February 2008 Archives

I sometimes wonder if President George W. Bush realizes that he is the president of the United States of America. Not Iraq.

Anyway, his decision to "rebuff" a bipartisan call of the nation's Governors for the federal government to spend money rebuilding our aging infrastructure is just myopic. Our infrastructure needs rebuilding -- why is Rachel Maddow the only person I hear consistently raising this issue?

Anyway, Robert Pear's story in the New York Times does also do us the service of revealing -- again -- where President Bush's priorities are:

Brian G. Turmail, a spokesman for the Transportation Department, said highway spending was not an effective way to stimulate the economy because “it takes too long to get the money into projects.”

Rather than asking for an increase in federal highway spending, Mr. Turmail said, governors should seek additional money from the private sector, including pension funds and investment banking concerns.

Yes. Don't come to the government for your investment needs. The private sector always has all of the answers.

Why is the Bush Administration's politicization of U.S. Attorneys scandal important? There are many reasons. The apparent political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman is one of them.

60 Minutes' Scott Pelley reported yesterday on new allegations that the prosecution of Siegelman may be more about politics than any crime, and may also be connected to a Karl Rove dirty tricks campaign. As Pelley reported:

But, as 60 Minutes found out, the imprisonment of Don Siegelman is not nearly as simple as that.

“I haven't seen a case with this many red flags on it that pointed towards a real injustice being done,” says Grant Woods, the former Republican attorney general of Arizona.

Woods is one of the 52 former state attorneys-general, of both parties, who’ve asked Congress to investigate the Siegelman case.

“I personally believe that what happened here is that they targeted Don Siegelman because they could not beat him fair and square. This was a Republican state and he was the one Democrat they could never get rid of,” Woods says.

Now a Republican lawyer from Alabama, Jill Simpson, has come forward to claim that the Siegelman prosecution was part of a five-year secret campaign to ruin the governor. Simpson told 60 Minutes she did what’s called “opposition research” for the Republican party. She says during a meeting in 2001, Karl Rove, President Bush’s senior political advisor, asked her to try to catch Siegelman cheating on his wife.

"Karl Rove asked you to take pictures of Siegelman?" Pelley asks.

"Yes," Simpson replies.

"In a compromising, sexual position with one of his aides," Pelley clarifies.

"Yes, if I could," Simpson says.

She says she spied on Siegelman for months but saw nothing. Even though she was working as a Republican campaign operative, Simpson says she wanted to talk to 60 Minutes because Siegelman’s prison sentence bothers her conscience.

Pelley's story is a must read (or watch, if you'd prefer to see the video). Siegelman has six years and eight months left on his sentence. For what? As dday explains over at Hullabaloo:

The nub of the case is that Siegelman allowed HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy to remain on an oversight board on which he had already served, and in return Scrushy gave money to a noble effort to improve education in the state of Alabama, an effort Siegelman approved of. That's literally the reason that Siegelman is in a jail cell right now. This is the kind of thing that, were it actually considered bribery, would put every politician in America in jail. The case hung on evidence that Siegelman walked out of a meeting with Scrushy with the check, a baseless lie spouted by a convicted criminal on Siegelman's staff, and the Justice Department KNEW it was a lie and yet continued the case. 60 Minutes tried to talk with the accuser, a man named Nick Bailey, but the DoJ refused to authorize the interview (he's in a federal prison).

Given the sketchy nature of the charges, was his crime really just being a Democratic politician winning in a state Karl Rove reserved for Republicans? Was the power of the United States Justice Department used for political purposes?

In a Constitutional Republic, those are serious issues. It really is well past time to get to the bottom of what Karl Rove and his allies were trying to do with the Justice Department.

In an article that discusses various political issues, Glenn Greenwald also takes the opportunity to remind us of an important part of our history:

GOP Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia was on Bill Maher's show on Friday night and -- in addition to claiming that Barack Obama's patriotism was suspect because he won't wear a flag lapel or cover his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance (a total falsehood) -- also said, in defending Bush's terrorism policies: "We have not had a domestic attack since 9/11" (beginning at roughly 5:05 of the You Tube clip -- h/t reader JJ).

