heat and cool its facilities.
The House's problems foreshadow what's ahead as Congress crafts national legislation that will limit emissions of the gases blamed for global warming. One key question is whether the legislation will allow companies looking to meet emissions targets to buy offsets as the House did, and what types of projects could generate offsets to be sold on the market.
Pelosi, who hopes to have a bill in the House by summer, hopes legislation will clear things up so the House potentially could purchase offsets again in the future.
"It's now clear that there needs to be consistency across the board in the offsets market," said Drew Hammill, Pelosi's spokesman.
Meanwhile, the House's failed experiment has become a leading example for critics of carbon offsets.
In a hearing last week on the role of carbon offsets in future climate legislation, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, couldn't resist a mention.
"I'm sure you know that the congressional purchase of offsets that Speaker Pelosi initiated several years ago has been suspended for the very reason that they can't guarantee that the offsets are really what they appear to be," Barton said.
The House in the meantime is stuck with reducing the gases blamed for global warming the old-fashioned way: actually cutting pollution.
But that won't be able to zero out emissions.
"Any carbon we reduce is better than where were at. We are going to do the best we can do," said Ventura. "It is a lot more than complicated and ambitious than people think it is."
___
On the Net:
Green the Capitol: http://cao.house.gov/greenthecapitol/
Too bold, perhaps.
The House quietly shelved the idea late last month, the word delivered in an e-mail to a couple of reporters. It turned out that the House's goal to become carbon neutral — by removing as much carbon dioxide from the air as it releases — could not be guaranteed.
"No one can really tell you if you are truly carbon neutral, and the lack of that standard bothered us," said Jeff Ventura, a spokesman for the House's chief administrative officer.
The House already had spent $89,000 to cancel out 24,000 tons of emissions that it couldn't erase by turning out lights, buying better light bulbs and making the Capitol's power plant burn more natural gas.
The money bought "offsets," which fund projects that reduce greenhouse gases, such as capturing methane from farm manure ponds, that supposedly wouldn't have happened without the investment.
It also bought bragging rights for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other congressional leaders.
"The House must lead by example and it is time for Congress to act on its own carbon footprint," Pelosi said in April 2007, when she announced the "Green the Capitol" initiative. "Today, we announce our intention to operate the House in a carbon-neutral manner at the earliest possible date, with a deadline of the end of this Congress" in December 2008.
But since such carbon markets are unregulated in the United States, it is difficult to prove their environmental benefits. And it is also difficult to know whether the House accurately calculated the amount of carbon it produces.
Still, the initiative reduced the House's carbon emissions by 74 percent by the end of 2008. The savings came from replacing more than 10,000 incandescent bulbs with more efficient compact fluorescent lights, purchasing wind power from the company that provides the House electricity and increasing the share of natural gas used to heat and cool its facilities.
The House's problems foreshadow what's ahead as Congress crafts national legislation that will limit emissions of the gases blamed for global warming. One key question is whether the legislation will allow companies looking to meet emissions targets to buy offsets as the House did, and what types of projects could generate offsets to be sold on the market.
Pelosi, who hopes to have a bill in the House by summer, hopes legislation will clear things up so the House potentially could purchase offsets again in the future.
"It's now clear that there needs to be consistency across the board in the offsets market," said Drew Hammill, Pelosi's spokesman.
Meanwhile, the House's failed experiment has become a leading example for critics of carbon offsets.
In a hearing last week on the role of carbon offsets in future climate legislation, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, couldn't resist a mention.
"I'm sure you know that the congressional purchase of offsets that Speaker Pelosi initiated several years ago has been suspended for the very reason that they can't guarantee that the offsets are really what they appear to be," Barton said.
The House in the meantime is stuck with reducing the gases blamed for global warming the old-fashioned way: actually cutting pollution.
But that won't be able to zero out emissions.
"Any carbon we reduce is better than where were at. We are going to do the best we can do," said Ventura. "It is a lot more than complicated and ambitious than people think it is."
