President Obama's historic pronouncement last week that he personally favors gay marriage turned Election 2012 into a contest of church vs. state. Who rules?  The priest, the imam, the rabbi- or the jurist, the politician, the statesman? For me, the answer is easy. The greatness of this country lies in its tolerance of different faiths.  Hear my spiel on how Romney will try and take advantage of the religious opposition. Also on the show today we discuss the game-changing aspects of women freezing their young eggs, why an autistic boy should not be automatically handed a high school graduation diploma, and the audacity of New York's latest rule, requiring lawyers to work for free before becoming admitted to the Bar. Click here for the direct link to the show.  http://lisawexler.com/index.php/shows/2012-shows/may/may-14-2012

Yesterday, President Obama surprised millions of Americans by declaring his personal support for gay marriage. The announcement, which came on the heels of North Carolina's vote to outlaw civil unions and same-sex marriages, was the fodder for much discussion on Wednesday night's talk shows, where hosts like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Rachel Maddow responded to both developments with a range of emotions.

Colbert took his usual deeply ironic stance, suggesting that Obama's decision to go "push the rainbow button" represented an instantaneous threat to heterosexual unions everywhere. "This afternoon, your marriage started feeling a little weak, didn’t it?" he asked. "You got the sudden urge to abandon your family and go antiquing up at the cape."

Speaking about the vote in North Carolina, Colbert got a little verklempt. "You just dream of that special day when you can find your soul mate, and together you can celebrate your love of denying people their rights," he said, using a page from his script as a handkerchief.

Colbert also "praised" the outcome because it also helps "preserve traditional straight stereotypes" about gay promiscuity. "I believe gay people should be having hot, sweaty, anonymous man-piles in the basement of techno clubs devoid of the slightest emotional connection, as God intended." Amen to that!

On "The Daily Show," Jon Stewart began on a more modest note. Just the day before, he had suggested that Obama was "being disingenuous" by not simply saying that he is in favor of same-sex marriage.

The historical import of Obama's announcement, which drew thunderous applause from the "Daily Show" audience, could "in no way be dampened by the codifying of bigotry" in North Carolina -- which, as Stewart pointed out, just so happens to be the state where  Democrats are holding their convention this year.

Stewart was skeptical of the idea that a ban on gay marriage would somehow alter the "historic meaning" of marriage. Even if it did, that might not be such a bad thing, he argued, since "marriage originated as a social construct that allowed family patriarchs to facilitate the transfer of chattel property such as livestock or daughters."

Perhaps the most subdued response came from MSNBC host Rachel Maddow. Although she called Wednesday a "historic day for civil rights in America," she downplayed the idea that Obama's announcement represent a huge about-face -- or flip-flop, if you will -- by the president.

She argued that the Obama administration has been "great on the issue of gay rights" all along, even if he personally hasn't come out in favor of same-sex marriage. Maddow favorably compared the president to predecessors George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, who, despite claiming to personally admire gays and lesbians, enacted anti-gay policies in office.

"Ultimately what presidents do is they wield political power," she said. "Even before today, that legacy of that first term of the Barack Obama presidency was already clear. Today he added to that. He added icing to that. The cake was already baked." 

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The Obama administration tightened rules on hydraulic fracturing Friday, requiring the disclosure of chemicals used in the process when done on federal and American Indian lands.

The new rules will also require additional testing of oil and gas well construction and require the industry to have a management plan for the water used in the process.  "This proposed rule will strengthen the requirements for hydraulic fracturing performed on federal and Indian lands in order to build public confidence and protect the health of American communities, while ensuring continued access to the important resources that make up our energy economy," the Interior Department said in a statement.

The move is part of a broader administration effort to increase rules for the controversial practice. Earlier this month, the Environmental Protection Agency tightened air pollution requirements for new oil and gas wells.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking as it is known, has unleashed a boom in energy production in the United States by allowing the production of oil and gas from shale rock. It has reduced the country's oil imports, boosted natural gas production and provided thousands of jobs.

Most major oil companies are now involved in shale oil and gas production, including Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500), Royal Dutch Shell (XOM, Fortune 500) and BP (BP).