This is a point that has been made before, here and elsewhere, but it is just astonishing how we have all decided to forget that the anthrax attacks ever happened. Not only is it still a mystery who was behind them, but what's also a mystery is who lied to ABC News by claiming that government tests connected the anthrax to Saddam Hussein, lies that caused ABC News and Brian Ross to spend days broadcasting that extremely inflammatory (and totally false) claim (without any retraction) to the country. ABC News and Brian Ross, of course, know who was responsible for getting them to disseminate those extremely significant Saddam-anthrax lies, but they refuse to report that news.

All of that has been so thoroughly expunged from our collective memory that it's not only acceptable, but also mandated orthodoxy, to agree: "We haven't had a terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11." And what's most notable about that is that the anthrax attacks played as significant a role, if not more so, as the 9/11 attack itself in engendering the sustained hysteria in this country that led, and is still leading, to the abuses and radicalism of the next seven years. But now, it's like it never happened -- "thank God for George Bush: no terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11." (emphasis in original)

Really...why do we forget those attacks? They were really important at the time. What is behind our collective amnesia?

Josh Marshall and the entire crew at Talking Points Media really deserve the recognition they are getting after winning a Polk Award last week for their reporting of the U.S. Attorney Firing scandal.

TPM was the only place that appeared to be covering the story in a comprehensive way. I have no doubt that we would not know about this scandal had Marshall and his team not kept up with a story the mainstream media was underplaying and ignoring.

If you are not reading Talking Points Memo, you really should start. Today.

Ah, yes. Politico's Ben Smith catches CNN, member in good standing of your so-called liberal media, hard at work accepting completely radical right wing framing in a poll question.

With this line, James Fallows provides a profound criticism of Ralph Nader's decision to run for president in 2008.

As someone who has invoked the Eric Alterman line of "Thanks, Ralph" after a few blog posts, I must admit I find the prospect of Nader getting back into the race more sad than anything else. As Fallows puts it, he is going from tragedy to farce.

It was bad enough when Nader tried to argue in 2000 that there was no difference between the two parties. Now, after the Iraq War, signing statements, unitary executive arguments, tax cuts for the rich, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, warrantless spying, and torture, among other travesties, can there really be any doubt that there is a profound difference between Democrats and Republicans in 2008?

Nader is in, but I do not think he'll impact the race as he did in 2000. It is a shame, however, that Nader seems willing to further tarnish what was once one of the best reputations around.

This is today's Republican Party: a member of Congress decides to go on national television and charge that Senator Barack Obama refuses to say the pledge of allegiance. This is, of course, a false charge in an hoax e-mail making the rounds on the internet.

Josh Marshall has more of the details, and rightly wonders if any reporters are going to ask Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Wingnuttia) about his embrace of these internet falsehoods.

I wonder if Democrats are going to allow this slander to go unanswered. The next day Congress is in session, Rep. Kingston's comments should be the subject of a series of one-minute speeches. It's time to make a point of killing these rumors--and to expose those who spread them to extreme ridicule.

Juan Cole highlights a prime example of blowback: in 1987, a major right-wing Christian group advocated for "aid to anti-communist insurgents in Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Angola and elsewhere..."

Those insurgents in Afghanistan would change their allegiances in the aftermath of the first Iraq War. Ultimately, they would attack the United States.

I suggest we refuse to listen to the banking executives now scrambling to get a government bailout when they decide in the future to proclaim once again the values of deregulation.

Senator Arlen Specter (R-Another Dimension) continues to have a razor-sharp focus on the New England Patriots cheating scandal. And he's not happy.

Well, I think that it is somewhere between absurd to insulting that they won't let us talk to the witnesses," Specter said.

Actually, Senator, your focus on this issue is beyond absurd, insulting, and stupid considering your failure to care nearly as much about matters relating to spying on the American people, firing of U.S. Attorneys, and a myriad of other issues involving the Bush Administration Justice Department when you were the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I know that you, like many of your colleagues, like getting on the teevee. And you sure are getting publicity. But it is simply outrageous for you to focus on this issue after failing in your oversight and legislative duties during your latest term as chairman of the Judiciary Committee -- a time when you were complicit as Congress failed in its responsibilities to provide oversight over the executive branch as a co-equal branch of our government.

