OSHA's press release says it all:

http://osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=15119

May 2 U.S. Labor Department's OSHA cites United Airlines at O'Hare International Airport for numerous workplace safety violations - Federal action proposes $215,500 in penalties

CHICAGO -- The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has proposed $215,500 in fines against United Airlines Inc. in Chicago for alleged multiple serious and repeat violations of federal workplace safety standards.

OSHA selected United Airlines for inspection after reviewing occupational injury and illness data, which included ramp services, customer service areas, air freight, aircraft and ground equipment maintenance, building/facility maintenance, business operations, strategic procurement, medical facilities and flight attendant operations. As a result of its inspection, OSHA issued 43 serious violations and four repeat violations.

The serious violations address hazards associated with fall protection, hazardous energy control procedures and training, storage of oxygen and fuel-gas cylinders, platform load ratings and electrical hazards. The four repeat violations, based on citations issued and affirmed in 2006 and 2007, cover machine guarding and electrical issues. Proposed penalties for the repeat violations alone total $57,500.

"Falls, electrical hazards and machine guarding issues, as well as energy lockout/tagout procedures, which are intended to prevent accidental start-up of machinery during maintenance, are problems that should not exist at any worksite," said Diane Turek, director of OSHA's Chicago North Area Office in Des Plaines, Ill. "They are problems that can be avoided if an employer is dedicated to protecting employees. Employers must remain dedicated to keeping the workplace safe and healthful, or face close scrutiny by this agency."

Since 2004, OSHA has inspected United Airlines 22 times at various locations nationwide. United Airlines operations at O'Hare International Airport have been inspected eight times since 2000 with only three of those inspections resulting in citations.

• airlines,
• osha,
• safety,
• work,
• labor

Here is the EEOC's press release with details on this case.

PHILADELPHIA — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced a major settlement of a racial harassment lawsuit for $1,650,000 and significant remedial relief against Conectiv, A.C. Dellovade, Inc., Steel Suppliers Erectors, Inc. and Matrix Services Industrial Contractors (doing business as Bogan, Inc. /Hake Group) on behalf of African American employees who were subjected to egregious racial harassment at a construction site in Bethlehem, Pa.

Conectiv was the general contractor and property owner on a project to build a new energy power plant on the site of a defunct steel plant. Construction on the project began in January 2002 and the plant was operating by the end of October 2003. The EEOC charged in the lawsuit that the defendants, acting as joint employers, subjected a class of African American employees to racial slurs and graffiti as well as threats by hangman’s nooses.

The EEOC said that harassment included a life size noose made of heavy rope hung from a beam in a class member’s work area for at least 10 days before it was removed; the regular use of the “N-word”; racially offensive comments made to black individuals, including “I think everybody should own one”; “Black people are no good and you can’t trust them”; and “Black people can’t read or write.” Additionally, racist graffiti was present written in portable toilets, with terms such as “coon”; “If u not white u not right”; “White power”; “KKK”; and “I love the Ku Klux Klan.”

“It should be obvious to construction companies that employees in this industry have the same legal protections against discrimination as those who work in an office setting,” said EEOC Philadelphia District Director Marie M. Tomasso, who oversaw the agency’s administrative investigation which preceded the litigation. “Employers risk intervention by the EEOC when supervisors ignore racially offensive working conditions and fail to take prompt and effective remedial action to stop it.”

As part of the settlement by consent decrees, Conectiv will pay $750,000 to the four class members, Matrix Services Industrial Contractors (doing business as Bogan, Inc./Hake Group) will pay $450,000 to two class members, Steel Suppliers Erectors, Inc. will pay $250,000 to one class member, and A.C. Dellovade, Inc. will pay $200,000 to one class member. In addition to the monetary relief, the four-year decrees (EEOC v. Conectiv, et al, Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-03389), filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, includes: injunctive relief enjoining each defendant from engaging in racial harassment or retaliation; anti-discrimination training; the posting of a notice about the settlement; and reporting complaints of racial harassment to the EEOC for monitoring. Defendants did not admit liability in the consent decrees, which are pending judicial approval.

