One of the consequences of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent (but unrelated) anthrax attacks was a rapid increase in the number of high-containment biosafety/biodefense laboratories in the US.  In October 2007, the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing entitled "Germs, Viruses, and Secrets: The Silent Proliferation of Bio-Laboratories in the United States".

The Center For Disease Research And Policy at the University of Minnesota (CIDRAP) summarized the hearing:

A US House of Representatives committee today explored problems at the nation's biodefense labs, including a lack of coordinated federal oversight and even a lack of knowledge of how many high-containment labs exist.

These concerns have been highlighted recently by aggressive efforts from the Sunshine Project, a watchdog group that monitors biodefense research safety, and by other media reports.

[snip]

Testifying on behalf of the GAO, Keith Rhodes, PhD, chief technologist for the [Government Accountability Office's] Center for Technology and Engineering, said because a baseline of human error will always be present in laboratory settings, the level of safety risks will rise as the number of labs increases. Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the number of BSL 4 labs has risen from 5 to 15, he said. The GAO estimated in its report that there are nearly 1,400 BSL 3 labs in the United States.

Of 12 [government] agencies the GAO surveyed, none is responsible for tracking the number of BSL 3 and BSL 4 [Biosafety Level 3 and Biosafety Level 4] labs in the United States. "Consequently, no agency is responsible for determining the risks associated with the proliferation of these labs," the GAO report states.

To emphasize the importance of that last paragraph, I'm including a table from Rhodes' report (pdf) for the GAO (click to enlarge):

Federal Agencies’ Mission to Track and Know the Number of All BSL-3 and BSL-4 Labs within the US

The report stresses that biodefense research is indeed important;  however:

... unwarranted expansion without adequate oversight is proliferation, not expansion. Since the full extent of the expansion is not known, it is unclear how the federal government can ensure that sufficient but not superfluous capacity—that brings with it additional, unnecessary risk—is being created.

In other words, the rapid increase in the number of labs can lead to self-policing (and failure to report risks and accidents).  Regarding accidents, here's a sobering example:

Three University of Texas facilities have recently had laboratory accidents with dangerous pathogens, including the agents of anthrax, tularemia, and shigellosis, according to a statement yesterday from the Sunshine Project, a nonprofit group that monitors biodefense research safety.

Two of the locations—University of Texas (UT) Health Science Center at Houston and UT at San Antonio—perform "select agent" work in biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) labs.

[snip]

The incidents were revealed as a result of Texas freedom-of-information requests made by the Austin-based Sunshine Project. The lab accidents involved:

• Aerosolized Bacillus anthracis, a category A bioterrorism agent, at UT Health Science Center in Houston
• Francisella tularensis, another category A bioterrorism agent, at UT at San Antonio
• Shigella, a food- or waterborne category B agent, which the Sunshine Project says may have been genetically engineered, at UT at Austin

Dr. Alan Pearson of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation also testified (pdf).  His statement is very detailed, and is recommended reading;  since he is an expert in biological weapons, as well as biodefense, he emphasizes the national security risk, hinted at here:

Our current biosafety and biosecurity system is plagued by significant and systemic weaknesses, inadequate oversight and transparency, and a lack of rigorous interagency needs assessment and strategic planning. Unless corrective action is taken, the risks to our nation and its people from accidental or deliberate disease outbreaks arising from our own activities and institutions will continue to rise. The US biosafety and biosecurity system needs to be made more coherent, more comprehensive, more effective, and more transparent...

Put that together with the revelation that the 2001 anthrax attacks were most likely perpetrated by a "rogue" government scientist, Pearson's testimony cannot be emphasized enough.  Again, please read it (much shorter version here, pdf).

If you still aren't convinced that there's a huge problem, a recent article in the Hartford Courant revealed that the number of laboratories individuals in the US performing bioterrorism research has increased to 15,000.  Not only that, but:

Among the concerns is that background checks conducted by the federal government before lab workers are allowed to work with substances such as anthrax aren't thorough enough, said Gigi Kwik Gronvall, a senior associate at the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

[snip]

Gronvall said there are other concerns in addition to inadequate background checks.

"Nobody is checking to see if people being approved to work with anthrax or other biological agents actually have the scientific skills to work with it," Gronvall said.

"Problem" is an understatement.

The legacy of the 2001 anthrax attacks is complex.  We got a swift kick in the ass regarding emergency preparedness for bioweapons attacks, as well rapid detection of disease agents.  Increased laboratory dedication to related research is critical.

But it's gotten out of hand.  We have increased our risk for accidents and criminal activity involving potentially lethal disease organisms.

In essence, the line between defense and weapons research (intentional or unintentional) is becoming more and more blurred.

You'd think we would have learned that by now.

Since the "FBI Says It Finally Figured Out Who The 2001 Anthrax Killer Was" story broke last week, there has been some absolutely exceptional analysis of the story, namely by Glenn Greenwald, whose piece "Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News" reminds us:

During the last week of October, 2001, ABC News, led by Brian Ross, continuously trumpeted the claim as their top news story that government tests conducted on the anthrax -- tests conducted at Ft. Detrick -- revealed that the anthrax sent to Daschele contained the chemical additive known as bentonite. ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since -- as ABC variously claimed -- bentonite "is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program" and "only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons."

We all know now that this is classic pre-Iraq war bullshit propaganda, something that not enough people questioned as we were still reeling from the September 11 attacks.

Marcy Wheeler ("Emptywheel" of Firedoglake) has carefully put together an "anthrax timeline" to help us understand more about why the FBI's investigation changed course in 2006.  What is so useful - and disturbing - about the timeline is that it shows us the general "blame Iraq" trend.  Note the part in bold (my emphasis):

October 14, 2001: Guardian first suggests tie between anthrax and Iraq

October 15, 2001: Daschle letter opened; Bush presses FBI to look into Middle Eastern links to anthrax

October 18, 2001: Nerve attack scare in White House situation room

October 18, 2001: John McCain links anthrax attack to Iraq and Phase II of war on terror

October 21, 2001: First of two DC postal workers dies of anthrax poisoning

McCain made the connection during an appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman, on October 18, 2001:

LETTERMAN: How are things going in Afghanistan now?

MCCAIN: I think we’re doing fine .... I think we’ll do fine. The second phase — if I could just make one, very quickly — the second phase is Iraq. There is some indication, and I don’t have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may — and I emphasize may — have come from Iraq.

LETTERMAN: Oh is that right?

MCCAIN: If that should be the case, that’s when some tough decisions are gonna have to be made.