___
On the Net:
Green the Capitol: http://cao.house.gov/greenthecapitol/
Lawmakers defend attacks against pet projects
The idea of devoting $1.8 million to research controlling the smell of pig dung stinks to high heaven to opponents of Congress' proclivity for pork-barrel projects.
"Pigs stink. We know why," said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. "We know where they live. So is that a priority right now?"
Spending $380,000 in the middle of a severe recession to fix up lighthouses in Maine doesn't smell a lot better to Coburn and few other Republicans who day after day attack the 8,000 pet projects lawmakers have put into a bill setting a good part of the government's agenda for the next six months.
What's new is that more and more lawmakers are standing up to defend their earmarks as vital for people back home. Barack Obama promised during his presidential campaign to curb the practice and demanded that last month's $787 billion stimulus bill contain "not a single pet project."
"In farm country, manure and odor management are profoundly serious challenges that can be mitigated through scientific research," Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said in a Senate speech last week. His defense of swine odor research and a $5.7 million earmark for school construction in Iowa covers four pages in the Congressional Record.
It turns out that the National Swine Research and Information Center is a long-standing program at the Agriculture Department. Former President George W. Bush proposed eliminating it last year, but Harkin came to its rescue. In a state where the 20 million hogs easily outnumber the 3 million people, the stench of huge pig farming operations is a genuine problem, affecting people's health and property values.
With a few dozen exceptions, such as Coburn, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, most members of Congress seek earmarks. Lawmakers know the needs of their states and home districts better than administration officials. And it's not uncommon for administrations to unfairly play favorites.
"I have an obligation to the people of Nevada to make sure there is not some bureaucrat down in one of these big offices in Washington, D.C., who determines every penny spent in Nevada," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Reid points out that the number of earmarks is down by almost half from levels when Republicans controlled Congress. New rules require lists of earmarks and their sponsors be made public.
As for the lighthouses in Maine, the state's Republican senators spoke in the Senate to defend a grant to the American Lighthouse Foundation to restore and preserve three lighthouses.
Susan Collins noted that the lighthouse foundation has saved the government money by getting private sector dollars to fix up lighthouses and that the lighthouses in question are owned by the federal government and are still important navigational aids.
"This is a great example of why it is important that those of us who are sponsoring this funding come to the floor and explain it," Collins said.
Just before Collins spoke last week, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., defended $3.8 million to help redevelop Tiger Stadium into an anchor for a redevelopment project of retail outlets, restaurants and other commercial projects in Detroit's struggling Corktown neighborhood.
On Monday, after Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., lambasted the $410 billion spending bill and its earmarks, Appropriations Committee member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., gave an impassioned defense of the practice.
"Yes, I fight for funds for my state. That's what I came here to do," Feinstein said. "Candidly, why be an appropriator if you can't help your state?"
Among those who helps his state the most is the committee chairman, Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii. Inouye obtained 106 earmarks totaling $225 million, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, an earmark watchdog group.
After Coburn scoffed at an earmark by Inouye to give $238,000 to the Polynesian Voyaging Society, which runs voyages using ancient navigation methods in double-hulled sailing canoes, Inouye made an impassioned defense. He said the program instills native Hawaiian youth pride in their heritage and helps troubled, mentally ill youth.
"The voyage is much more than one of miles," Inouye said. "It is a voyage of young people discovering that they are able to accomplish much more than they ever thought possible."
"Pigs stink. We know why," said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. "We know where they live. So is that a priority right now?"
Spending $380,000 in the middle of a severe recession to fix up lighthouses in Maine doesn't smell a lot better to Coburn and few other Republicans who day after day attack the 8,000 pet projects lawmakers have put into a bill setting a good part of the government's agenda for the next six months.
What's new is that more and more lawmakers are standing up to defend their earmarks as vital for people back home. Barack Obama promised during his presidential campaign to curb the practice and demanded that last month's $787 billion stimulus bill contain "not a single pet project."