Senator Specter, if this NFL issue is so important to you, please resign. That way, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania can elect someone who actually cares about the governing of this nation.

My wife writes much better headlines than I do. It's no contest.

Yes. Probably. As Atrios points out:

I know journamalisting is hard and "the google" is quite the mystery, but since he accused Obama of refusing to disclose his earmarks I thought maybe he could use a pointer.

One wonders if John King is going to go to the source who presumably told him that Obama was not posting earmark requests on his web page and hold him or her accountable.

Probably not. Holding sources accountable does not seem to be part of the rules.

What Paul Krugman explains here is really vital to understanding how the mainstream media is going to cover the upcoming presidential election.

I’ve written about Clinton Rules, under which anything a Clinton (or a Gore) says, no matter how innocuous it would seem if someone else said it, becomes proof of evil intentions.

But we also have to be aware of McCain Rules, under which anything John McCain says, no matter how craven or dishonest, becomes proof of his straight-talking maverickness (mavericity?).

He can shift his positions 180 degrees to pander to his new friends — and be forgiven because he allegedly looks uncomfortable doing it.

Mark Fiore's Snuggly the Security Bear returns! Remember, our government and the telecommunications companies broke the law because they love us so much.

Yeah, that's the reason. Sure.

Do you know what a credit default swap is? The Big Picture highlights a New York Times story that seeks to explain them to a wider audience.

Here's why you should care:

What's truly astonishing is the size of this market: The market for these securities is enormous. Since 2000, it has ballooned from $900 billion to more than $45.5 trillion — bigger than the US equity markets, US Treasuries, and Mortgage Securities -- COMBINED.

That's, um, kinda big.

Atrios is right to wonder: if CNN's John King can call Mitt Romney young, will anyone in the mainstream media soon describe Hillary Clinton as a "young woman" seeing as she is just six months older?

I am going to bet on the "no" side.

No, Governor Huckabee. There really is no comparison between the undeniable rigors of a political campaign and the use of the waterboarding torture.

As Crooks and Liars' Nicole Belle writes:

Really? That’s what we’ve become, when a person seeking to be the leader of this country can joke about an illegal torture method? What is wrong with these people?

An excellent question.

Atrios reminds us that this is the first anniversary of a truly awful prediction by Washington Post columnist David Broder.

Bush Regains His Footing

By David S. Broder
Friday, February 16, 2007; A23

It may seem perverse to suggest that, at the very moment the House of Representatives is repudiating his policy in Iraq, President Bush is poised for a political comeback. But don't be astonished if that is the case.

I'm astonished that anyone would have thought this a year ago.

Ezra Klein links to an analysis that shows that if the Republicans used the Democratic Party's proportional apportionment system for awarding delegates, John McCain and Mitt Romney would be virtually tied, rather than McCain having a huge advantage thanks to the GOP's winner-take-all delegate rules.

Meanwhile, if the Democratic Party used the GOP's winner-take-all rules, rather than proportional apportionment, the race between Sens. Obama and Clinton would be even closer than it currently is.

As Klein writes:

Meanwhile, it's a bit odd that, for both parties, switching to the other side's rules would make the race more, rather than less, competitive.

Last night, Keith Olbermann offered another outstanding "special comment" after the House of Representatives actually refused to roll over in the wake of President George W. Bush's fear-mongering over the FISA bill.

And if there’s one thing we know about Big Brother, Mr. Bush, it is that he is — you are — a liar.

“This Saturday at midnight,” you said Thursday, “legislation authorizing intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor terrorist communications will expire. If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying and what they are planning will be compromised.” You said that “the lives of countless Americans depend” on your getting your way.

This is crap. And you sling it with an audacity and a speed unrivaled by even the greatest political felons of our history.

Richard Clarke — you might remember him, sir: He was one of the counterterror pros you inherited from President Clinton, before you ran the professionals out of government in favor of your unreality-based reality — Richard Clarke wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

“Let me be clear: Our ability to track and monitor terrorists overseas would not cease should the Protect America Act expire.

“If this were true, the president would not threaten to terminate any temporary extension with his veto pen. All surveillance currently occurring would continue even after legislative provisions lapsed because authorizations issued under the act are in effect up to a full year.”