Well, hey there, Senator McCain!  That's one hell of a connection you're implying, right in line with what Bush and the architects of the Iraq war were also saying.  In fact, I'd like you to answer some questions, McCain:

• Who told you the anthrax was from Saddam Hussein's bioweapons program?
• Why were you repeating this claim on national television?

Please be very specific, Senator.  A little "straight talk" would be quite welcome here.

About four months ago, FOX News (yes, I know) floated an oddly low-profile story about the nearly-forgotten anthrax bioterrorism attacks of late 2001:

The FBI has narrowed its focus to "about four" suspects in the 6 1/2-year investigation of the deadly anthrax attacks of 2001, and at least three of those suspects are linked to the Army’s bioweapons research facility at Fort Detrick in Maryland, FOX News has learned.

Among the pool of suspects are three scientists — a former deputy commander, a leading anthrax scientist and a microbiologist — linked to the research facility, known as USAMRIID.

The FBI has collected writing samples from the three scientists in an effort to match them to the writer of anthrax-laced letters that were mailed to two U.S. senators and at least two news outlets in the fall of 2001, a law enforcement source confirmed.

[snip]

... in an e-mail obtained by FOX News, scientists at Fort Detrick openly discussed how the anthrax powder they were asked to analyze after the attacks was nearly identical to that made by one of their colleagues.

"Then he said he had to look at a lot of samples that the FBI had prepared ... to duplicate the letter material," the e-mail reads. "Then the bombshell. He said that the best duplication of the material was the stuff made by [name redacted]. He said that it was almost exactly the same ... his knees got shaky and he sputtered, 'But I told the General we didn't make spore powder!'"

When I wrote about the story, I concluded with the thought that this "new development" wasn't really news, that it was only slightly more specific than what we already knew (see the background included in my post).

Well, in light of yesterday's revelation, it looks like FOX might have had something:

A top government scientist who helped the FBI analyze samples from the 2001 anthrax attacks has died in Maryland from an apparent suicide, just as the Justice Department was about to file criminal charges against him for the attacks, the Los Angeles Times has learned.

Bruce E. Ivins, 62, who for the last 18 28^* years worked at the government's elite biodefense research laboratories at Ft. Detrick, Md., had been informed of his impending prosecution, said people familiar with Ivins, his suspicious death and the FBI investigation.

^{* LA Times correction.}

The story is anything but simple.  For years, the investigation focused on Stephen Hatfill as a "person of interest".  However:

The extraordinary turn of events followed the government's payment in June of a settlement valued at $5.82 million to a former government scientist, Steven J. Hatfill, who was long targeted as the FBI's chief suspect despite a lack of any evidence that he had ever possessed anthrax.

The payout to Hatfill, a highly unusual development that all but exonerated him in the mailings, was an essential step to clear the way for prosecuting Ivins, according to lawyers familiar with the matter.

As the LA Times reports it, Ivins was just what the FBI was looking for.

Ivins, employed as a civilian at Ft. Detrick, earlier had attracted the attention of Army officials because of anthrax contaminations that Ivins failed to report for five months. In sworn oral and written statements to an Army investigator, Ivins said that he had erred by keeping the episodes secret -- from December 2001 to late April 2002. He said he had swabbed and bleached more than 20 areas that he suspected were contaminated by a sloppy lab technician.

We have no idea what Ivins' motives were. He is alternately described in the press as everything from "a family man" to "a revenge killer". He is described as a dedicated scientist.

And he isn't really described at all by the FBI.  We just don't know anything:

The Justice Department said Friday it had made "substantial progress" in the investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks, but officials declined to comment on a report in The [Los Angeles] Times that the department was about to bring the first criminal charges for the attacks against a Maryland man who died this week.

We deserve better.  As Glenn Greenwald said in his excellent (and extensive) analysis, not only was the FBI's investigation dangerously sidetracked from the start, but the media's involvement in the distraction has been extensive, when the culprit quite possibly has been under our noses, employed by the federal government, the whole time:

From the beginning, there was a clear intent on the part of the anthrax attacker to create a link between the anthrax attacks and both Islamic radicals and the 9/11 attacks...

Much more important than the general attempt to link the anthrax to Islamic terrorists, there was a specific intent -- indispensably aided by ABC News -- to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. In my view, and I've written about this several times and in great detail to no avail, the role played by ABC News in this episode is the single greatest, unresolved media scandal of this decade. News of Ivins' suicide, which means (presumably) that the anthrax attacks originated from Ft. Detrick, adds critical new facts and heightens how scandalous ABC News' conduct continues to be in this matter.

Finally, let's turn to the broader national security implications.

Dr. Alan Pearson, Ph.D is the Director of the Biological and Chemical Weapons Control Program at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.  He is an expert on bioweapons and biodefense, and has  expressed concern about the biosecurity risks involved in research with select agents, particularly bioweapons agents. He expressed his concerns about laboratory oversight before the House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in October 2007, mentioning in particular that "[N]or should we ignore the possibility that a US biologist may become disgruntled or turn rogue while working in one of these labs."

His statement on Ivins' death and the FBI investigation is exactly on the mark:

"The FBI must not let the death of Bruce Ivins deter it from completing a full and thorough investigation of the attacks," said Pearson. "The chance to prove Ivins' guilt before a court of law has been lost, but the need for a thorough investigation and a full accounting to the American people remains." CNN reported today that the FBI will soon close the case "because a threat no longer exists."

Pearson says that the number one question still to determine is whether Ivins was responsible for the attacks and, if so, whether he acted alone and with complete secrecy. "If Ivins was indeed responsible for the attacks, did he have any assistance? Did anyone else at the Army lab or elsewhere have any knowledge of his activities prior to, during, or shortly after the anthrax attacks?" questioned Pearson. "The FBI must see this investigation through to completion."

Pearson added that if it is established that Ivins or anyone else working at the government's biodefense lab at Fort Detrick, Maryland produced the anthrax used in the attacks or diverted anthrax powder from the lab's stocks, the implications would be significant.

"It appears increasingly likely that the only significant bioterrorism attack in history may have originated from right within the biodefense program of our own country," said Pearson. "The implications for our understanding of the bioterrorism threat and for our entire biodefense strategy and enterprise are potentially profound."

Doubtless, Friday's revelations will generate a plethora of conspiracy theories, but who needs conspiracy theories?

In other words, an ominous picture is starting to reveal itself, and it has nothing to do with a nefarious government plot. It has to do with the much broader implications of the event, that a massive biosecurity breach occurred, and a scientist with access to extremely dangerous materials "went rogue".