"In farm country, manure and odor management are profoundly serious challenges that can be mitigated through scientific research," Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said in a Senate speech last week. His defense of swine odor research and a $5.7 million earmark for school construction in Iowa covers four pages in the Congressional Record.
It turns out that the National Swine Research and Information Center is a long-standing program at the Agriculture Department. Former President George W. Bush proposed eliminating it last year, but Harkin came to its rescue. In a state where the 20 million hogs easily outnumber the 3 million people, the stench of huge pig farming operations is a genuine problem, affecting people's health and property values.
With a few dozen exceptions, such as Coburn, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, most members of Congress seek earmarks. Lawmakers know the needs of their states and home districts better than administration officials. And it's not uncommon for administrations to unfairly play favorites.
"I have an obligation to the people of Nevada to make sure there is not some bureaucrat down in one of these big offices in Washington, D.C., who determines every penny spent in Nevada," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Reid points out that the number of earmarks is down by almost half from levels when Republicans controlled Congress. New rules require lists of earmarks and their sponsors be made public.
As for the lighthouses in Maine, the state's Republican senators spoke in the Senate to defend a grant to the American Lighthouse Foundation to restore and preserve three lighthouses.
Susan Collins noted that the lighthouse foundation has saved the government money by getting private sector dollars to fix up lighthouses and that the lighthouses in question are owned by the federal government and are still important navigational aids.
"This is a great example of why it is important that those of us who are sponsoring this funding come to the floor and explain it," Collins said.
Just before Collins spoke last week, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., defended $3.8 million to help redevelop Tiger Stadium into an anchor for a redevelopment project of retail outlets, restaurants and other commercial projects in Detroit's struggling Corktown neighborhood.
On Monday, after Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., lambasted the $410 billion spending bill and its earmarks, Appropriations Committee member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., gave an impassioned defense of the practice.
"Yes, I fight for funds for my state. That's what I came here to do," Feinstein said. "Candidly, why be an appropriator if you can't help your state?"
Among those who helps his state the most is the committee chairman, Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii. Inouye obtained 106 earmarks totaling $225 million, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, an earmark watchdog group.
After Coburn scoffed at an earmark by Inouye to give $238,000 to the Polynesian Voyaging Society, which runs voyages using ancient navigation methods in double-hulled sailing canoes, Inouye made an impassioned defense. He said the program instills native Hawaiian youth pride in their heritage and helps troubled, mentally ill youth.
"The voyage is much more than one of miles," Inouye said. "It is a voyage of young people discovering that they are able to accomplish much more than they ever thought possible."
Biden warns of 'deteriorating' Afghan situation
Vice President Joe Biden urged NATO members to jointly confront al-Qaida and other extremist groups in Afghanistan where he said instability threatens all of the alliance's members equally.
Appearing before NATO's top decision making body, Biden solicited ideas to reverse a losing military strategy in Afghanistan as part of President Barack Obama's policy to bring more European allies on board to fight the Taliban-led insurgency.
He warned the situation in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan was worsening, adding, "The deteriorating situation in the region poses a security threat from our respect not just to the United States, but to every single nation around this table."
"It was from that remote area of the world that al-Qaida plotted 9/11 and subsequent attacks" in Europe and elsewhere.
In his speech, Biden said the Obama administration will be keen to engage NATO allies in global security discussions, marking a departure from the last eight years when Washington often was on a go-it-alone course that upset its European allies.
"President Obama and I are deeply committed to NATO. Lets get that straight right from the start," Biden told the North Atlantic Council — the panel of ambassadors from NATO's 26 member nations.
Biden said Americans view a terrorist attack in Europe "as an attack on the United States. That is not hyperbole ... We view it as a gateway to further attacks on the United States. So please understand that this is not a U.S.-centrist view that only if America is attacked is there a terrorist threat."
He said he came to hear ideas from the allies on how NATO can bring stability to Afghanistan.
"It is from that area that al-Qaida and its extremist allies are regenerating in conceiving new atrocities aimed at the people around the world from Afghanistan, Pakistan and India to the United States, Europe and Australia," he added.