You are a liar, Mr. Bush. And after showing some skill at it, you have ceased to even be a very good liar.

Yes, it definitely appears that most of the country has caught on to the all-fear-all-the-time rhetoric for which President George W. Bush is all too famous. Now, let's see if the Congress will continue to rebuild itself to be the coequal branch of government the founding generation intended.

After all, earlier today, the Director of National Intelligence told the world that this fight is not really about keeping us safe. No, it is about liability protection for the telecommunications companies who violated the law in cooperating with an out-of-control executive branch. As the News Hole blog summaries:

So much for President Bush's bleating about how the Democrats in Congress just stole the eavesdropping authorities, the tools of counter-terrorism away from the professionals by not sending him his version of the FISA act. In our third story on the Countdown: "It's true," said Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell this morning on N-P-R Radio, "some of the authorities would carry over to the period they were established, for one year." OK, one Bush lie confirmed. Remarkably, McConnell continued. "However, that's not the real issue. The issue is: liability protection for the private sector." And there goes the other Bush lie about this: that it's about keeping you safe, when, in fact, it's only about keeping the telecom giants safe.

Yep. That is the war on terra. Could the Bush Administration's true motives be any more clear?

Glenn Greenwald watched the Roger Clemens testimony and correctly points out:

UPDATE: One of the tortures I endured yesterday was watching the House hearing involving Roger Clemens and the trainer who claims to have injected him with steroids. The press could not have been any more riveted and was fully knowledgable of every relevant detail. Almost every House Committee member came to the hearing thoroughly prepared, grilled the witnesses with the expertise of an experienced litigator, and thundered about the grave seriousness -- and consequences -- of lying to Congress.

The drama was high, the gravity palpable, and the interest level intense. Ponder how much better our country would be if even a fraction of all of that were conjured up for acts of chronic lawbreaking and serial lying by our highest government officials, rather than our baseball stars.

Indeed.

Via Atrios, here is a letter for which I am compelled to offer a full standing ovation. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes sends a powerful and important message to President Bush:

Dear Mr. President:

The Preamble to our Constitution states that one of our highest duties as public officials is to "provide for the common defence." As an elected Member of Congress, a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee, and Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I work everyday to ensure that our defense and intelligence capabilities remain strong in the face of serious threats to our national security.

Because I care so deeply about protecting our country, I take strong offense to your suggestion in recent days that the country will be vulnerable to terrorist attack unless Congress immediately enacts legislation giving you broader powers to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans' communications and provides legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the Administration's warrantless surveillance program.

Today, the National Security Agency (NSA) has authority to conduct surveillance in at least three different ways, all of which provide strong capability to monitor the communications of possible terrorists.

First, NSA can use its authority under Executive Order 12333 to conduct surveillance abroad of any known or suspected terrorist. There is no requirement for a warrant. There is no requirement for probable cause. Most of NSA's collection occurs under this authority.

Second, NSA can use its authority under the Protect America Act, enacted last August, to conduct surveillance here in the U.S of any foreign target. This authority does not "expire" on Saturday, as you have stated. Under the PAA, orders authorizing surveillance may last for one year - until at least August 2008. These orders may cover every terrorist group without limitation. If a new member of the group is identified, or if a new phone number or email address is identified, the NSA may add it to the existing orders, and surveillance can begin immediately. We will not "go dark."

Third, in the remote possibility that a new terrorist organization emerges that we have never previously identified, the NSA could use existing authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor those communications. Since its establishment nearly 30 years ago, the FISA Court has approved nearly every application for a warrant from the Department of Justice. In an emergency, NSA or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may begin surveillance immediately, and a FISA Court order does not have to be obtained for three days. The former head of FISA operations for the Department of Justice has testified publicly that emergency authorization may be granted in a matter of minutes.

As you know, the 1978 FISA law, which has been modernized and updated numerous times since 9/11, was instrumental in disrupting the terrorist plot in Germany last summer. Those who say that FISA is outdated do not understand the strength of this important tool.