"Potentially profound" is an understatement.  

• Jeff Lindemyer over at The Nukes of Hazard points us to a great article by John Isaacs, who is the executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. Isaacs' article discusses the successful dismantling of the North Korean nuclear program, and the resulting wingnut meltdown. Just to get you hooked, here's an excerpt:

  The same neoconservatives who dominated the Bush administration for almost eight years are now screaming like stuck pigs over the administration’s latest moves on North Korea. You would have thought that the heathens had been let into the temple—or, even worse, that W. had appointed Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) or Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) to Cabinet positions.

  President George W. Bush announced on June 26 that the United States would take steps to remove the last remaining Stalinist regime from the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. This step was in return for North Korea submitting a long-delayed official declaration about its nuclear program.

• Amazing:

  In a new report [pdf], the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reveals that the real similarity between Iraq and Vietnam is in the price of staying. In constant FY2008 dollars, the Vietnam war cost the U.S. $686 billion. The Iraq war, at just over five years old, is priced at $648 billion...

• The NYT describes how the Iraq war has been sanitized in the US media by the suppression of images of violence. It quotes Zoriah Miller, an embedded photographer whom the Marines sent packing after he posted a photo of bodies at the site of a recent suicide bombing:

  "The fact that the images I took of the suicide bombing —which are just photographs of something that happens every day all across the country — the fact that these photos have been so incredibly shocking to people, says that whatever they are doing to limit this type of photo getting out, it is working."

  - smintheus

• Tom S over at Rustbelt Intellectual has a moving and thoughtful essay about nostalgia, the racial divide and growing up in Detroit.

  -- SusanG

• Matt Browner Hamlin offers the definitive smackdown to the Ted "Tubes" Stevens campaign, which once again publicized ignorance of the internet when it sent out a fundraising letter with this tidbit of a "scoop" against Democrat Mark Begich:

  Just last quarter, the mayor raised more than $37,000 from just one liberal Lower 48 Internet campaign known as ActBlue

  -- SusanG

• Interesting stuff for poll nerds, compliments of DemFromCT:

  Rasmussen: the modest bounce continues

  For the first five weeks after clinching the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Obama consistently led McCain by five or six points. Then, in the two weeks leading up to Obama’s overseas trip, support for the Democrat softened and the race got a bit tighter (see recent daily results). So far, the impact of Obama’s trip has been to restore the five or six point lead he enjoyed after capturing the nomination.

  Gallup: Yo, tambien.

  By the way, for tracking poll addicts, read Alan Abramowitz:

  Here's what I found. Since the beginning of May, over 74 days of polling, the Gallup tracking poll has shown Barack Obama with an average lead of 1.6 percentage points over John McCain. During the same time period, the Rasmussen tracking poll, over 76 days of polling, has shown Obama with an average lead of 1.8 percentage points. But during the exact same time period, 38 other national polls have shown Obama with an average lead of 5.2 percentage points.

  It's not a huge difference. But given the numbers of respondents interviewed in these polls-about 60 thousand in the Gallup tracking poll, 75 thousand in the Rasmussen tracking poll, and 40 thousand in the other national polls-it
  is certainly a statistically significant difference. More importantly, the Gallup and Rasmussen results give a different impression of the state of the presidential race from other national polls. A lead of less than two points suggests a much tighter race than a lead of between five and six points.

  And for the best damn discussion of polling sites, see Open Left (and the comment by Charles Franklin, who doesn't get enough credit for his charts at pollster.com.)

  Check out Hotline TV for the poop on the battlegrounds and McCain's huge, huge electoral college bounce.
  

• A recent study shows that poor people are more likely to play the lottery. In other news, hungry people were more likely to eat.

  -- Scout Finch

• The FCC has finally approved the XM and Sirius merger, some 18 months after the deal was announced. Stay tuned satellite radio subscribers.....it is going to get interesting now.
  --Scout Finch

Lots of gnashing of GOP teeth in the Senate today:

The Senate failed to advance legislation targeting oil speculators after Republicans and Democrats remained at an impasse on adding an expansion of offshore drilling to the bill.

The chamber voted 50-43 — well short of the 60 votes needed to limit debate on the measure that would have addressed manipulation in the oil futures markets, primarily by adding more regulators at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Democrats had said the bill was the logical first step towards solving high gas prices since speculation was a large part of the problem.

GOP senators wanted to add language that would expand offshore drilling and pledged to block floor action unless they received a chance to amend the Democratic bill. Democratic leaders said they wanted to limit amendments for practical reasons — the chamber expects to adjourn in August — and because Republicans’ real goal was to protect oil companies.

In other words, the motion to invoke cloture was defeated. There were 43 Senators voting to continue a filibuster of the bill, including James Inhofe (R-Exxon).

He votes to continue a filibuster... and then he puts out this unbelievable mountain of craptacular spin, accusing the Democrats of trying to cut off debate on gas price relief:

Democrats [sic] Attempt to Shut Down Energy Debate Fails

"Today's vote shows that Republicans are willing to stand up and fight to ensure the Senate stays focused on providing solutions to rising energy prices," Senator Inhofe said. "When Democrats allow the Senate to reopen for business on the issue of bringing down energy costs, I am ready to put forward amendments to encourage the development of natural gas vehicles, prolong the feasibility and production from our marginal oil and gas wells, address the market distorting subsidization of fuels in other countries, and repeal federal prohibitions on importing fuels from the Canadian oil sands.

"Republicans in the Senate are serious about providing solutions to rising energy costs. I will continue to stand with my Republican colleagues to ensure the Senate holds a fair and open debate on the need to increase energy supplies.  I believe a large majority of Senators will vote in favor of amendments to open responsible access to America's plentiful energy resources.  Democratic leadership knows this as well.  That's why they're blocking a full and open debate."

Wow.  Just... wow.

• The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation has a nice summary of Obama versus McCain on nuclear weapons issues.  It's entitled "Seven Areas of Agreement, and Six of Disagreement, on Nuclear Weapons".  Check it out, as well as their related, detailed analyses:

  Project on Strengthening Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

  In a Nutshell: McCain vs. Obama on National Security

  Obama vs. McCain: A Side-By-Side Comparison on Arms Control

  Memorandum to McCain and Obama: A New Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Agenda

  McCain's Big Non-Proliferation Speech: Cheers, Jeers, and Questions

  -- Plutonium Page

• Worried about the effect of cellphones on polling results? Don't be so worried... Pew via Mark Blumenthal note the effect is modest at best.

