Apparently, the warm waters and evaporation may have dissipated up to 40 percent of the surface sheen, and many oil-eating bacteria in the Gulf — due to natural seepage in this specific ecosystem — may have taken care of much of the rest.

And with 4,000 boats skimming the oil and executing controlled burns, the stoppage of the well means a constant reduction of the size of the spill.

The article does raise some concerns about the effect of the oil in the water column and along the sea bottom, but it also notes that the toxic percentage has been measured, and it is very low.

The most critical issue now, it seems, revolves around scaling back the response effort because it employs many fishermen who would otherwise remain jobless. However, even though a third of the Gulf is currently off limits to commercial fishing, it appears that problem will soon vanish as well.

The Food and Drug Administration is now planning to increase testing of the fish so the fishermen can resume their livelihood as well. Good news all around.

The documents also describe other failures in the Afghan war and are starting to increase Democratic opposition to the policy in Congress. The Democratic leadership, who supports our current policy of short-term escalation of the troops, is rushing to hold a vote on a war-financing bill before the rank and file insist on a more thorough evaluation.

The release of the documents has initiated a review of the war earlier than the Obama administration had hoped, initially scheduled for the end of this year. Meanwhile, mounting U.S. casualties in the conflict are making matters even worse.

There was some criticism of the organization that published the documents, WikiLeaks, but they claim to have redacted all sensitive information, as did The New York Times who subsequently published the piece. In fact, the Administration’s quarrel seems to be more with the content of the documents, contravening the effectiveness of their troop increase and aid to Pakistan, than the actual fact they were published in the first place.

While the Pakistani government strongly denies any current involvement — they are recipients of billions of dollars in U.S. aid — these new documents suggest otherwise. A pattern seems to be emerging with one stance in public and another on the ground.

The United States is in a delicate situation because it wishes to maintain its semi-legal drone attacks that have been so successful against Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and that the Pakistani government seems to be willing to permit, at least in an informal capacity. But what are we to do when the money we use to support the Pakistani government ends up being used to fight our own troops?

The documents the Times has unearthed include a damning portrait of a former head of the ISI, Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, with longstanding, and U.S.-condoned, relationships with the mujahedeen who were supported by the United States when they were fighting against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. But the mujahedeen transformed themselves into the Taliban.

All this has increased tensions between the American military and Pakistani soldiers, an ominous development in itself. There must be some resolution to this situation if our fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda is to succeed.

But the article is much more “alarming” in its interior details describing the actions, or lack of action, by Transocean, the owner of the rig. BP’s confidential audit of the rig in September showed 390 repairs uncompleted, including many labelled high priority. There were also power losses, computer failures and leaking equipment that was supposed to be waterproof.

And a previous audit by Lloyd’s Register Group showed 26 components in poor working order. All this neglect made the Deepwater Horizon rig an accident waiting to happen. It was not just an unfortunate and unlikely combination of events that caused the Gulf of Mexico oil spill; it was criminal neglect. And that neglect, based on this article, extends to Transocean every bit as much as BP.

Not to leave BP completely off the hook, however. The oil well was running behind schedule, and each day of delay was costing the company $1 million in rental costs for the rig. Workers were obviously pressured to “hurry up,” and haste leads to cutting corners and compounding the situation.

The article correctly notes the role of Mr. Rangel’s difficulties on the Democratic Party and its fight to maintain control of the House. Already, you have the minority leader, Mr. Boehner, criticizing Nancy Pelosi for failing to maintain the ethics of the House she pledged to reform.

On the other hand, Mr. Rangel is 80 years old and is a very proud and upright gentleman who has devoted his life to helping many of his constituents who are poor and needy in so many ways. He has not had an easy life and his ability to fight for what is right and stand up for those who have no voice is truly commendable.

The case now goes to another subcommittee to confirm the findings and then the full House committee on Standards of Official Conduct who can decide what type of punishment to recommend: from a letter of reprimand to expulsion from the House.

In a survey of workers just before the well blowout, many noted an emphasis on drilling priorities over safety priorities. One worker describes the attitude of Transocean at “Run it, break it, fix it,” and the article noted that the rig had never been in dry dock during its nine years of operation. In fact, 26 components on the rig were found to be in poor condition.

