Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) . . . argued that a package of amendments on the H-1B section of the bill from . . . Hatch would loosen protections in the bill for American workers. These protections require employers to attest that they offered technical jobs to American workers first, and requires them to follow new rules when hiring a foreign worker on an H-1B visa. For example, the current bill says a company must attest that a new H-1B hire did not or will not replace a U.S. worker doing the same type of job 90 days before and after their visa application is filed.

Hatch believes that Durbin’s approach would make tech companies more inclined to ship jobs overseas, while his approach would keep them on U.S. soil, even if they go to foreign workers. Expect Durbin’s sentiment to come up again, to a much more fervent extent, in the House. I dare say people on both sides of the immigration debate would agree to keep protections like that.

It might be easy to dismiss Durbin’s worry as an example of this, if not for one thing: Congress’s work on immigration reform, while much welcomed, is overriding concern they may have had for the problem of long-term unemployment (LTU) among Americans. Note that the study cited in the article refers to fear that applicants who have been out of work for six months or more possess “outdated skills” – a reasonable fear, given the rapid evolution of necessary technical skills, to say nothing of equipment.

This should not be construed as a call to hold off on high-skilled immigration reform. It is merely a gentle reminder to the tech industry that they have the power to help bring the skills of LTU workers up to date. By working with colleges and counties, they can train thousands of Americans to do some basic coding and data analysis. If manufacturing jobs aren’t coming back – which isn’t uniformly true – then tech companies can solve LTUs’ problem and theirs by investing in these partnerships.

I would also advise them to do the same with high schools, in order to help more kids see the value of pursuing a technical education. That would help mitigate some of the problem of graduate unemployment. The point is to give them and LTUs a tangible reminder that the tech industry is also open to Americans who are already here, and to reduce a couple of serious economic drags.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) says the Benghazi talking point revisions had no impact on the 2012 presidential election. “That’s what pisses us off!” says every Republican defense hawk in America.

Religious groups ramp up complaints against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), now, too, accusing them of improper targeting. Why do I have the feeling that everyone will accuse the IRS of improper targeting in the next week or so? That’s why you should always target properly.

The Pentagon asks Congress to redirect Afghanistan-related funds to other areas of its budget, particularly transportation, due to high fuel costs. They also need to pay for “8,400 more offices,” holy crap. Are you sure that wasn’t a typo and they really want more “officers?” Nobody needs that many offices!

The tech industry waits with bated breath for the presentation of high-skilled immigration legislation. Has anyone seen anyone else demanding that the tech industry step up retraining efforts for long-term unemployed Americans, in order to fill their own labor shortages? Because if that hasn’t come up, that’s disappointing.

Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) puts forward legislation calling for a national strategy dealing with the health effects of climate change. She’d have a better chance at earning bipartisan support if she talked about pollution, as opposed to climate change. Republicans still have too much breathing room to get away with ignoring it.

There’s a new effort in Congress to require labels on genetically modified (GM) foods. I don’t have a problem with labeling; I do have a problem with pushing this before anyone presents evidence that years of GM consumption has altered the human body. Is it really more than just a suspicion?

Canadian politics develops three scandals of its own: This one, this one and this one. I know, they’re pretty lame as far as scandals go, but give us credit for trying.

Russia sends a new load of anti-ship cruise missiles (with advanced radar technology!) to Syria. Here’s Secretary of State John Kerry: “I think we have made it crystal clear that we would prefer that Russia is not supplying assistance.” Yes, but have you made Russia give a shit about your preference? Because that’s what matters.

Congress gets tired of waiting around for the White House and passes a new round of sanctions against Iran. If anyone is worried about how other countries that still trade with Iran would react, well, there’s your geopolitical argument for natural gas exports, or just helping them frack.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Pierre Lescure, formerly the head of French TV channel Canal Plus. You may be agape right now at the fact that, in the middle of over a week of massive Washington scandals, I’m reserving my harshest criticism of the week for a French media executive. Well, that’s because we need a laugh, preferably from a foreign country, after being so thoroughly disappointed with the American government. And, by God, did Lescure – and, by extension, French President François Hollande – ever bring it. Allow me to quote the great Al Bundy:

A toast . . . to the French. It’s a foul little country, but they sure do know how write a check, don’t they?

They sure do, and that check will come from a new tax on companies that manufacture any device that links to the Internet: smartphones, tablets, e-readers, gaming consoles and, presumably, laptops and desktops. Hollande tasked Lescure with coming up with a list of “recommendations on how France should adapt its commitment to preserving French-language culture in the . . . digital era.” The tax would initially be set at 1 percent, possibly raised to 3 or 4 percent later, with the money funding “the production of French art, films and music.”