  Obama holds a 48% to 40% lead in the sample that includes cell phones, and a 46% to 41% advantage in the landline sample.

  The modest difference disappears with likely voters. While this doesn't settle the question, the current data suggests cell phones don't 'change everything'. - DemFromCT

• A new assessment,The Measure of America: American Human Development Report 2008-2009, has been released by Columbia University Press and the Social Science Research Council. The report includes the debut of the American Human Development Index, which looks at how well Americans are doing in such arenas as life expectancy, educational attainment, living standards, income, et cetera. All the data are broken down by state and congressional district, as well as by gender, race, and ethnicity. Among the findings: 15% of American children - 10.7 million of them - live in families with monthly incomes of less than $1,500; new mothers are granted 14 or more weeks of paid leave in 98 countries, but the U.S. has no such federally mandated paid leave; African American and Latino children are four years behind their white peers in reading and math by the 12th grade. - Meteor Blades
• In my little corner of the world, garbage collection is going green. - BarbinMD
• Barack Obama will meet with German Chancellor Angela Merkel next week during his trip to Europe and the Middle East. No word if he plans to grope her. - BarbinMD

Listening to a John McCain speech is like finding an old Cold War era globe or map.  From yesterday:

For the second time in two days, John McCain has referred to current events in "Czechoslovakia" – a country that officially ceased to exist in January of 1993.

"And I regret some of the recent behavior Russia that has exhibited, and I’ll be glad to talk about that later on including reduction in oil supplies to Czechoslovakia after they agreed with us on a missile defense system, etcetera," said the presumptive Republican nominee at a New Mexico town hall Tuesday.

Here's a history lesson for John McCain. On the left is a map of the military alliances in Cold War Europe; on the right is modern Europe.  Click to enlarge.

Also, click here for a fancy animated lesson on Europe's changing borders.  There's more information on the Czech Republic here.

What's next?  Will McCain start worrying about the extensive Soviet presence in Afghanistan?  Will he roll back the years and rant about "that Soviet guy who bangs his shoe on stuff"?  Or, as diarist Orange County Liberal suggested, will McCain express worries about the Austro-Hungarian Empire's influence in the Balkans?

Here's video of McCain's speech.  Add your speculation:  what will he say next?

Late July, 1991:

It was one of those hellishly hot days here in Albuquerque, where you either stayed inside with the air conditioner running, or found a swimming pool someplace, or just sat in front of a fan and tried to stay cool. I was working as a student intern out on Kirtland Air Force Base, in a chemistry lab, where I did radiochemistry work with americium-241 and plutonium-238. That was one of the days when my mom picked me up.

We were driving along a long, winding road leading out of the base. Suddenly the stream of cars slowed down, and stopped. Straight ahead, we saw several military vehicles blocking the road.  Standing in the vehicles were "military guys with very big guns" (as my my mom described it later).

We'd seen the signs all summer: WARNING: CONVOYS. That day, we found out what the signs meant. Far head, we spotted several huge transport vehicles with missiles on them.  The trucks were flanked by security vehicles, with more heavily armed soldiers making it very obvious that this was serious shit. I suddenly remembered what one of my friends at the labs had told me: "You'll see convoys of missiles. Those are nuclear weapons. They're moving them so they can be dismantled. Don't have to worry about the Russians anymore, you know."

It was utterly surreal. That was when I realized what was behind the huge "doors" in the Manzano Mountains. It had always been something lurking at the back of all of our minds during the Reagan years: nukes.  Soviet nukes pointed our way, ready to launch. Reagan with his finger on the button. As a pre-teen in the early 1980s, I'd tell my mom about my nuclear attack nightmares;  she'd tell me about "duck and cover" when she lived at White Sands Missile Range in the late 1950s.

Strange, then, that my undergraduate studies in chemistry lead me to work with transuranics... stranger, still, that I eventually wound up working at the Hanford Nuclear Site, on yet another student internship. My project involved analysis of the waste that had resulted from nuclear bomb production during the Cold War.

The Hanford Nuclear Site. (Click to enlarge.)

Hanford's B Reactor (more). (Click to enlarge.)

The Hanford Site is in southeastern Washington State (see the map at the right).  It played a critical role in the Manhattan Project, for that was where plutonium for the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki was produced.

As we all know, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a catastrophic and deadly announcement to the world of the birth of a new weapon - a "Sword of Armageddon" that heralded one of the most frightening periods in history: the Cold War.

Hanford became a very busy place. A "war" was on.  The US had a nuclear arms race to run... and run we did. At the peak of nuclear weapons production, approximately 70 bombs were coming off the assembly line a day. In 1967, we had a staggering 70,000 nuclear warheads poised for use. The number declined over the years; by the time the Cold War had ended, our stockpile had been reduced to about 21,500 warheads.

Not good:

The FBI J. Edgar Hoover Building, Washington, D.C.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is part of the U.S. intelligence community, has the lead responsibility for domestic surveillance of foreign intelligence and suspected terrorist targets.

So it seems like a rather crippling defect that the J. Edgar Hoover Building, the FBI headquarters in Washington, DC, cannot satisfy government standards for storage and use of classified intelligence records.

"The Hoover Building does not meet the Interagency Security Committee’s criteria for a secure Federal facility capable of handling intelligence and other sensitive information," the Senate Appropriations Committee observed in a new report on the 2009 Commerce, Justice and State Appropriations bill.

More specifically:

The Committee is concerned that the limitations of the J. Edgar Hoover Building, which has not had any major structural improvements since it was opened in 1974, could affect the FBI's ability to fulfill its mission. The building is inadequate for the current FBI Headquarters workforce, causing dispersal of FBI staff in to over 16 annex offices. The building also lacks adequate setback and other security features, which puts FBI operations and personnel at unacceptable risk. The Hoover Building does not meet the Interagency Security Committee's criteria for a secure Federal facility capable of handling intelligence and other sensitive information. The Committee finds these conditions unacceptable and directs the Government Accountability Office [GAO] to review the Hoover Building and associated off-site locations, and provide a analysis of the FBI's ability to fulfill its mission and security requirements under the present circumstances. The GAO study should also assess the benefits of a consolidated Headquarters facility.