EEOC Regional Attorney Jacqueline McNair said, “The harassment in this case is shocking and unconscionable. The display of hangman’s nooses, which represent a threat to life and limb, is abhorrent and will not be tolerated by the EEOC. Employers must realize there will be a high price to pay for such egregious and unlawful conduct, regardless of the industry in which it occurs.”

Terrence R. Cook, the supervisory trial attorney responsible for handling the litigation, added, “The class members had the courage to come forward and complain, first to supervisors, who did not take action, and then to the EEOC, which did. We are pleased that the companies worked with us to resolve the case and that they are all taking the positive steps needed to ensure future work sites are free from racial harassment.”

link

• EEOC,
• harassment,
• racism,
• Conectiv

Well, you'll have to keep holding your breath when it comes to the State Department . . . whose Secretary would be . . . .?

Suppose you read a GAO report that had these section headings?

State Has Limited Insight into Its Use of Interagency Contracting

State Cannot Ensure That Decisions to Use Assisted Interagency Contracting Are Being Made by the Appropriate Acquisition Officials

State’s Policies Do Not Ensure Contract Oversight for Assisted Interagency Contracts

Well, I might as well just stop there, because you know the drill. But it would be waste of a post not to add a bit more.

Office of the Procurement Executive (OPE) and the Office of Acquisitions Management
(AQM), as

The report concerns the use of interagency contracting. The idea is a good one: essentially have agencies pool their needs and assist one another. The problem is that it becomes hard to ensure that there is proper oversight when contracting and oversight responsibilities are shared. As GAO puts it:

These include a lack of reliable data and transparency regarding when and how these contracts are used as well as a lack of clarity in the definition of roles and responsibilities for managing contracts when multiple agencies are involved. As a result of these and related issues, we designated the management of interagency contracting as a governmentwide high-risk
area in 2005.

In 2002, however, the State Department created a policy called "State First" to "require State’s domestic bureaus and offices to use State contracting offices, as opposed to paying another agency for contracting support services." GAO was interested in assessing whether this policy had minimized the risks of contracting as opposed to the failures at other agencies. Although smaller than DHS, GAO, and other agencies, State's reported "total contract obligations of over $5 billion in fiscal year 2006" and it has become "increasingly reliant on contractors to help carry out its mission."

GAO concluded that problems with the use of contractors persist and pervade State's contracting. Here are its findings.

Contracting Officials at the State Department Have "Limited Insight"

State officials have limited insight into the extent to which the department has used both methods of interagency contracting — direct by placing their ownorders on another agency’s contract and assisted by obtaining contract support services from another agency. State officials cannot rely on the federal government’s primary data system for tracking procurements to readily identify instances when State has used interagency contracts. Further, State’s central procurement and accounting systems do not reliably and comprehensively identify when interagency contracts have been used.

While State officials told GAO the most reliable way to identify interagency contract actions would be to request data on these actions from bureaus and overseas posts, several bureaus and posts had difficulty responding to such a request. State reported to GAO over $800 million in interagency contract actions in fiscal year 2006, but these data were incomplete. For example, State did not report $144 million in assisted contracting performed on its behalf by the Department of Defense. GAO has previously reported that the lack of reliable information on interagency contracts inhibits agencies from making sound contracting decisions and engaging in good management practices.

Due to the way the State First policy has been implemented, State cannot ensure that decisions to use assisted interagency contracting are made by the appropriate acquisition officials. These officials often lack awareness of or involvement in decisions to use assisted interagency contracts.

First, State acquisition officials have created exemptions limiting the assisted contract
actions subject to their review under the policy. For example, State’s guidance exempts funds transfers under the Foreign Assistance Act, under which bureaus conducting large amounts of interagency contracting operate.

Second, bureaus have varying interpretations of when approvals are needed under the policy. Some bureaus seek approvals for individual contract actions related to specific requirements. Another bureau interprets the policy as only requiring approval for a new overarching interagency acquisition agreement, which can encompass multiple contract actions and fiscal years.