My feelings on government arts funding in general haven’t changed a bit since I first wrote about it. But the idea that this tax would correct the “excessive imbalances” posed by the availability of digital content is absolutely ludicrous. People from all over the world come to France to see its artistic contributions up close and personal. That element of its national identity hasn’t changed just because it’s easier for French citizens to look at other countries’ art. There’s no “threat” to traditional French arts; there is only competition.

The weird part is that not all of Lescure’s recommendations are terrible. One is to scrap a holdover from President Nicolas Sarkozy’s administration that bans Internet connections and imposes penalties on anyone guilty of illegal downloading. Another is to reduce the delay in the release of movies and foreign TV series to video . . . which isn’t as good as realizing that the government has no business setting delays like that, but it’s a good start. And a levy on French telecom operators to subsidize filmmaking will now be based on revenues, instead of being a flat amount. Yeah, that’s considered an improvement by their standards.

I’m sure neither Hollande nor Lescure would ever want to be caught saying French culture is so weak that international culture needs to be discouraged. But that’s what they’re saying, without even trying.

Don’t ask me how I know this, but there is a scene in the Fifty Shades of Grey series in which the lead asshole fires five people in response to an arson in his company’s server room. Apparently that really is how business works, if recent personnel changes at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are any indication. Acting commissioner Steven Miller was asked to resign on Wednesday; Joseph Grant, acting commissioner of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities division, did the same yesterday. I think President Obama would have earned more points if he straight-up fired their asses.

This may not make a lot of sense at first, since Miller didn’t become acting commissioner until late last year, and Grant was only appointed to the job he just resigned last week. But Miller was previously deputy commissioner of services and enforcement, which directly supervises the above-named division. Meanwhile, Grant was the division’s deputy since 2007. So, yes, they were there. This likely means Lois Lerner’s job is safe, although someone who can’t figure out that 75 is one-quarter of 300 shouldn’t work for the IRS.

STORY #2: Agents of (media) shield

Can anyone point to a time before this week when President Obama expressed support for media shield legislation? The White House has just asked Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to reintroduce it; his version would “allow media organizations to challenge subpoenas of phone records and offer legal protections for protecting confidential sources.” Of course, The New Yorker has its own way of avoiding having to deal with that. Don’t be surprised if other media outlets catch on.

The trouble, as numerous outlets have pointed out, is that the exact legislation Obama supports may not have prevented the subpoenas of Associated Press (AP) phone records. The AP believes they were targeted over a story concerning a bomb plot in Yemen; the legislation would see to it that a judge could not invalidate a subpoena if the information could help “prevent a future terrorist attack or other acts likely to harm national security.” I would advise you to give The White Paper another read for this administration’s national security standards.

STORY #3: Whipping boys

Meanwhile, the White House decided to do its own leak this week, releasing 100 pages of e-mails designed to show that it really didn’t have anything to do with revising the administration’s talking points on the U.S. consulate attack in Benghazi. Of course, they ended up making the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) look worse in the process – except, hilariously, for then-director, now-disgrace David Petraeus – but as long as their ass is covered, right? If they think anyone will be waved off by this, they’re insane as well as incompetent.

The NTSB voted on Tuesday to advise that the legal blood alcohol limit for drivers be lowered to 0.05 percent from 0.08 percent. This would bring the U.S. threshold in line with those of certain European nations and Australia. (For the record, we Canadians also use the 0.08 percent threshold.) Here’s a quote from the NTSB report:

Many people believe that if a driver’s BAC is under the legal limit of 0.08, the driver is safe to drive. In reality, by the time a driver’s BAC reaches 0.08, his or her fatal crash risk has at least doubled, and some studies indicate it may be many times higher.

Sloppy writing. In the first sentence, they’re talking about under 0.08; in the second, they’re talking about at 0.08.

The 0.05 figure may come from this chart, from the State University of New York (SUNY) at Potsdam, which indicates that alcohol’s “buzz” peaks at 0.05. You’ll notice that at 0.08, the drinker’s state is still in “buzz” territory, although it’s wearing off fast. I can understand keeping the legal level above the “drunk line” to an extent. But what will monkeying around with that number really solve? More checkpoints here, fewer crashes there, but nothing that can be accurately described as “preventative.” Which brings me to the recommendation we like:

[Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)] is focused instead on getting states to adopt laws that require some convicted offenders to use devices that check blood alcohol content before starting a vehicle’s ignition.

Why stop there? If a device like this came standard on all new cars manufactured, and installation was made mandatory for all cars currently on the road, there could be no convictions for drunk driving offenses. I would also like to see this type of technology used to restrict automobile use to anyone whose fingertips are pre-cleared by the owner, which would drastically reduce, if not eliminate, thefts. Like black boxes, which many auto manufacturers have made standard on their own, at least part of this proposal would not require a legal mandate.