If our nation is left vulnerable in the coming months, it will not be because we don't have enough domestic spying powers. It will be because your Administration has not done enough to defeat terrorist organizations - including al Qaeda -- that have gained strength since 9/11. We do not have nearly enough linguists to translate the reams of information we currently collect. We do not have enough intelligence officers who can penetrate the hardest targets, such as al Qaeda. We have surged so many intelligence resources into Iraq that we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a result, you have allowed al Qaeda to reconstitute itself on your watch.

You have also suggested that Congress must grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies. As someone who has been briefed on our most sensitive intelligence programs, I can see no argument why the future security of our country depends on whether past actions of telecommunications companies are immunized.

The issue of telecom liability should be carefully considered based on a full review of the documents that your Administration withheld from Congress for eight months. However, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago.

Congress has not been sitting on its hands. Last November, the House passed responsible legislation to authorize the NSA to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists and to provide clarity and legal protection to our private sector partners who assist in that surveillance.

The proper course is now to conference the House bill with the Senate bill that was passed on Tuesday. There are significant differences between these two bills and a conference, in regular order, is the appropriate mechanism to resolve the differences between these two bills. I urge you, Mr. President, to put partisanship aside and allow Republicans in Congress to arrive at a compromise that will protect America and protect our Constitution.

I, for one, do not intend to back down - not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.

We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won.

Sincerely,

Silvestre Reyes
Member of Congress
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Outstanding. Simply outstanding.

I hope this letter, a part of the House's refusal to cave on providing retroactive immunity to telecom companies, represents a new initiative on the part of Congress to act like a co-equal branch of our government system.

That would be a most pleasing development.

The magic counter in the right column reminds us that it has been 1,750 days since President George W. Bush stood under a Mission Accomplished banner and declared that "In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

And just what has your administration done over the past 1,750 days, Mr. President?

We appear to be headed to a new low as a nation as the Bush Administration possibly seeks to use evidence gained through torture methods in military tribunals. From ThinkProgress:

On CNN last night, Charles Swift, the “hero of Guantanamo” who represented Salim Hamdan in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, slammed the government’s refusal to rule out waterboarding-based evidence in the military commission:

SWIFT: And if we use — we move beyond the torture discussion to the question of using this in a trial where life and death is at stake. If we use waterboarded testimony in that trial, to my knowledge…the last precedent for using that kind of testimony was the Spanish Inquisition.

I never really thought the United States of America would be seriously compared to the Spanish Inquisition. Nice work, Mr. President.

Really. We are supposed to be better than this.

Dean Baker wonders why economists are not held accountable for their predictions -- even when they are forced to revise them by over 300 percent.

The NYT gives us yet another example of non-accountability. At the very end of an article warning that the impact of the housing collapse is likely to be substantial, the NYT reports "The German finance minister, Peer Steinbrück, said members agreed that write-offs at banks related to subprime mortgages could reach $400 billion, about four times estimates just a couple of months ago."

Being off by 300 percent might be considered a serious problem in other lines of work, but apparently not for economists. For the record, I expect total losses for the financial sector to approach $1 trillion.

Alas, I think Baker is closer to the mark. So take the over on this bet.

As he so often does, David Kaiser adds important historical perspective to the analysis about Attorney General Michael Mukasey's refusal to investigate whether the use of torture or wiretapping programs were illegal because they had prior Justice Department authorization.

Kaiser reminds us that even Nixon's people would never go as far as the current administration in arguing for unchecked executive power.

Readers with long memories may recall that such a scenario is of more than academic interest. The Watergate break-in was apparently authorized by the then-Attorney General, John Mitchell (although only one of two participants in the critical meeting, Jeb Magruder, ever definitely confirmed that.) But not even Mitchell had the cojones to argue that he had thereby legalized the break-in, which is what Mukasey is doing on behalf of John Ashcroft (or, very possibly, some subordinate of John Ashcroft.) An Attorney General who claims the right to exempt officers of the federal government from the enforcement of the law should, in my not very humble opinion, be impeached at once. Meanwhile, I hope at least a few editorial writers and columnists wake up and notice that Mukasey has pushed the doctrine of executive immunity to a new high. Perhaps even a Democratic presidential candidate could find time to take up the issue--and challenge John McCain to agree that the Attorney General can authorize forms of torture and confer immunity upon the torturers at the same time. (emphasis added)

I guess I must ask the same question I asked yesterday: who will defend the Constitution? Who will defend the rule of law?