Third, State acquisition officials do not monitor State First compliance, so they are not positioned to know whether the five approval requests received in fiscal year 2006 fully reflected the extent of that year’s assisted interagency contracting. State’s policies do not ensure that responsibilities for overseeing contractor performance on assisted interagency contracts are assigned to appropriately trained individuals.

State acquisition regulations do not require trained oversight personnel to be assigned when using assisted interagency contracting. As a result, effective oversight depends on factors outside of State’s control, such as the rigor of servicing agencies’ oversight requirements, which vary. GAO identified cases where State personnel were given responsibility for overseeing contractor performance but had not received related training. GAO and others have reported that agencies’ interests are put at risk when the individuals responsible for overseeing contractor performance are not clearly designated and have not been properly trained.

Not too surprising when you consider that this is the Bush Administration's pervasive policy at work with regard to contractors. And this is the Bush Administration's State Department that has had NO policy success that I can think of and a heck of a lot of failures.

The report is Interagency Contracting: Need for Improved Information and Policy Implementation at the Department of State GAO-08-578, May 8, 2008

• State-Department,
• GAO,
• contracting,
• contractors,
• outsourcing,
• State-First

I know that there are alot of people visiting this site. Alot. And in fact, looking over some of the Unbossed member names I recognize many really intelligent people that I've interacted with on other sites.

But we get few comments here at Unbossed and that is a shame.

One of the reasons I like to write is to begin discussion. To learn from other people.

So, my request is simple. If you have something to say, say it. Say it loud. Comment on our posts and engage us in discussion. Engage each other. I constantly check back at my posts to see of someone commented.

I learn from other people. Help educate me.

Thank you.

You are invited to submit writing to a new anthology

We've all heard the scientific facts and predictions about global climate change. But when you hear the experts talking, how do you feel? Are you stunned, frightened, angry, concerned? Do you think about the places you love, and how they may be changed in the future? Have you already observed changes in the world around you? Has global warming affected your hopes and dreams for the future, your beliefs about humanity or the natural world, your faith in progress or in God? To what people, places, and symbols do you turn for strength, hope, and sustenance?

Author Steven Pavlos Holmes, Ph.D. (bio) is taking a different look at global warming. Staying away from the "debate", Dr. Holmes is focusing on the emotional and spiritual toll climate change is taking on individuals:

Facing the Change will be a different kind of book about global warming - filled not with bare facts and dire warnings but with human feelings, challenges, and hope, and written not by the experts but by everyday people from all backgrounds, ages, and walks of life - written by you. Anyone with the courage to face the emotional and spiritual dimensions of the climate change crisis is invited to submit a story, essay, or poem. Submissions should express your own personal experiences and reflections about the meanings of global warming, including (but not limited to) topics such as:

Perceiving the reality of climate change, through direct experience at home or while travelling, or through imagining what may happen in the future to places you love

Facing the feelings - fear, terror, grief, guilt, sadness, anger - all the emotional warning signs whose expression can be appropriate and healthy, but whose repression leads to disempowerment, despair, and paralysis
Dancing with your sources of life - connecting with those people, places, beings, and activities with whom you nurture love, joy, power, and hope in the face of crisis
Reflecting on your religious and philosophical foundations - reassessing your own fundamental beliefs, values, guiding symbols, and visions for the future
Choosing to change your life in any arena - work, family, lifestyle, community involvement, cultural activities, political choices - whether your goal is to try to prevent, to accept, or to adapt to climate change

Again, please ground your writing in personal experience, and in consideration of the emotional, spiritual, and philosophical meanings of climate change; no purely scientific expositions, political arguments, or moral polemics, please. Submissions must be typed and legible, with a brief author bio and complete contact information included in the document. (It would also be helpful to know how you learned of the project.) English only, please; speakers of other languages are encouraged to develop similar projects of your own. Sorry, no fees can be paid for use of any work. Submissions accepted through JUNE 1, 2008 (NOTE NEW DATE), soon after which I will prepare a proposal with which to approach potential publishers. Work may be submitted electronically (Word or plain-text documents only) to submissions(at)facingthechange.org, or in hard copy to the following address:

Facing the Change
c/o Steven Pavlos Holmes
21 Eldridge Rd.
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130

Questions or comments? Suggestions for helping publicize the project? Interested in distributing flyers at meetings, conferences, or events? Able to support the project financially? Contact me at steve(at)facingthechange.org. Thanks for your interest in Facing the Change!