As Aftergood notes, the FBI is constructing a new Central Records Complex.  The FBI says:

The FBI has a comprehensive program to enhance its record keeping processes, including the development of the new Central Records Complex (CRC) in Winchester, Virginia. These initiatives will significantly improve search and record-retrieval capabilities by increasing search accuracy; by decreasing search time; and by reducing lost files, missing serials, and the manual movement of files. When complete, the overall impact will be to reduce even further the FBI's Freedom of Information/Privacy Act numbers and processing times. The FBI is in the process of moving to interim facilities in Winchester and is building and training a new work force in expectation of moving into the CRC in 2010.

Two years is a long time to wait.

Coal combustion waste at Navajo Mine, New Mexico. Photo credit: Bruce Gordon (EcoFlight), ©2007. Click to enlarge.

And, like many southwestern states, NM has its share of coal mines, particularly in the northwestern ("Four Corners") region.  The photo to the left is the Navajo Mine. The grey "mountains" are 50 million tons of toxic coal combustion waste (CCW) from two nearby coal-fired power plants, which have helped put San Juan County at number 6 on a recent "top 20 worst counties for carbon dioxide emissions" list.

Worse yet, there are plans to build yet another coal-fired
power plant.  And, of course, the "clean coal" gang has stepped in to reassure everyone that the new plant will "be the cleanest coal plant in the United States".

From its inception, the Desert Rock Power Plant proposal has been fraught with controversy.   The San Juan Citizens Alliance provides a useful summary of the battle between the plant's backers (Sithe Global Power and Dine Power Authority), the EPA, and local citizens.  Sithe and DPA claim that the EPA is delaying its air permit unnecessarily, while at the same time air quality continues to deteriorate from the two plants already operating in the area.

New Mexico's governor, Bill Richardson, even issued a statement saying that the EPA should delay issuing the permit, to which the spokesman for Sithe replied:

... that Desert Rock ``will be the cleanest coal plant in the United States with the most strict air permit ever.''

And how would this be accomplished?  The regional ACCCE spokesperson moseyed his way into Durango, Colorado last week to talk about it:

Brad S. Jones, regional communications director for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said wind and other renewable sources should play a part in meeting Americans' electricity needs. But coal is needed to provide reliable power.

[...]

Environmental groups have raised concerns about the plant's emissions of carbon dioxide, a gas that has been linked to global warming. Desert Rock would emit an estimated 12.7 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. A car would have to burn 1.3 billion gallons of gas to reach the same level of emissions.

Jones said the coal industry is working to tackle carbon-dioxide emissions - with the help of technology.

"The technology is there," Jones said. "What's missing is incentives and funding to make it commercially viable."

Companies are experimenting with injecting carbon dioxide into saline aquifers and underground coal seams, Jones said.

Shorter translation:  burn coal.  We'll give you an excuse.

The Durango Herald followed up a few days later with an article about that excuse:

This month researchers will begin pumping carbon dioxide deep into the ground in a test that could yield a valuable new method for keeping the greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere while also increasing methane production.

The Pump Canyon test pilot, located near Navajo Dam in New Mexico, is part of nationwide, public-private push to advance a technology known as carbon sequestration, which aims to lock the gas away where it can't contribute to global warming...

If the results from the test are positive, the San Juan Basin, which stretches into Southwest Colorado, could be among the first places in the world where the process is put into widespread use.

The article goes on to discuss carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), including its role in the Desert Rock saga:

Frank Maisano, spokesman for the Desert Rock project, said the technology could eventually be integrated into the proposed plant.

"They're building the project so that it can be retrofitted for carbon-sequestration technologies should they become affordable and available," he said.

Academics and DOE experts don't expect that to happen for another 10 years or more.

"Right now, it does look rather far off," Maisano said.

Obviously, Maisano and Sithe aren't concerned about the carbon emissions from the new plant;  as for their claim that it will be the "cleanest coal plant in the United States", apparently they're forgetting about all of the mercury, selenium, and other pollutants it would be pumping out.

Finally, Sithe has said very little about CCW:

"We believe it will be put to beneficial use," says Tom Johns, a vice president with Sithe Global, the company developing Desert Rock. Indeed, some of the flyash could end up serving as a substitute for cement or as road grade. But markets for such products aren’t that abundant, and currently less than 40 percent of the nation’s CCWs are recycled.

Meanwhile, every pound of pollutants taken out of the air to make this plant "clean" must go somewhere. "Basically, the words ’clean coal technology’ are an oxymoron," says Stant [of the Clean Air Task Force Power Plant Waste Program]. "There’s no such thing as that. Matter doesn’t disappear."

Instead, that matter - along with the mercury and the other unpleasant leftovers - ends up buried or piled up out in the desert.

Which brings us back to the Navajo Mine, because that's where the CCW from the Desert Rock Power Plant will most likely end up.

Regardless of how complex some aspects of the Desert Rock issue might be, the underlying issue is simple:  it's dirty, dirty coal power, and those who are telling the people of New Mexico or southern Colorado otherwise are fooling only themselves.

Note:  I originally posted this at Coal Is Dirty.com last week.  New Mexico has four separate races this year (three Congressional districts and a Senate race), and was very "purple" in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections;  I figured a little background on a huge environmental issue (and the energy scene) here in this amazing state might be of interest to a few folks here at Daily Kos.

Love on the rocks?

Exxon Mobil Corp. has cut funding to groups raising questions about climate change from human-generated carbon dioxide, a move taken on the eve of its annual meeting in the face of criticism that the oil giant isn't as green as some of its rivals.

Spokesman Gantt Walton confirmed Tuesday that in 2008, Exxon Mobil (XOM) scrapped funding for the Capital Research Center, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute and the Institute for Energy Research.

"We discontinued contributions to several public-policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion about how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner," Walton said.

On the surface, this looks somewhat promising, especially considering that Exxon cut funding to the notorious climate change skeptics at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) last year.

But a healthy dose of skepticism on our side is important. Let's dig below that glossy corporate surface and follow the money.

Last year, Greenpeace pointed out that although Exxon stopped its handouts to the CEI, it was still up to no good:

ExxonSecrets has obtained the company's Exxon Foundation 2005 report to the IRS. Exxon told the IRS that that it funded 14 groups specifically for their climate change work. But somehow the company didn’t mention this in public.

[Emphasis added.]

In addition to those 14 groups, Exxon was also still giving millions to other front groups that faithfully pump out global warming denier propaganda (pdf , pp. 10-15).