I’d say something about the 0.08 threshold being a good way to weed out the morons, but those morons put other drivers at risk, so that’s no good. Let’s oppose it because it’s just not worthwhile.

Here’s what poor White House Press Secretary Jay Carney will have to explain:

• Since President Obama took office, exactly how many oil and electric companies have been fined or prosecuted when eagles drown in waste pits or are electrocuted by power lines?
• What’s with the proposed rule that would shield wind companies from eagle rules for 30 years?
• Why did the Interior Department update eagle guidelines to the effect that wind farms would not be scrutinized for a single permit-free eagle death, which is standard for other industries?
• Is there any justification for any of the above besides the White House’s preference for wind over fossil fuels, which is exemplified by its sizable tax breaks for the wind industry?

And here’s a sample of the excuses you can expect – perhaps not from Carney or Obama, but from someone:

“It is the rationale that we have to get off of carbon, we have to get off of fossil fuels, that allows them to justify this,” said Tom Dougherty, a long-time environmentalist who worked for nearly 20 years for the National Wildlife Federation in the West . . .

. . . the wind-energy industry points out that more eagles are killed each year by cars, electrocutions and poisoning . . .

In sum, expect deflections from the very serious charge of eagle-chopping through references to their own net environmental benefits, and other industries’ net environmental damage. It’s the kind of thing Canadian governments do, in political or economic terms, when they don’t want to admit they’ve done something wrong.

Given the choice, I’d rather have wind power my house than fossil fuels. But there are environmental risks involved in wind (and solar, and nuclear, and hydro, and natural gas) that have nothing to do with carbon. You can object to eagle protection laws; however, until no industry has to deal with them, it’s unfair to shield the wind industry from dealing with them – if this is all true. But only one entity can answer that.

And another thing: Don’t tell me that fines for eagle deaths would be financially harmful to the emerging wind industry. The tax breaks it’s gotten over the years should more than make up for those.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And then one of their friends offered to make hotdish and bars for the wedding, which was also awesome if you know anything about Minnesota culture. But Dennis’s reaction is how I, along with many others, reacted to the vote, which followed 75-59 passage in the state House and will be signed into law today by Gov. Mark Dayton (D-MN). That will make Minnesota the twelfth state in the U.S. to recognize SSM – on the heels of Delaware, which became the eleventh last week – and the first in the Midwest to do so in the legislature, not the judiciary.

The vote wasn’t without its problems, though. Senate Republicans offered a “religious freedom” amendment that fell, but is still a sobering reminder of how many opinions have yet to “evolve”:

. . . the Republican amendment would have extended protections to individuals with religious objections to doing business with gay couples.

I have no patience for anyone who thinks they should be able to run a secular entity with religious rules. Let’s play a game, shall we? You own a business. Someone wants to buy something. Your priority should be: a) whether or not they can pay for it, or b) whether or not their (consensual, adult) sexual activity makes you feel icky.

Contrast that amendment with one from State Rep. David FitzSimmons (D-Albertville), which inserted the word “civil” before “marriage” wherever it appears in Minnesota statutes, ensuring that religious entities could still be run with religious rules. The bill offers legal recognition of SSM, which is what matters. Yet State Sen. Carla Nelson (R-D26) complained that the new law “denies the right of a different opinion” and failed to “respect religious freedom” adequately. If it denied the right of a different opinion, how did she vote against it?

FitzSimmons has successfully boxed SSM opponents into a corner in which their demands for freedom of religion and opinion have, in fact, been satisfied. By that point, they’re really arguing for the freedom to discriminate. Short of removing the government from the marriage process entirely – which may not be the best idea if you want “consensual” and “adult” to remain criteria – this is the way to make sure SSM moves forward in the U.S. There may be a lot of evolving left to do, but I dare say most of Americans share that red line.

Finally, this is fake. Yeah, I was disappointed, too. Maybe next year.

1. I realize Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials aren’t politicians, but I don’t think I need to make a “bureaucrats behaving badly” tag.
2. If you were disappointed that this was not the Fail of the Week on Saturday, Benghazi was absolutely the bigger fail, because it involved death. So, bite me.

On to business. As you’re all by now aware, it turns out senior IRS officials were indeed aware of the fact that some of their underlings were targeting Tea Party and “patriot” groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status, normally granted to “social welfare” organizations that only engage in politics less than half the time. These groups had complained about “harassment” from the IRS before; as it turns out, they had a point. Earlier, Lois Lerner, who oversees tax-exempt organizations at the IRS, said this targeting was done for the purpose of “streamlining” due to an influx of such applications between 2010 and 2012.