Go ahead! Submit!

That's why I found this interesting:

The Bureau of Land Management announced Tuesday that it has signed an agreement with the New Mexico Historic Preservation Division and the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation that will give oil and gas developers an option of funding excavation work and other studies rather than paying for archaeological surveys when they propose new development.

Over the past few years, I have written a number of times on my experiences as an archaeologist working on public lands in the Southwest. It wasnt pretty.

Destruction of archaeological resources by the oil and gas industry was wide-spread. Often times it was done right in front of the archaeologists who were working to protect those sites. It was worse in New Mexico than any of the other states I worked in. Most often, the contract archaeology higher ups and the bosses at the land management agencies (mostly the BLM) turned a blind eye to this destruction. It got to be so bad that I eventually quit archaeology. Seeing those sites destroyed drilled a hole in my heart.

Under the new agreement, oil and gas developers who participate in the voluntary program will not have to pay for a survey but they will be required to pay a special fee that will go toward excavation and other research. The BLM expects to raise about $1 million a year.

I'm suspicious.

Typically, when industry wants to develop a chunk of public land, they have to pay a contract archaeology company to survey the area and record the sites. Then, the company decides if they want to excavate the site or go around it. In my experience, they often simply go through the site.

This agreement covers only the portion of BLM land down in the southeast corner of New Mexico where oil and gas development has been going full-bore since the 1930s. It is an area I know well. Because development has been going on there for so long, by far the majority of the archaeological sites on public land in the area have been found and recorded - some many times over.

However, not much is known about the sites themselves, making it difficult for the agency to manage them accordingly.

"We haven't excavated hardly anything so we have a very poor handle on what kind of data they contain, what kind of information we can learn from them, what they're telling us about human adaptation to the desert in that part of the trans-Pecos area," he said.

Its true. If we are to expand our knowledge of the people that were in the area before Euro-Americans came on the scene, we need to do some excavations. Excavations are expensive and so, throughout the West, our knowledge gathering abilities when it comes to ancient cultures have been hampered over the past two deceades by a lack of money.

So, essentially, what this agreement says is that industry can go ahead and develop public lands without paying for archaeological surveys prior to the project. Instead, they simply have to pay into a BLM fund geared toward excavating some of the sites in the area that have been already recorded.

There are critics who have some good points:

Still, archaeology can damage the very resources it's designed to protect, said Jim Walker, director of the national nonprofit Archaeological Conservancy's Southwest region.

"An archaeological site is a set of clues and we'll never have those clues again in the same order. An archaeologist destroys an archaeological site as he or she excavates," Walker said. "And we also know that archaeology is a changing science and we're always coming up with new ideas and new techniques and the only way we can test a new idea or new technique is on an unexcavated archaeological site."

Another concern is that a few sites could be lost each year if companies decide to participate in the voluntary program rather than pay for an archaeological survey. But Fosberg said the benefits outweigh the potential loss.

"We can excavate sites ... and actually do some real science and learn from them," he said. "The fact of the matter is we're losing sites anyway because of this cumulative effect of development."

While these crtiques are valid, overall, to me it seems like a good idea. I almost cant believe I'm saying this because this is the New Mexico BLM...an agency geared towards the production of oil and gas above all other values. But excavating even some of the sites in that area will advance our knowledge of long-dead cultures tremendously.