Finally, let's take a look at the groups most recently defunded, namely their key individuals and goals:

1. The Capital Research Center aggressively monitors progressive advocacy groups (example here). One of their most recent publications regarding climate change is by the rather prolific denier Chris Horner, whose contributions to the National Review's "Planet Gore" blog speak for themselves. Horner is also listed by the Heartland Institute as one of their "global warming experts", and has recently given talks for the conservative (Exxon-funded ) Heritage Foundation.
2. The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow has an impressive list of high-profile global warming deniers on its Board of Advisors. Many, if not most of them, are also advisors to, or on the staff of, front groups that Exxon continues to fund (e.g. the American Enterprise Institute, the National Center for Policy Analysis, etc.)
3. The Frontiers of Freedom Institute includes the Center for Science and Public Policy, whose extensive anti-climate science activities include a recent letter to President Bush co-signed by a long list of fellow climate change deniers from other front groups.
4. The George C. Marshall Institute is noteworthy in that it has hosted many "roundtables" specifically for climate change deniers from other front groups (e.g. "Shattered Consensus", a discussion including Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, David Legates, and Oliver Frauenfeld).
5. The Institute for Energy Research 's chairman is also a sort of clearinghouse for climate change deniers from other Exxon-funded front groups. As of the time of this post, the IER's list of Scholars includes experts from the American Enterprise Institute , the Cato Institute , and the Pacific Research Institute .

The point is this:

Although Exxon is no longer funding a handful of its climate change denier front groups, the key people in these groups are part of the entire Exxon front group network. It doesn't matter that one of their think tanks is losing funding, because they have their fingers in other oily pies, and can get their message out no matter what.

Exxon is obviously under pressure to catch up with reality; they no longer strictly deny climate change, but their tepid, equivocating language on their website leaves a lot to be desired.

As Cindy Baxter says in her post at Exxon Secrets, "it's a start ". She, like all of us in the real world would love to see Exxon stop funding all of its front groups, and not create more to take their place.

Perhaps the tiger will be out of the (think) tank for good someday.

(Also posted at DeSmogBlog.com.)

... if I take a spell I want to blow my lid, I can [unintelligible] a bunch of sorry-ass government motherf**kers down the drain. I want something that can do a bunch at a time with minimum of ease...

You get me one of those [improvised nuclear devices] and help me get it back to my country... anything to get my hands on one ...

That's from the transcript of a conversation between an undercover FBI agent and white supremacist Demetrius "Van" Crocker.  From the October 26, 2004 Global Security Newswire:

Federal authorities said Demetrius "Van" Crocker, 39, was arrested yesterday after meeting with an undercover federal agent in an attempt to purchase sarin nerve agent and conventional explosives.

[snip]

Yesterday’s operation followed a seven-month investigation that began when the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation was told that Crocker was attempting to acquire "nuclear waste and/or nuclear materials," according to the affidavit.

The story got almost no press coverage outside of Tennessee even though Crocker's goals weren't all that different from al Qaeda, which "...continues to pursue its strategic objective of obtaining a nuclear weapon [and nuclear materials]." (9/11 commission statement, pdf).

Of course, as soon we hear "al Qaeda", most of us think "that terrorist network 'over there', nothing to worry about here at home.  That loose nuke stuff is 'over there'.  No risks here."

Wrong.

From an article (pdf) in the November/December 2006 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

...[A] team of terrorists infiltrated Los Alamos National Laboratory’s sensitive Technical Area-18 (TA-18), shot their way past guards, and entered Kiva-3, one of three on-site assembly buildings where nuclear fission experiments are conducted. Once inside, the terrorists found what they had come for: two large plates of highly enriched uranium (HEU).

They unbolted the heavy plates, placed one on the floor, and held the other 6 feet above it. Months of planning came to fruition as they dropped the plate, initiating a chain reaction. In the blink of an eye, a nuclear "flash" nearly the size of the Hiroshima blast lit up the black desert sky for miles around.

[...]

[The DoE report] detailed the results of a force-on-force security test at Los Alamos in New Mexico, in which faux attackers used conventional means to devastate TA-18’s underprepared security force.

Fortunately, the DoE acted appropriately, and moved the HEU and weapons-grade plutonium out of TA-18 (hopefully to a more secure location).

But that's not all.

The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) has been keeping track of security problems at multiple US government facilities that supposedly safeguard weapons-grade nuclear materials and components.  The examples are far too numerous to list; they range from the stunning ease at which potential terrorists could access weapons-grade HEU at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to massive security holes at Lawrence Livermore Labs, only 48 miles from San Francisco, where literally thousands of pounds of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium are stored:

Now, TIME Magazine is reporting that in late April 2008, government mock terrorists tested Livermore Lab's security, and were able to defeat the protective force and gain access to their target-simulated [weapons-grade nuclear material]. After speaking with our sources on the ground at Livermore Lab, as well as at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), POGO has heard some of what happened. We are not that surprised by what we learned.

One reason the Lab's protective guard force was not able to defend the bomb-making material is because the hydraulic lift on the vehicles used to deploy the Lab's Dillon Aero M134D guns, popularly known as the Gatling gun, did not work.

[...]

Another reason that the Lab's security was penetrated is that members of the Lab's SWAT team, known as a Special Response Team (SRT), have not trained together as a "team" for years. This goes against law enforcement best practices--guards need opportunities to see how their teammates actually communicate and respond during an emergency.

Fortunately, the DoE has taken almost all of the audits seriously, although it's obviously a case of closing the barn door after a more organized version of a Demetrius Crocker and his white supremacist friends have grabbed their target material and escaped with it.

Obviously, nuclear terrorism is a very real national security concern, and it should be high on the next president's list of possible domestic threats, and our safety depends on who wins.

If John McCain is in the Oval Office, he is just as likely to drop the ball as Bush is when it comes to potential terrorist attacks.

What a coincidence.

Just as the Alaska State Legislature allocates $2 million for a conference promoting climate change deniers' "expert" analysis of why polar bears aren't really endangered, a poster boy for polar bear junk science emerges from the woodwork.

Enter J. Scott Armstrong, who is a marketing professor at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. His research emphasizes forecasting methods, which he has used as the cornerstone for - you guessed it - claims  that the IPCC climate change projections are actually all wrong.

Now he's extended his "forecasts" to say that polar bears are doing just fine. He alluded to his research when Sen. James Inhofe called him  as an "expert" to testify before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee regarding the proposed endangered status of the polar bear; now, Armstrong has released an official statement advertising his paper.

Here's the link  (warning, slow website):

Research done by the U.S. Department of the Interior to determine if global warming threatens the polar bear population is so flawed that it cannot be used to justify listing the polar bear as an endangered species, according to a study being published later this year in Interfaces, a journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS®).

[...]

Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School says, "To list a species that is currently in good health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off.