Yes, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), blocking the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program was quite an accomplishment. I suppose the kids should not expect to get gruel from the House Republican Caucus either.

Today's Republican Party fights against children. That's quite a despicable political space to seek.

Anyone? Hello, Democratic majority in Congress?

No citizen of this great nation should remain silent after hearing Attorney General Michael Mukasey's testimony that the Department of Justice will not investigate whether the use of torture (waterboarding) was illegal or whether the Bush Administration's warrentless wiretapping program was illegal. As Talking Points Memo's David Kurtz summarizes:

We have now the Attorney General of the United States telling Congress that it's not against the law for the President to violate the law if his own Department of Justice says it's not.

That is a big deal. If Congress cannot see that this is a direct attack on our Constitutional system, and on the powers of Congress itself, then we need new members of Congress.

Over at Altercation, Charlie Pierce has an appropriately outraged response, one that I wish would wake people up to the danger the Bush Administration's assertions of unitary executive power have placed our Constitutional system of government.

For the past couple of weeks, they've just gotten blatant about it. The administration of George W. Bush is bound by no law, bound by no precedent, bound not even by the forms of democratic self-government, let alone its actual substance, which is being used as a throw-rug in John Yoo's den these days. They will torture and the Congress can do nothing. Their powers to spy, to search, and to seize are unlimited and Congress is not remotely entitled to know even what those powers are. They can imprison without trial. They can force corporations -- and, indeed, individuals within the government -- to violate the law. They are not subject to treaties. They are not subject to oversight, nor even subpoenas. Read this swill from yesterday. Through his actions, and from the mouths of his minions, George Bush is now claiming fully the powers of a tyrant, by any reasonable definition of the term.

This is the only issue in the presidential campaign. It is the only truly existential threat to the country. Everything else -- health care, climate change, campaign finance, the deficit -- mean nothing if we fail on this fundamental issue.

Who will defend the Constitution?

CNN's Arwa Damon reports on what the United States and the coalition of the willing has brought to the women of Basra, Iraq.

The images in the Basra police file are nauseating: Page after page of women killed in brutal fashion -- some strangled to death, their faces disfigured; others beheaded. All bear signs of torture.

The women are killed, police say, because they failed to wear a headscarf or because they ignored other "rules" that secretive fundamentalist groups want to enforce.

"Fear, fear is always there," says 30-year-old Safana, an artist and university professor. "We don't know who to be afraid of. Maybe it's a friend or a student you teach. There is no break, no security. I don't know who to be afraid of."

Her fear is justified. Iraq's second-largest city, Basra, is a stronghold of conservative Shia groups. As many as 133 women were killed in Basra last year -- 79 for violation of "Islamic teachings" and 47 for so-called honor killings, according to IRIN, the news branch of the U.N.'s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

One glance through the police file is enough to understand the consequences. Basra's police chief, Gen. Abdul Jalil Khalaf, flips through the file, pointing to one unsolved case after another.

Is this the freedom President Bush said was on the march?

I first learned about Charles Moore and "The Great Pacific Garbage Patch" while reading Alan Weisman's The World Without Us last month. Kathy Marks and Daniel Howden report in the Independent today that this continent-sized dump of plastic refuge in the Pacific Ocean is growing at an alarming rate.

A "plastic soup" of waste floating in the Pacific Ocean is growing at an alarming rate and now covers an area twice the size of the continental United States, scientists have said.

The vast expanse of debris – in effect the world's largest rubbish dump – is held in place by swirling underwater currents. This drifting "soup" stretches from about 500 nautical miles off the Californian coast, across the northern Pacific, past Hawaii and almost as far as Japan.

Charles Moore, an American oceanographer who discovered the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" or "trash vortex", believes that about 100 million tons of flotsam are circulating in the region. Marcus Eriksen, a research director of the US-based Algalita Marine Research Foundation, which Mr Moore founded, said yesterday: "The original idea that people had was that it was an island of plastic garbage that you could almost walk on. It is not quite like that. It is almost like a plastic soup. It is endless for an area that is maybe twice the size as continental United States."