To be sure, this is a win for industry. Development projects will move forward much faster and much cheaper under this scenario. Without a doubt, many previosuly unknown sites will be destroyed in the process. But until this nation gets itself off the drug of fossil fuels, we will continue to be forced into the false choice of bad options.

I'm going to remain suspicious. I dont trust Director Linda Rundell's NM BLM. Let's see if they use that money for excavations.

Let's just see.

A leaked Office of Special Counsel memo describes an investigation into the federal prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman [and 10 other high-profile cases, involving U.S. Attorneys and White House officials]. The Siegelman investigation, conducted by an OSC task force, was shut down on orders from OSC head, Scott Bloch, whose office and home were raided Tuesday by the FBI.

"The question is who told them to shut it down," Siegelman said Wednesday when told of the memo. "Why would you start an investigation and let it proceed and then shut it down? The logical conclusion is that somebody intervened and told them to shut down the investigation ... we need to get to the bottom of this." (AP)

The memo, titled, "Summary of Task Force Activities and Recommendations," dated January 18, 2007, was sent to Scott Bloch, the Special Counsel "thru" Jim Byrne, Deputy Special Counsel, by the members and advisors of an OSC task force (TF). According to the memo, the task force was created in May 2007 "to pursue certain complex and high profile investigations, such as the firing of the U.S. Attorneys and the political presentations given by the White House Office of Political Affairs."

Regarding Siegelman, the internal memo begins with the statement, "two case files have been opened in reference to the prosecution of Don Siegelman, the former democratic governor of Alabama." After a brief summary of the case, the memo states that, in September 2007, the task force compiled "all public information." In October 2007, "TF watches and reviews Simpson's Congressional testimony," and "TF creates investigation plan and drafts 5.4 to be sent to DOJ concerning this case. On October 11, 2007, the memo states:

TF is informed that the Special Counsel did not authorize the Task Force to investigate these allegations and that do so [sic] is a breach. The Special Counsel requests that this file be closed immediately.

The last entry, October 15, 2007, reports, "After concerns are expressed that OSC simply cannot close a file without conducting an investigation into theses [sic] allegations, teh TF is directed to not further investigate this case and to wait for further instructions from the Special Counsel [Bloch]. The "Current Status," (as of January 18, 2008) was "Open."

Recommendation: TF is requesting authorization to continue with its investigation of this matter.

The task force also looked into alleged ethics violations by Condoleeza Rice and, as McClatchy-Tribune reports, the FBI is seeking related documents.

FBI agents investigating government watchdog Scott Bloch have subpoenaed any records that would reveal whether concerns about the 2004 elections prompted him to clear Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of ethics violations.

The Project on Government Oversight, which released the OSC memo today, “accused Bloch of conducting ‘stunningly broad fishing expeditions’ to create a false impression that he was being scrutinized only because of his aggressive investigations.” (McClatchy-Tribune)

The wealth of information contained in the memo answers some questions, but raises many more in what surely is one of the most confusing scandals ever to hit Washington.

• Scott-Bloch,
• Office-of-Special-Counsel,
• Don-Siegelman,
• Condoleeza-Rice,
• U.S.-Attorneys,
• FBI,
• White-House,
• Karl-Rove

Me? I paid $3.49 for the cheap stuff in northern Colorado yesterday. While it's 18-cents cheaper in Cheyenne (and I can pick up some cheap illegal fireworks while I'm there) am I willing to drive 50 miles out of my way and blow a gallon of gas to save a little money?

Ask me when gas hits 4 bucks a gallon.

• gas,
• energy,
• politics

Although Tibet has been much in the news lately as a result of demonstrations connected with the Beijing Olympics, I think most of us (and that definitely includes me) have a grasp of the complexity of the situation there.

OpenCRS has done us all a real favor by releasing a Congressional Research Service report that provides a good overview of the major issues.

For example, I was aware of the controversy over China's interference with identifying the reincarnated Lamas, the Panchen Lama, for example, a subject that is discussed in the report. I was not aware of other aspects of its interference, such as the China Reincarnation Law.