But the process has also raised fears of ground water contaminationand is suspected of causing mild earthquakes.

Fracking involves injecting water, sand and some chemicals deep into the earth to crack shale rock, which allows oil and gas to more easily flow. Critics fear the chemicals are seeping into the groundwater.

About 20% of the nation's natural gas production and 30% of its oil production is done on federal lands.

The oil and gas industry has long resisted disclosing what chemicals it uses in the fracking process, arguing they were trade secrets and that disclosure would harm their competitive advantage.

But environmentalists and public health officials lobbied for the disclosure, saying it was needed to monitor for pollution and effectively treat workers involved in accidents.

The ingredients used in fracking vary widely, and can include everything from sulfuric acid and benzene to instant coffee and paraffin wax.

While the industry initially resisted disclosing the formula, it has gradually been moving in that direction under intense public pressure. Many states now require disclosure, and many companies list at least some of the ingredients on a website called FracFocus.

Environmentalists were pleased with Friday's announcement but said even more should be done.

They said the new rules only require chemical disclosure after the fracturing has been done. What's needed, they say, is disclosure before the job so residents can do baseline testing of their water.

"We think the administration can and should have done more here to protect human health and the environment," said Amy Mall, a policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council. The government "should not propose rules that are weaker than what any state has on the books."

Most fracking regulations are controlled by the states, but environmentalists have argued that the federal government should play a greater role.

The industry maintains the state rules are sufficient, and having the federal government involved adds an unnecessary layer of regulation that is both costly and time consuming.

In reacting to the new rules Friday, the industry didn't seem too concerned with the proposal itself, but was leery of a bigger federal presence.

"The states have proven time and again that they are the best place for responsible regulation of drilling operations," The American Petroleum Institute's Erik Milito said in a statement. "While it appears constructive changes have been made, we are still reviewing the new proposal to see how the agency addressed the various concerns that we've raised."

The trend in fracking regulation has been moving toward an increased federal role. Many analysts say the increased regulation is both necessary to convince the public the process is safe and affordable for the industry.

The Obama administration is generally supportive of fracking, but with increased oversight.

There still exists two extremes in this fight, with some in the industry opposing any new rules and some critics arguing the process should be banned altogether. 

 

How the White House deals with Chen Guangcheng, reportedly hiding in an American embassy, could reveal more about its agenda and values abroad than maybe any other international crisis.
 The Chinese government is so terrified of Chen Guangcheng that, when rumors spread on Sunday that he had boarded United Airlines flight 898 from Beijing to Washington, state censors almost immediately blocked Weibo users from sending any messages with the word "UA898." Chen, a lawyer who campaigned against state-forced sterilizations and abortions meant to enforce China's one-child policy, is blind; the words "blind man" were also blocked online. Though Chinese police often bend over backwards to avoid harming Westerners, especially high-profile ones, they roughed up Christian Bale and a CNN crew for trying to visit the building where he is kept under house arrest.

This is how seriously the Chinese government takes Chen Guangcheng. Now, Chen has escaped house arrest and reportedly fled to the American embassy in Beijing. In immediate human terms, the U.S. response would be easy and automatic: grant him legal asylum and fly him back to the United States. But foreign policy is more complicated than that. If China knocked around Christian Bale just for trying to shake Chen's hand, what would the country to do the American foreign policy agenda if Obama grants Chen his freedom to continue raising awareness about Communist Party abuses, embarrassing the leaders of that party in the process?

"We're going to make sure that we do this in the appropriate way and that appropriate balance is struck," U.S. counterterrorism adviser John Brennan carefully and tellingly put it on Fox News Sunday. Brennan said that Obama tries to "balance our commitment to human rights" as well as "to carry out our relationships with key countries overseas." Less than two months ago, the police chief of Chongqing rushed into an American consulate to confess his boss's most heinous abuses -- including his role in the murder of a British citizen -- and to seek asylum. The U.S. officials turned him away, and the police chief was arrested. This isn't the same situation -- the police chief had committed his share of crimes as well, and Chen Guangcheng is one of China's most successful activists and one of its best known abroad -- but the police chief's case highlights how sensitive the U.S. is about upsetting China's leadership.