[...]

Prof. Armstrong and colleagues originally undertook their audit at the request of the State of Alaska. The subsequent study, "Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public Policy Forecasting Audit," is by Prof. Armstrong, Kesten G. Green of Monash University in Australia, and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. It is scheduled to appear in the September/October issue of the INFORMS journal Interfaces.

Armstrong's claims regarding the increasing polar bear population have been debunked again  and again  (which doesn't stop Inhofe and others  from repeating the claims, of course).

Also, those who are familiar with climate change deniers will recognize Willie Soon's name.  He's one of the true believers that solar activity causes global warming, which has also been repeatedly debunked (quite conclusively, in fact).

Click here  (pdf) to read the paper.

My forecast is that it will be quoted over and over again throughout the deniersphere.  

As the saying goes, "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with..," well, you know the saying.

Whether you're a conservationist or a climate change denier, undoubtedly you've been following the ongoing efforts to officially declare Ursus maritimus (also known as the polar bear) listed as an endangered species, under the US Endangered Species Act.  

In 2005, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned for the polar bear's protection, based on research done by climate and wildlife experts worldwide (pdf).  Indeed, there is international scientific agreement that the polar bear is heading toward extinction unless it is protected (details here).  At last, in 2006, the US Fish and Wildlife Service responded to the Center's petition, and proposed  that the polar bear be listed as endangered.

Predictably, those interested more in the welfare of the fossil fuel industry than in the survival of the polar bears have been doing their best  to prevent the bears from being protected.  

To make a long story short, there was an initial Senate hearing  in which Senator James Inhofe and a carefully chosen "expert" did their best to confuse the issue;  there was a follow-up hearing  investigating the Bush administration's foot-dragging (to which a senior officialdidn't even bother to show up ).  Finally, a federal judge put her foot down  and ordered the Department of the Interior to make a final decision by May 15, 2008.

The Alaska State Legislature has decided to go "scientist" shopping:

A $2 million program funded with little debate by the Legislature last month calls for using state money to fund an "academic based" conference that highlights contrarian scientific research on global warming. Legislators hope to undermine the public perception of a widespread consensus among polar bear researchers that warming global temperatures and melting Arctic ice threaten the polar bears' survival.

 Republican legislative leaders say a federal decision to declare the polar bears "threatened" by climate change would have troubling effects on Arctic oil development and the state's economic future.

 [...]

 Legislative leaders said they are frustrated that researchers skeptical of the doomsday scenario get marginalized as crackpots or industry shills by the media and scientific agencies.  "We want to have the money to hire scientists to answer the Interior (Department) scientists," House Speaker John Harris, R-Valdez, said last week.

In other words, they want a few good climate change deniers to present "proof" that the Interior Department scientists  are wrong.

Both House Speaker Harris and Senate President Lyda Green are behind the request for the $2 million.  Notably, Green was a co-sponsor of a 2007 Senate Resolution to oppose listing the polar bear as threatened.

At least Harris is honest about their motives, and what he thinks of scientists:

But the point is not to seek some non-biased measure of scientific truth. The point, said Harris, is to provide a forum for scientists whose views back Alaska's interests.

"You know as well as I do that scientists are like lawyers," Harris said.

Rick Steiner  is a conservation scientist at the University of Alaska.  For months, he has been attempting to get Alaska state officials to make public any scientific reasons they have for preventing the protection of polar bears:

[He said] "This truly is the conference to nowhere," [...]

On Friday [May 2, 2008], Steiner released a long chain of e-mail correspondence, saying the state first promised to send internal documents and then refused. The state Department of Law is now reviewing the internal memos from scientists to see if they can be released under the state's open records laws.

"It is stunningly hypocritical that the state will spend $2 million to convene a scientific conference on this issue, but they will not release their own scientific analysis," Steiner said.

At the end of the Anchorage Daily News article, there is a summary of a conference call (with Harris and Green).   Note the part I've highlighted in bold:

The project will include research methodologies such as computer modeling and perceived consensus. Research shall be non-biased to specific groups' opinion and shall present scientifically fact based outcomes.

Non-biased?  Since when were climate change skeptics "non-biased"?  By definition, this conference is being paid for and convened to dispute extensive research that proves polar bears are endangered, to provide a platform for those tired old denier talking points  with which we are so familiar.  

Stay tuned.  I'm sure we'll see soon enough that the "experts" they'll call aren't exactly "non-biased".

• There are a couple of updates on the Heartland Institute's "500 Scientist List" smackdown.  Not only has it turned out that many of the scientists on the list are not climate change deniers, and never consented to be on the list, but some of them are even dead.  Also:

  The Heartland Institute has withdrawn its claim of having identified "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts about Global Warming Scares," but is refusing the demands by dozens of those scientists to be removed from the Heartland's original offending document.

  And, five New Zealand scientists have actually sent out a press release saying although the Heartland Institute put them on the list, they also never consented to be put on the list.

  The story continues to develop.  You can follow it on the blog that broke the story, at DeSmogBlog.com.  Bloggy activism at its best!

• Cool story:

  One of the first things U.S. Rep. Steve Kagen (D–Wisc.) did when he took office last year was to nix his congressional health care coverage. The move stunned a human resources staffer, who, the lawmaker says, looked at him as though he were insane.  

  "I'll respectfully decline until you can make that same offer for all of my constituents," he says he told her, explaining his decision to turn down what many say is the Cadillac of U.S. health plans.

  [snip]

  Kagen's seemingly brazen act was part of his health care reform strategy. In February he introduced the "No Discrimination in Health Insurance Act of 2008" (H.R. 5449), which would bar insurance companies from hiking rates or denying coverage for preexisting medical conditions.

• Nerd news from New Mexico:

  Los Alamos National Laboratory is looking for a private developer to pay for and build a new science complex, officials said Wednesday.

  Under the proposal, LANL would lease the 5-acre complex from the developer to consolidate about 1,600 employees— about a third of the lab's work force— now housed in aging buildings spread throughout the lab.

  Officials say construction can begin relatively soon because the proposal does not depend on congressional funding.

  Any LANL scientists out there?  What do you think -- should the proposal have the advice of Congress?