[In other "oil-related" developments, a squall may be moving into the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in temporary removal of the cap on the well. Another potential blow to residents of the area.]

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised at all these revelations, especially when you’re dealing with an unregulated industry and an inherently dangerous task with high profit potential. Still, a company’s most sacred duty is the protection of its employees, and that, at least, represents the most glaring failure of the Deepwater Horizon.

I’m certain there will be more revelations to come. And hopefully, they will spur the clean energy industry in our country at long last.

The new medication, called tenovir, can reduce infection by up to 54 percent. The cash payments of $4 to $10 a month to the parents plus $1 to $4 a month for the girls if they attend school reduce the prevalence of H.I.V. to 1.2 percent compared to 3 percent for the general population. This suggests the role of money and gifts in decisions by poor girls in African culture to have sex.

This story provides the rare good news piece featured in The New York Times lead in recent memories, with the exception of the news about capping the oil gusher by BP.

One must remember the very different nature and character of the disease in Africa, both in degree — where it has swept through the region like a plague — and the nature — where it does not carry the stigma of infecting primarily gay men. In some areas, up to 1 in 10 pregnant women are H.I.V. positive by the age of 16, and half have the disease by age 24.

And the other good news concerns the cost. After final approval for public distribution in a year or two, the “semi-vaccine” — it’s not 100 percent effective — will cost about 25 cents per application.

One disturbing note: there have been some “anomalies” at the sea bottom on the sea floor nearby. They do not indicate oil is leaking through the substrata, a potentially disastrous occurrence because then there would be nothing to do to counteract it.

Meanwhile, the relief well drilled to provide a permanent fix for the problem draws near conclusion, when mud and then cement would permanently halt the gusher.

In other good news, there were no new reports of oil hitting beaches, and skimming ships at the sea’s surface could only find one area to conduct a controlled burn compared to 19 the day before.

This whole event has been a trauma, mostly for Gulf Coast residents, but, in actuality, for the entire nation as we have experienced a rare feeling for Americans, helplessness, as we have watched the oil spew forth. Maybe, it provides a lesson for us about the limits of a can-do approach and the need to be less self-reliant in the future. If I may digress from the general tone of this blog — at these times, many have turned to a higher authority than the federal government and resorted to prayer.

The article notes that 60 percent of the United States’ economic activity is driven by consumer spending, and that households with these higher incomes account for about one-third of that. While spending among the affluent rose at this time last year, in harmony with the stock market, new fears about a double-dip recession, stock market volatility and the financial situation in Europe have led to a widespread retreat from the purchase of luxury items.

This development, however, should not suggest new tax cuts for the rich, a policy proven bankrupt during Republican administrations and bound to make our deficit even worse, a factor that in itself leads to a lack of consumer confidence and decreased spending.

The paradox of our current situation is at once poignant and tragic, “The worry, of course, is that consumers will stop spending because of their concerns about a slowdown, and that economic growth will slow because consumers have stopped spending.”

Yesterday, the stock market dropped by more than 200 points, and its future course remains very much in doubt.

The scope of President Obama’s influence on U.S. policy and legislation should now be widely viewed as greater than any President since FDR. The health care legislation on its own could represent the capstone for a President’s career, and combined with the stimulus, our President’s influence on U.S. policy will be cemented for years to come.

The bill basically brings our dated financial regulatory system up to speed. Previously, when most financial activity was confined to banks, the system was adequate. But with the growth of private investment funds, new unregulated lenders and opaque markets for financial instruments such as derivatives, it was was woefully dated.

The new bill expands banking and securities regulation, creates a council of federal regulators under the Treasury secretary to detect any systemic risks, and provides a consumer protection regulator in the Federal Reserve. It does not, however, go outside the current system but mainly expands existing powers. Calls to break up the major banks were rejected, one reason why Senator Russ Feingold provided the only Democratic “no” vote.

Much of the attention now will turn to implementation and the creation of rules to comply with the legislation. But the President deserves congratulations for a bill that no one thought would pass given the oversized influence of the banking lobby.