Curtis Ebbesmeyer, an oceanographer and leading authority on flotsam, has tracked the build-up of plastics in the seas for more than 15 years and compares the trash vortex to a living entity: "It moves around like a big animal without a leash." When that animal comes close to land, as it does at the Hawaiian archipelago, the results are dramatic. "The garbage patch barfs, and you get a beach covered with this confetti of plastic," he added.

The "soup" is actually two linked areas, either side of the islands of Hawaii, known as the Western and Eastern Pacific Garbage Patches. About one-fifth of the junk – which includes everything from footballs and kayaks to Lego blocks and carrier bags – is thrown off ships or oil platforms. The rest comes from land.

As Weisman explains in his book, this sea of plastic refuse could be one of humanity's longest lasting impacts on the planet. It could last hundreds of thousands of years, and that is the optimistic situation that would occur if evolution develops microbes able to digest plastics (none can digest plastics yet). Or it could last into geologic time frames, until it is transformed into something else by processes similar to those which create oil and coal.

Either way, our impact on the planet will be clear to anyone willing to travel those areas of the Pacific Ocean.

(Hat tip: Americablog)

Gosh, I have never been so thankful that there are people like Mitt Romney out there to serve the American people in such unselfish ways. As he told the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference yesterday:

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

Wow. Such an unselfish man and servant to the nation! Thinking nothing of the primaries he lost and the $1 million a delegate he has spent, but only of leading the charge in the war on terra.

Such a uniting message! Such vision! How thankful we must be that this great man has happened upon the political stage at this time!

This man has really given us all so much. His five sons, serving this great nation -- no, not in Iraq or Afghanistan or in the military during this time of war, but by campaigning for their father. Now he suspends his campaign, not because he was getting his political ass kicked, but because he needs to save the nation from the half of us who are supporters of the Democratic Party.

Thank you, Mitt Romney. You are an inspiration to bleepholes everywhere. Now, as you leave the stage, perhaps you can take some time to find your soul.

Bipartisanship sometimes is useful, but it is not, despite what David Broder may believe, always a worthy goal in itself. Having Republican and Democratic votes does not magically bestow a proposal with wisdom.

It is particularly stupid to hold up bipartisanship as the highest goal when it results in selling out Democratic principals and giving Republicans and President George W. Bush precisely what they want again and again and again.

Salon's Glenn Greewald reminds us of all the times this so-called "bipartisanship" has proven particularly destructive:

On virtually every major controversial issue -- particularly, though not only, ones involving national security and terrorism -- the Republicans (including their vaunted mythical moderates and mavericks) vote in almost complete lockstep in favor of the President, the Democratic caucus splits, and the Republicans then get their way on every issue thanks to "bipartisan" support. That's what "bipartisanship" in Washington means.

Leaving aside how shallow and, shall we say, unserious is this endless chirping for more "bipartisanship" -- as though it's a magic feel-good formula for resolving actual policy differences -- it's hard to imagine how there could possibly be any more "bipartisanship" in Washington even if that were the only goal. Other than formally disbanding as a party -- or granting a permanent proxy of their collective vote to Mitch McConnell -- how could Congressional Democrats possibly be more accommodating than they already are?

It is hard to imagine.

I know Senator John McCain has bucked radical Republican orthodoxy on a couple of issues, but the radical conservatives' hatred of him is just plain irrational. The invaluable Charles Pierce makes the point at Altercation:

The meme of the week is that John McCain is Not Conservative Enough. This escaped my notice. He cleverly disguised it by saying he was going to allow a theocratic loon like Sam Brownback to help him pick his judges. Heads are exploding all over the Movement these days.

Just remember that the next time you hear how liberal McCain is: Senator Sam Brownback endorsed him, for goodness sake.

Don't buy this meme. McCain is a conservative, and the biggest cheerleader for the War in Iraq. It is time to start making this point.

From IFTF's Future Now blog:

But I never thought I'd be afraid of sunscreen.

Why? Because there is new evidence that ingredients in the thousands of metric tons of sunscreen that washes off swimmers around the world each year is re-activating dormant viruses in the symbiotic bacteria that inhabit coral reefs.