China’s 2007 “Reincarnation Law”. The case of the 11th Panchen Lama raised implications for what happens upon the death and subsequent reincarnation of the current Dalai Lama (the 14th) living in exile. Apparently mindful of its previous experience with the 11th Panchen Lama, Beijing late in 2007 took steps designed to solidify its future control over the selection process of Tibetan lamas. On August 3, 2007, the State Administration for Religious Affairs (SARA) issued a set of regulations, effective September 1, 2007, that require all Tibetan lamas wishing to reincarnate to obtain prior government approval through the submission of a “reincarnation application.” In a statement accompanying the regulations, SARA called the step “an important move to institutionalize management on reincarnation of living Buddhas.”

The Dalai Lama’s Special Envoy, Lodi Gyaltsen Gyari, described the new regulations as a blow against “the heart of Tibetan religious identity.” The regulations also require that reincarnation applications come from “legally registered venues” for Tibetan Buddhism — a provision seen as an attempt to illegalize the reincarnation of the current Dalai Lama, who has declared he will not be reborn in China if circumstances in Tibet remain unchanged. In the aftermath of the new reincarnation law, the Dalai Lama also has said that he is thinking of alternative ways of choosing his successor, including selecting a candidate before his own death. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman responded to these comments by saying that such a move would “violate religious rituals and historical conventions of Tibetan uddhism.” The new reincarnation law inserts the Chinese government directly into what for centuries has been one of the principal mystical and religious aspects of Tibetan Buddhism.

The report covers issues such as the March 2008 Demonstrations and Crackdown, Background on Modern Tibet, History of U.S. Policy Since the 1980s, Implications for U.S. Policy, and Appendix I - Legislative Earmarks for Tibet and Appendix II - Selected U.S. Government Reports with Components on Tibet.

The report's overview describes its contents as:

This report consists of three free-standing parts: the first discusses current issues in Tibet, including the March 2008 Chinese crackdown against demonstrations in Lhasa and elsewhere; the second briefly reviews Tibet’s historical and political status with respect to China — a basic source of controversy in many Sino-Tibetan problems; and the third reviews and analyzes U.S. relations with and congressional actions toward Tibet since the 1980s, including legislative initiatives.

• Tibet,
• China,
• Dalai-Lama,
• Olympics,
• Buddhism

Those who depend on legacy news media for information are not likely to know that the White House yesterday risked derailing international efforts to provide help to the people of Myanmar. After a cyclone struck the southeast Asian nation on Saturday, tens of thousands are reported dead or missing, and many thousands more are without food, water, shelter and medical care.

One must look hard to find the full text of comments made at a White House news conference held yesterday by Mrs. Bush. But, do look.

In their entirety, the comments display a callousness toward Myanmar's situation, no little hypocrisy, and appear to deliberately antagonize the Myanmar government at a time when the UN and other international entities were conducting delicate negotiations to persuade reluctant Myanmar officials to let disaster relief teams into their country. Thus, the White House risked provoking Myanmar's junta into rejecting ALL external assistance offered by other countries and relief organizations.

The Myanmar government has been criticized by many people and governments for its harsh treatment of dissent, including a recent violent crackdown on protests. But, there is a time for criticism. That time is not while a nation has a crisis on its hands that threatens to kill thousands; not while diplomatic efforts are underway to persuade a reluctant, isolationist government to allow disaster relief organizations into the country to provide needed help to suffering disaster survivors.

Few U.S. newspapers covering the First Lady's press conference have included, much less commented on, her harshest comments, which echoed past administration criticisms of Myanmar. As a result, most Americans are unaware that the administration recklessly risked derailing international relief efforts. Here, from the official White House transcript of the press conference, are examples of the administration's stick-in-the-eye diplomacy.

It's troubling that many of the Burmese people learned of this impending disaster only when foreign outlets -- such as Radio Free Asia and Voice of America -- sounded the alarm. Although they were aware of the threat, Burma's state-run media failed to issue a timely warning to citizens in the storm's path.

