2010 - %3, March

RNC "Investigating" Sex Club Romp

| Mon Mar. 29, 2010 12:49 PM PDT

The Daily Caller, as we like to say in this business, buried the lede. I mean, so what if higher-ups in the Republican National Committee may or may not have been talking about arranging for a private jet for RNC chair Michael Steele. Who would be surprised? The Tea Partiers? They already think the mainstream GOP is out of touch.

Equally unsurprising but a lot more fun was the revelation of FEC expense reports showing that the RNC had dropped cash on a bondage club where the strippers simulate real live lesbians! And this for the Party of No Gay Sex, of no gay marriage, of no gays in the military, of no sex of any kind outside marriage.

The Caller mentioned it in passing:

Once on the ground, FEC filings suggest, Steele travels in style. A February RNC trip to California, for example, included a $9,099 stop at the Beverly Hills Hotel, $6,596 dropped at the nearby Four Seasons, and $1,620.71 spent [update: the amount is actually $1,946.25] at Voyeur West Hollywood, a bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex.

Details, man! We need details.

The Daily Beast had a few: "The RNC denies that Steele himself visited the club, saying that it was "a reimbursement made to a non-committee staffer. The RNC is also investigating the claim."

I'll bet they're investigating. In any case, the Beast also mentioned that the expense report was filed by one Erik Brown—who is about to become a little less obscure—for a couple of weeks at least.

The DNC is loving it, according to the Baltimore Sun's Maryland Politics blog:

The Democratic National Committee is having a field day Monday at the expense of its cross-town rivals at the RNC—or the "Risque National Committee," as the Dems put it in one of the blizzard of e-mailed releases they are sending out.

The RNC also claimed the Daily Caller piece was "riddled with misleading information and inaccuracies." But Steele & Co. didn't deny reimbursing the expense for "meals" at Voyeur West Hollywood. In fact, according to a Washington Post blogger, the RNC now wants its money back.

Follow Michael Mechanic on Twitter.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Ocean Bugs Eat Plastic?

| Mon Mar. 29, 2010 12:29 PM PDT

Researchers are zeroing in on marine microbes that may help clean up some of the 127 million tons of "disposable" plastic produced every year, 10 percent of which ends up in the ocean. Early research from the University of Sheffield and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science finds:

  • The marine microbe groups that can grow on plastic waste are significantly different from the microbial groups that colonize natural ocean surfaces.
  • This suggests that plastic-associated marine microbes have different metabolic activities that could contribute to the breakdown of plastics or of the toxic chemicals associated with them.

This is the first DNA-based study to investigate how microbes interact with plastic. Specifically, the team investigated the attachment of microbes to fragments of polyethylene, the plastic commonly used for shopping bags. They found the plastic was rapidly colonized by multiple—though not every—species of bacteria, which congregated into a biofilm on the surface of the plastic.

Next, they'll investigate how the microbial interaction with microplastics varies across habitats on coastal seabed—research the team believes could have huge environmental benefits. Researcher Jesse Harrison presented their early findings at the Society for General Microbiology's spring meeting in Edinburgh:

"Microbes play a key role in the sustaining of all marine life and are the most likely of all organisms to break down toxic chemicals, or even the plastics themselves. This kind of research is also helping us unravel the global environmental impacts of plastic pollution."
 

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Lede of the Day

| Mon Mar. 29, 2010 11:50 AM PDT

Lots of people tied for this award today, but let's give it to the Washington Post's Dan Eggen:

The Republican National Committee gave nearly $2,000 to a Southern California GOP contributor for meal expenses at Voyeur West Hollywood, a lesbian-themed California nightclub that features topless dancers wearing horse-bits and other bondage gear, according to newly filed disclosure records.

Here's what I don't get. Everyone knows that party expenditures are reported to the FEC quarterly and made public. So it's not like this stuff has any chance of staying private. And yet, every few months we see yet another idiotic expenditure like this. What's up with these guys?

Not that I want to put "these guys" into the same class as RNC chairman Michael Steele. Has any party ever had such a feckless, embarrassing chairman in recent memory? He's a real piece of work. I'm counting on the New York Post to come up with a good headline for this.

A Measles Mystery

| Mon Mar. 29, 2010 10:43 AM PDT

Via Dave Munger, David Gorski takes on some dishonest graphs from the anti-vaccine crowd purporting to show that vaccines don't keep anyone from getting sick. One problem: they use falling death rates in the pre-vaccine era to show that communicable diseases were dying off even before vaccines were introduced. But this isn't the same thing as incidence rates. Better medicine can reduce the number of people dying even if the same number of people are still getting sick. Then Gorski takes on a graph of Canadian data that does use incidence rates, in this case showing that the incidence of measles in Canada dropped steadily between the 30s and the 60s, even before the measles vaccine was introduced:

I was immediately suspicious of this graph, though. The reason should be obvious; the decline in measles incidence is far too smooth. Measles incidence typically varies greatly from year to year. Fortunately, in his chutzpah, Obomsawin included a link to the actual source of the graph. Naturally, I couldn’t resist checking it out, and I found that the link leads to the Canadian Immunization Guide section on the measles vaccine. And this is the actual graph from which Obomsawin allegedly extracted his data [It's the orange chart above. –ed.]

Note how Obomsawin left out a section of eight years when measles was not nationally reportable. Also note how he has, to be charitable, cherry picked the years to produce the impression of a smoothly declining measles incidence from 1935 to 1959. As I said, it doesn’t get much more intellectually dishonest than that.

OK. But this still provokes a question: Before 1950 measles incidence was about the same in Canada and the United States. (The charts use different measurements but they represent about the same incidence rate.) So why did measles incidence in Canada drop dramatically between 1950-1960 while it stayed steady in the U.S.? Did Canada do something else around 1950 to reduce measles exposure? Or what? Because it sure looks like something happened north of the border.