After his consultations with NATO allies he will meet with senior officials at EU headquarters.
His visit, less than a week after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with senior NATO and EU officials here, highlights the new priority that diplomatic outreach to allies has become for Washington.
An issue closely related to the Afghan war is growing concern that neighboring Pakistan could be sliding further into instability.
Obama launched a strategic review of U.S. policy in Afghanistan after he took office in January. That review is expected to be completed later this month.
"What I want to learn is what your countries believe are working, what you think is not working, how we can do a better job in stopping Afghanistan and Pakistan from being a haven for terrorists," Biden said.
Each NATO and EU country "has a vital interest" in ensuring the region is made stable, he said.
A senior U.S. administration official traveling with Biden said the vice president would not make specific requests for extra troops from European allies.
The Obama administration has ordered 17,000 more U.S. troops to the country to bolster the 38,000 already there as a way to turn the tide. NATO has about 25,000 non-American troops in Afghanistan. Washington's allies have been reluctant to increase their troops levels.
The top U.S. military officer in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, said Sunday that coalition forces were not winning the war in the south, which remains the center of the Taliban-led insurgency.
___
Associated Press Writer Robert Wielaard contributed to this report.
Appearing before NATO's top decision making body, Biden solicited ideas to reverse a losing military strategy in Afghanistan as part of President Barack Obama's policy to bring more European allies on board to fight the Taliban-led insurgency.
He warned the situation in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan was worsening, adding, "The deteriorating situation in the region poses a security threat from our respect not just to the United States, but to every single nation around this table."
"It was from that remote area of the world that al-Qaida plotted 9/11 and subsequent attacks" in Europe and elsewhere.
In his speech, Biden said the Obama administration will be keen to engage NATO allies in global security discussions, marking a departure from the last eight years when Washington often was on a go-it-alone course that upset its European allies.
"President Obama and I are deeply committed to NATO. Lets get that straight right from the start," Biden told the North Atlantic Council — the panel of ambassadors from NATO's 26 member nations.
Biden said Americans view a terrorist attack in Europe "as an attack on the United States. That is not hyperbole ... We view it as a gateway to further attacks on the United States. So please understand that this is not a U.S.-centrist view that only if America is attacked is there a terrorist threat."
He said he came to hear ideas from the allies on how NATO can bring stability to Afghanistan.
"It is from that area that al-Qaida and its extremist allies are regenerating in conceiving new atrocities aimed at the people around the world from Afghanistan, Pakistan and India to the United States, Europe and Australia," he added.
After his consultations with NATO allies he will meet with senior officials at EU headquarters.
His visit, less than a week after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with senior NATO and EU officials here, highlights the new priority that diplomatic outreach to allies has become for Washington.
An issue closely related to the Afghan war is growing concern that neighboring Pakistan could be sliding further into instability.
Obama launched a strategic review of U.S. policy in Afghanistan after he took office in January. That review is expected to be completed later this month.
"What I want to learn is what your countries believe are working, what you think is not working, how we can do a better job in stopping Afghanistan and Pakistan from being a haven for terrorists," Biden said.
Each NATO and EU country "has a vital interest" in ensuring the region is made stable, he said.
A senior U.S. administration official traveling with Biden said the vice president would not make specific requests for extra troops from European allies.
The Obama administration has ordered 17,000 more U.S. troops to the country to bolster the 38,000 already there as a way to turn the tide. NATO has about 25,000 non-American troops in Afghanistan. Washington's allies have been reluctant to increase their troops levels.
The top U.S. military officer in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, said Sunday that coalition forces were not winning the war in the south, which remains the center of the Taliban-led insurgency.
___
Associated Press Writer Robert Wielaard contributed to this report.
Obama to unveil education plan, no new legislation
President Barack Obama is promoting tighter standards for teachers and a reduced dropout rate for students as part of an education plan that, at least for now, lacks any new legislative component.
Obama plans to call on Americans to educate themselves as well as their children during his appearance Tuesday at the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. It is his first major speech devoted solely to education since taking office, but officials say he plans neither to detail any requirements to achieve his goals nor to change President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind program.