The response to the cyclone is just the most recent example of the junta's failure to meet its people's basic needs. The regime has dismantled systems of agriculture, education and health care. This once wealthy nation now has the lowest per capita GDP in Southeast Asia.

Despite the havoc created by this weekend cyclone, as far as we can tell Burma's military leaders plan to move forward with the constitutional referendum scheduled for this Saturday, May 10th. They've orchestrated this vote to give false legitimacy to their continued rule.

In response to the regime's continued repression, President Bush has instructed the U.S. Treasury Department to freeze assets of Burmese state-owned companies that are held in U.S. banks. This adds to actions last year to expand U.S. sanctions against Burma's regime, and to tighten sanctions against its top leaders.

At the conclusion of her prepared remarks, Mrs. Bush took questions, including the following.

Q ...Do you think that they have blood on their hands for that lack of warning?

MRS. BUSH: Well, I just think it's very, very important -- that we know already that they are very inept; that they have not been able to govern in a way that lets their company -- country, for one thing, build an economy.

Q Mrs. Bush, what can you tell us about the President signing legislation in the near future to award Aung San Suu Kyi the Congressional Gold Medal?

MRS. BUSH: The President will sign the legislation tomorrow, the congressional legislation that awards Aung San Suu Kyi the Congressional Medal of Honor.** And I was hoping to be here with him when he did that. I don't think I'll be here because I think I'll be going on tomorrow.

Note: Aung San Suu Kyi is a political activist in Myanmar and a high-profile opponent of the Myanmar junta.

Q Do you think that might, though, affect the military junta's willingness to receive aid from the international community, particularly the U.S.?

MRS. BUSH: I hope not. I hope that the military will realize they have to accept aid from everybody they can possibly accept it from. And maybe that will be the something good that can come out of this terrible destruction.

Expressions of hope are unlikely to undo the damage of Mrs. Bush's other remarks. From calling the nation "Burma" rather than "Myanmar," the name used by the junta, to describing the leaders as "inept;" from citing financial sanctions to honoring their chief political opponent; the White House performance on Monday seemed designed to upset sensitive international negotiations.

At Huffington Post, Richard Walden, President and CEO of an international relief group, is one of the few willing to look past the fog of legacy media coverage.

Most of us in the relief business have strong views pro or con about the governments of countries whose people we help. But when disaster strikes, a bad or ineffective local government is an obstacle to be danced around not bludgeoned to death thus guaranteeing it will not allow the entry of urgent humanitarian aid for its people.

Laura Bush read the administration's long-standing talking points on Myanmar while simultaneously demanding that its government accept a team of US disaster officials to make an independent assessment of its needs. That the International Red Cross, the United Nations, the European Union and a number of highly competent relief agencies were already on the ground doing exactly that did not seem to matter. Giving Laura a mike and a little halo seemingly was the intent, especially with George W. Bush's popularity hovering at 27% in the polls.

The Burmese constitutional referendum set for Saturday, the still-under-house-arrest democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi, the generalized brutality of the military junta -- all were targeted by The First Lady while giving lip service to making a provisional offer of US assistance to storm victims.

The White House seemingly believes that one can convince people to accept help by first publicly humiliating them; is oblivious to the hypocrisy of criticizing another nation's response to a cyclone two years after its disastrous Katrina response; sees no moral barrier to treating people in peril as political pawns.

Culpability for Monday's press conference extends beyond the White House. As Congress waits for term limits to remove a clearly incompetent presidency, the death toll rises -- in Myanmar, in Iraq, and here at home, where the healthcare system is failing. For the millions affected by White House policies here and abroad, January 20, 2009, seems as remote as the rice paddies of Myanmar and the pre-Katrina streets of New Orleans. Sadly, many will not live to see that day.

• Myanmar,
• Burma,
• cyclone,
• George-W.-Bush,
• Laura
• Bush,
• White
• House,
• disaster
• relief,
• United-Nations,
• Aung-San-Suu-Kyi,
• Richard-Walden