It’s not the weakest excuse I’ve ever heard. Were it not for the fact that the IRS has a vested interest in making sure they can pump everything they can out of groups that strongly dislike paying taxes, I’d probably buy it. There’s also the small matter of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney dismissing claims of partisanship on the ground that the IRS is an “independent enforcement agency” with only two political appointees. Actually, it’s a bureau of the Treasury Department. I guess “independence” in the Washington sense is in the eye of the beholder.

Further investigation may or may not turn up a directive from then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to go after Tea Party groups, which is necessary in order to blame the White House. Until that happens, I would avoid doing so, although some investigation into claims of IRS harassment would have been most welcome. I would also avoid accusing the IRS of pure politics, unless it’s discovered later that a roughly equal amount of Occupy-affiliated groups started applying for 501(c)(4) status within the same time frame and were not scrutinized to the same extent.

But what kind of “social welfare” work do these groups do that allows them to be designated as 501(c)(4)s? Don’t tell me it’s “standing up for taxpayers” or something; by that logic, any lobby group could get the same status for “standing up for” people. I hesitate to call their purpose “educational,” given the explicitly ideological bent. They’d be better off as 501(c)(6) organizations, as chambers of commerce are, or 527 organizations, as political action committees (PACs) and issue advocacy groups are.

But none of this excuses the IRS’s inattention to how this would look when it inevitably came out. Expect Lerner to hand in her resignation at the same time as State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland. Maybe they’ll start a consulting firm.

President Obama spends the week doing what he does best: reiterating points he’s been making for months to years on end. This time it’s about guns. By all means, enjoy.

Air travel returns to normal, with related sequester cuts coming to an end. This is good news for community cancer clinics, who will now have an easier time flying to Washington to demand why they weren’t first priority. (And, honestly, why?)

Republicans are happy that the Benghazi scandal – yes, it’s a scandal, accept it – proves them with some ammunition against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, should she decide to run in 2016. I’d advise against it right now until they find a smoking gun with her name on it. So far it’s deflectable for her.

Republicans are also unhappy with Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who has personally asked health executives and community groups to donate to other groups pushing for enrollment in Obamacare. It doesn’t sound great, but I’m sure some HHS official would have done it if she hadn’t.

Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is just chillin’, with other Republicans doing the leg work on debt reduction and immigration. It may sound like laziness, but I assure you that other House Republicans are thrilled that he’s out of their way.

They’re also thrilled that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called them “obsessed” with Benghazi. Americans may want to discuss this very soon, Nance. Prepare yourself.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) gets a role in immigration reform: writing a bill for modifications to rules for highly skilled and educated foreign workers. Hey, Darrell, think you can do something for mid-skilled workers while you’re at it?

Canada threatens to take the European Union (EU) to the World Trade Organization (WTO) over labeling bitumen as “highly polluting.” Did anyone in the Canadian government not see that coming?

Afghan and U.S. officials meet to work on a plan for America’s role in the region, post-troop withdrawal. I’m guessing someone close to Afghan President Hamid Karzai keeps trying to add “money” to the list.

The White House drafts a framework for balancing environmental, security and resource interests in the Arctic. I don’t want to hear any “U.S. sovereignty” arguments about treaties that would help mitigate oil spills there. It isn’t just U.S. territory.

This week’s fail was brought to you by State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland. (Is there a pool yet on how long it’ll be before she turns in her resignation? I’m giving it two weeks.) There are probably a lot more people to blame for what was revealed about the department’s revisions to government talking points during and after the U.S. consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya. Here’s why I’m singling her out:

One of the emails obtained by ABC shows . . . Nuland objecting to a paragraph in the talking points that referenced specific terrorist threats in the region because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings.”

So, uh . . . how’s that going? Anyway, the story gets even more confusing:

A source . . . [says] Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress: 1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.

Whatever her true motivation, we know this: Despite the insistence of the administration, they did have a hand in crafting the talking points and they weren’t purely the work of intelligence agencies. Initial reports that the attack was sparked by protests against a stupid anti-Muslim video were flat-out wrong. The CIA knew there were terror threats in the region. And requests for bulked-up security went unanswered.

Until someone produces a document showing that President Obama and/or then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were also directly involved with the talking points, lower-level officials will be the only ones who belong in the firing line. I hate to disappoint Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who is already talking impeachment despite there being no evidence of an impeachable offense on Obama’s part, not even what would qualify as perjury. (Just kidding. I love to disappoint Inhofe.) But, so far, his and Clinton’s only mistakes were to trust their subordinates not to screw things up.

If you don’t want Congress to “beat up” your department for ignoring warnings, there’s a simple way to avoid that: Don’t ignore warnings. And don’t ignore requests for security that relate to said warnings. If you can’t do that, tell the truth before people see you piling misstep on top of misstep.