If Chen Guangcheng is still locked up in an American diplomatic office, he poses a remarkable challenge to President Obama, one that asks how U.S. foreign policy under his leadership balances American ideals with American interests, whether he is able to achieve both, and, if not, which he will privilege. Obama's foreign policy team, and possibly Obama himself, face a question that is about more than just the fate of this one lawyer, or even about the U.S.-China relationship. It's about the role that America plays in the world, what we do with all the military and economic power at our fingertips.

It's hard not to think of the clichéd action movie climax, when the hero is forced to choose between saving, say, the sidekick or the love interest. He always managed to save both -- it makes for a better ending -- but the scene is compelling because it's an impossible choice, and because in saving one he is condemning the other. Chen's flight to a U.S. diplomatic building forces Obama to choose between ferrying Chen out of China or keeping him there, between human rights or diplomacy, between America's image in the world or its political capital with Beijing, between making China a little bit more democratic or a little bit more cooperative. Obama might be able to have it both ways, like the Hollywood hero, but he will probably have to sacrifice something.

How Obama deals with Chen Guangcheng may say more about his foreign policy and what it values than maybe any other such crisis he has faced during his presidency. That's not because Chen is so important; he is important, but not anywhere near the scale of Iran or North Korea or the Arab Spring. It's because his dilemma forces Obama to choose between two starkly different visions of American foreign policy.

In one sense, freeing this one dissident would risk daunting costs to Obama's agenda abroad; in another, to bring Chen to freedom would seem the very embodiment of American power at its brightest. A blind man of humble origins, Chen got his start fighting for disabled rights in a country that barely recognized them, and ended up taking on some of his government's cruelest abuses and most powerful interests. The U.S. State Department has previously called for his release. And, if he's seeking refugee status, the U.S. is probably obligated under international law to grant it.

Yet, Chen's release would infuriate the Chinese government, which the Obama administration has spent years assiduously courting. China's help is essential for addressing nearly every major foreign policy issue Obama faces, from the conflicts in Syria and Sudan, to containing Iran and North Korea, to curbing global warming, to determining how the next century of Pacific power will play out. There's also, of course, the U.S.-Chinese economic relationship, which is crucial for U.S. economic growth, which will be necessary for Obama's reelection.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner are already scheduled to meet with their Chinese counterparts this Thursday and Friday for a "Strategic and Economic Dialogue" that will likely encompass all of these issues and more. If Chen has been released back into China, Clinton and Geithner are likely to have an easier time pushing their agenda; if Chen is still under U.S. protection or has been removed from China, the U.S. can expect less cooperation, setting back. That's a high price for one Chinese dissident. But Obama's other choice is maybe just as painful: throwing a brave and selfless human rights activist, a man who campaigned against forced abortions and forced sterilizations, back to a government that already executes 5,000 people every year.

This is far from the most important foreign policy challenge Obama has faced, the most dangerous, or the most historically significant. Still, the Chen case is unique because, even with its vastly lower stakes, it has so strongly pitted American strategy against American ideology that the White House must rethink these most fundamental premises of U.S. foreign policy in order to resolve them. Iran and North Korea, for example, are much greater threats with much higher stakes, but Obama inherited well-worn policies of containment on both. Managing those containments is surely difficult, but it's still mostly a question of engineering policy, not of fundamentally questioning the ideologies behind that policy.

Obama's usual foreign policy modus operandi -- calculated, cool-headed pragmatism -- doesn't offer as much guidance here as it might have during past crises. The pragmatic response to the Egyptian revolution, shifting support to the protesters once they looked likely to oust President Hosni Mubarak; to the Libyan civil war, backing NATO without leading it; to the end of the Iraq war, trying to convince the government there to host U.S. troops but not forcing it. But there's no obviously pragmatic response to Chen, and that's exactly what makes it such a momentous challenge for Obama. The stakes are not in Chen's meaning for the world -- neither the U.S.-China relationship nor American democracy-promotion are likely to live or die by what happens to this blind dissident -- but in Chen's meaning for how Obama uses American power in the world.
Max Fisher - The Atlantic