Instead, a senior administration official said, Obama would speak to the importance of increasing the rigor of the standards in place and challenge states to adopt world-class standards rather than a specific standard. The official would speak only anonymously to preview the president's midmorning speech.
Schools are struggling to meet the existing requirements as millions of residents have lost their jobs and state and local governments have seen tax revenues tighten. Obama's economic stimulus plan includes a $5 billion incentive fund to reward states for, among other things, boosting the quality of standards and state tests — much-needed money for some states.
"I know that talking about standards can make people nervous," Education Secretary Arne Duncan said recently. But he said a high school diploma has to mean something, no matter in which state the student earned it.
Obama advisers say they will use the economic woes as a way to sell the country on his agenda. A second senior administration official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said higher standards would be part of their discussions about how to deal with Bush-era education policy, but not just yet.
White House aides characterized the president's speech on Tuesday as a first step in an agenda to change American schools. Aides say the president will again call for the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by the year 2020, as well as pre-kindergarten programs that would send children to classrooms prepared to learn.
Obama also planned to continue his support for charter schools, although officials call them "laboratories of innovation." Educators' unions generally oppose charter schools because they divert tax dollars away from public schools, one spot where he splits with the traditionally Democratic Party-backing constituency.
He also was set to draw criticism from unions for his proposals for an "innovative compensation" plan that would pay some teachers more than others. Such a merit-based pay system is anathema to teachers' groups and likely to earn Obama a rebuke.
Other items Obama planned to mention would be a simpler form for federal financial aid to college, increased investment in technology and changes to higher education. All were parts of his campaign platform.
Aides said Obama would not propose new spending during the speech, although he already has taken steps on education. His $787 billion economic stimulus package provides $41 billion in grants to local school districts. He also plans to send $79 billion in state fiscal relief to prevent cuts in state aid and another $21 billion for school modernization.
Obama plans to call on Americans to educate themselves as well as their children during his appearance Tuesday at the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. It is his first major speech devoted solely to education since taking office, but officials say he plans neither to detail any requirements to achieve his goals nor to change President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind program.
Instead, a senior administration official said, Obama would speak to the importance of increasing the rigor of the standards in place and challenge states to adopt world-class standards rather than a specific standard. The official would speak only anonymously to preview the president's midmorning speech.
Schools are struggling to meet the existing requirements as millions of residents have lost their jobs and state and local governments have seen tax revenues tighten. Obama's economic stimulus plan includes a $5 billion incentive fund to reward states for, among other things, boosting the quality of standards and state tests — much-needed money for some states.
"I know that talking about standards can make people nervous," Education Secretary Arne Duncan said recently. But he said a high school diploma has to mean something, no matter in which state the student earned it.
Obama advisers say they will use the economic woes as a way to sell the country on his agenda. A second senior administration official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said higher standards would be part of their discussions about how to deal with Bush-era education policy, but not just yet.
White House aides characterized the president's speech on Tuesday as a first step in an agenda to change American schools. Aides say the president will again call for the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by the year 2020, as well as pre-kindergarten programs that would send children to classrooms prepared to learn.
Obama also planned to continue his support for charter schools, although officials call them "laboratories of innovation." Educators' unions generally oppose charter schools because they divert tax dollars away from public schools, one spot where he splits with the traditionally Democratic Party-backing constituency.
He also was set to draw criticism from unions for his proposals for an "innovative compensation" plan that would pay some teachers more than others. Such a merit-based pay system is anathema to teachers' groups and likely to earn Obama a rebuke.
Other items Obama planned to mention would be a simpler form for federal financial aid to college, increased investment in technology and changes to higher education. All were parts of his campaign platform.
Aides said Obama would not propose new spending during the speech, although he already has taken steps on education. His $787 billion economic stimulus package provides $41 billion in grants to local school districts. He also plans to send $79 billion in state fiscal relief to prevent cuts in state aid and another $21 billion for school modernization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)