• More from New Mexico:  if you're a Martin Heinrich fan, or want to find out more about him, his campaign office opening event is on May 10, 2008 (this upcoming Saturday).  RSVP here.  Heinrich is running for the NM-01 congressional seat, against Bush's good buddy Darren White.  Enough said.
• Bush approval rating down to 60 percent among Republicans, Gallup finds.
• Gitmo judge threatens to suspend trial of Canadian detainee because the government's withholding records, according to AP.
• A couple of mining companies are finally called to task for miner deaths. First, Massey Energy is cited by MSHA for safety violations that led to a death in West Virginia. Then, a Congressional investigation recommends that the general manager of Crandall Mine in Utah be brought up on criminal charges for hiding information from the feds.
• Since 2003, a total of 43,000 troops may have been deployed when they were medically unfit for combat, according to a Pentagon report cited by USA Today.
• Get ready for Paulville, a proposed gated community for Ron Paul acolytes.
• Business Week finds men are getting hit harder by the job slump and women are actually gaining.

It's a very bad day for the chronic climate change deniers at the right wing "think" tank, the Heartland Institute.

The folks at DeSmogBlog have discovered an inconvenient truth about the Heartland Institute's "500 climate scientists" list:

Dozens of scientists are demanding that their names be removed from a widely distributed Heartland Institute  article entitled 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares.

The article, by Hudson Institute director and Heartland "Senior Fellow" Dennis T. Avery (inset), purports to list scientists whose work contradicts the overwhelming scientific agreement that human-induced climate change is endangering the world as we know it.

DeSmogBlog manager Kevin Grandia emailed 122 of the scientists yesterday afternoon, calling their attention to the list.

They updated the news with:

UPDATE: we have received notes now from 45 outraged scientists whose names appear on the list of 500. We've published more quotes here.

A sample quote:

"I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite."

Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

Ouch.

Make sure you click all the links, especially the one in the update, and bookmark DeSmogBlog so you can keep up with the story as it develops.

This is an open thread.  The Flat Earth floor is yours, for eco-news and anything else that's on your mind.

And, of course, you can read the Overnight News Digest here.

• NH Senator John Sununu thinks net neutrality is dangerous.
• New Mexico GOP Senator-wannabees Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce continue to roll out the "I'm more conservative than you" ads.  Heather Wilson has released her first ad a couple of days ago:

  "Why is Steve Pearce running a negative campaign?" the ad's narrator asks. "Because on important issues, he's wrong. Steve Pearce voted against adding 3,000 border guards to secure our border. And when Democrats tried to cut funding for the troops and require early withdrawal, Steve Pearce didn't vote."

  The ad goes on to tout Wilson as the "commonsense conservative who can win in November."

• More NM Senate race news, from our side of the political fence:

  Senate candidate and U.S. Rep Tom Udall, D-N.M., has joined with U.S. Senate candidate Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., in New Hampshire to create a joint fundraising committee called New Hampshire/New Mexico Victory 2008 according to CQ Politics.

  Udall and Shaheen are also both part of the three Senate seats a coalition of environmental groups are targeting to help put pro-environment candidates in office.  The third is the Colorado Senate race with Udall's cousing, Mark Udall, D-C.O.

• For all you Donna Edwards fans, here's some news from Maryland:

  Democratic Party leaders in Montgomery and Prince George's counties have chosen lawyer Donna Edwards as their candidate for a special election to fill the remaining six months of Rep. Albert R. Wynn's term.

  Edwards had defeated Wynn in the February primary. She is scheduled to face Republican Peter James in the November election for the 4th District seat.

• Bush is definitely Commander-in-Chief of stupid jokes, but at least Craig Ferguson was mildly entertaining at Bush's last White House Correspondents' Dinner:

  Scottish-born Mr Ferguson asked Mr Bush what he was planning to do after leaving office, suggesting: "You could look for a job with more vacation time."

  The president has been criticised for the amount of time he has spent away from the White House during his presidency.

  Vice-President Dick Cheney, Mr Ferguson said, "is already moving out of his residence. It takes longer than you think to pack up an entire dungeon".

• And finally, some history: on this day in 1945, Russian and American troops literally joined hands at the River Elbe in Germany.

• Ivan Oelrich of the Federation of American Scientists slams Ben Stein's Flat Earther Porn "intelligent design" movie, in his blog post "Ben Stein Is Very, Very Wrong: Problems with Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".
• Speaking of Flat Earthers, Sen. James "Global Warming Is A Hoax" Inhofe (R-OK) has received another award to bolster his "Enemy of the Environment" cred (as if he needed more):

  U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) this week was honored with the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association’s (OIPA) "2008 Friend of the Wildcatter" award for his service to Oklahoma’s oil and natural gas industry.  Inhofe, who serves as ranking Republican on the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has long supported efforts to increase domestic production.The award recognizes Inhofe as " ‘Friend of the Wildcatter’ for voting consistently in the 110th Congress to grow the economy, protect Oklahoma’s oil and natural gas industry jobs, and increase domestic exploration and production."

  ("Wlldcatter" defined here.)

• Check out this cool BBC News interview with some of Obama's childhood friends... in Indonesia:

  In the playground of his old school, I met up with two of his classmates - Mary and Rina. Was there anything special about him, I asked?

  "No," said Mary. "He wasn't a special boy, just an ordinary one. But maybe that's the special thing; he had a capability to blend with any kind of situation."

  One thing marked him out as different though, said Rina - his ambition, noted in the school memoir book.

  "At that time, here in Indonesia, all the parents pushed their kids: 'You have to become a doctor' or 'You have to become an engineer'," she told me. "But he wrote that he'd like to be a president. So we thought, 'Oh in your dreams!'"

  And maybe in January 2009....?

• Also from the BBC:  Radio 4's "Donald Rumsfeld Soundbites".  Click here for the streaming audio.

  "I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past.  I think the past was not predictable when it started."

  Thanks for the memories, Rummy.  Not.

• The Albuquerque Journal started a series today on the primaries.  They kicked it off with the Heather Wilson - Steve Pearce "who's more conservative?" war.  Of course, the Journal screws it up right away, buying into Wilson's spin:

  The battle-tested congresswoman from the Albuquerque-based 1st Congressional District is once again fighting for her political life as she campaigns for the U.S. Senate seat Sen. Pete Domenici will relinquish in January after 36 years in office.

  Wilson, a moderate Republican, faces Rep. Steve Pearce, a conservative, three-term congressman from southern New Mexico, in the June 3 Republican primary election.

  She's about as "moderate" as McCain.  Pearce is more conservative, but not by much.  Oh well, it's the Albuquerque Journal... New Mexico Dems are familiar with its unreliable reporting.

  New Mexico blogger Heath Haussamen has more on the current state of the Senate race here.

• Funny stuff: "If ABC ran the Lincoln-Douglas Debates".