Deadly mutations:The Spanish influenza virus that killed 50 million people in 1918-19 probably originated in birds, according to researchers. U.S. scientists have found the 1918 virus shares genetic mutations with the bird flu virus now circulating in Asia.

Writing in the journal Nature the scientists say their work underscores the threat the current strain poses to humans worldwide. A second paper in Science reveals another U.S. team has successfully re-created the 1918 virus in mice. The virus is contained at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under stringent safety conditions for experiments to understand what made the virus so virulent.

The virus was re-created from virus samples from the remains of victims of the 1918 pandemic, enabling researchers to piece together the entire genetic sequence of the virus. They found the virus contained elements that were new to humans of the time, making it highly virulent. Analysis of the virus’ genetic code revealed mutations with similarities to those in flu viruses found only in birds, such as the H5N1 strain.

Experts believe it is only a matter of time before H5N1 or a similar virus causes many deaths in humans — possibly after combining with a human flu strain. The mutations identified by the U.S. researchers were found in genes that control the virus’ ability to replicate in host cells. Researchers say these mutations may have helped the 1918 virus to replicate more efficiently.

At this stage, the H5N1 strain shares only some, not all, of those mutations. But the mutations may be enough to increase the virulence of the virus, and give it the potential to cause serious human infection without first combining with a known human flu strain. The researchers believe the two other major flu pandemics of the 20th century — in 1957 and 1968 — were caused by human flu viruses that acquired two or three key genes from bird flu virus strains. But they believe the 1918 strain was probably entirely a bird flu virus that adapted to function in humans.

From today’s National Journal PollTrack:

Early polling shows the public is not as keen on President Bush’s choice of White House counsel Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court as it was on his first pick, newly confirmed Chief Justice John Roberts.

Just 44% of respondents to a new CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll rated Miers as a good or excellent candidate for the high court, whereas 51% initially hailed Roberts’ as such. In addition, a 54% majority told pollsters back in July that they had a positive first impression of Roberts, while just 42% said that of Miers.

A Gallup party breakdown shows support for Miers falling down partisan lines, with 72% of Republicans and just a quarter of Democrats giving her positive marks.

In the public’s view, there are already several strikes against Miers. A 46% plurality said they are less likely to support her nomination because she’s never been a judge and 49% worried that her views on controversial issues remain a mystery.

Bush has dismissed accusations that selecting Miers — a long-time friend — was an act of cronyism. However, more than half said they suspected her close ties to the president were a very important factor in her selection. In addition, a 44% plurality said they’re less likely to support the former Dallas lawyer because of those personal ties.

Bush said Tuesday at a Rose Garden press conference that he’d never discussed Miers’ position on Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion. But the public appeared fairly curious. Attitudes on how much Miers should reveal about her stance on the issue during Senate confirmation hearings nearly matched those taken before Roberts’ vetting. Fifty-five% said senators should insist Miers explain her views on abortion compared to 61% who wanted Roberts to do so.

If confirmed, Miers would replace the first woman named to the Supreme Court, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. But gender seemed unimportant to the 82% of respondents who said it wouldn’t have bothered them if Bush hadn’t put forward a female to fill the vacancy.

Jailhouse profit: Fresh out of her prison stripes, Judith Miller has signed a $1.2 million book deal for her story, according to the New York Post. That comes out to $14,117.65 for each of the 85 days she spent in the hoosegow for refusing to name her confidential source for a story she never wrote. Sounds like good work if you can get it.

NEW York Times jailbird Judy Miller has landed a $1.2 million book deal with Simon & Schuster. The tome — which will presumably detail Miller’s imprisonment for refusing to reveal her source in a probe about a leak of a CIA operative’s name — will be edited by Alice Mayhew, who oversaw Miller’s previous two books, “God Has Ninety-Nine Lives” and “Germs,” huffingtonpost.com reports. After spending 85 days behind bars for refusing to name Vice President Dick Cheney’s top aide, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, as her source, Miller was set free after testifying before the grand jury on Friday about two conversations she had with him in July 2003.

Boston.com:

The nation has become fed up with Republican leadership and the United States can still free itself of foreign oil in 10 years if it focuses on alternative fuel like ethanol, Sen. Bill Nelson said Tuesday.

In a wide ranging interview with reporters, Nelson, D-Fla., cited Republicans’ intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, the skyrocketing federal budget deficits and the war in Iraq as reasons why public opinion is turning against the GOP.

“It started with Terri Schiavo,” Nelson said. “I think what you’re seeing is a reaction — that people are saying I have enough of this intolerance and trying to cram their agenda down the people’s throats. People are getting tired of that.

He also points to the White House not responding quickly enough when Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans and Mississippi and failing to work with oil companies to reign in rising gas prices.

“I can’t tell you how many Republicans have come up to me and said ‘I am off the reservation because of the fiscal policies of this administration, spending so much money like a drunken sailor,'” Nelson said. “All of these things are coming home to roost.”

Clueless in Washington: President Bush’s statements regarding bird flu Tuesday displayed a complete lack of understanding of the disease, it pandemic potential or how best to meet the imminent threat of the virus spreading to the United States.

Like his reaction to everything else (global terrorism, for instance), Bush plays the military card, saying he would use the army to forcibly isolate anyone suspected of having the avian flu virus. Suddenly, the concept of “enemy combatants” has been expanded to “enemy infectants.”

One of the problems with Bush’s approach (and there are many) is that avian flu is extremely difficult to diagnose. Its symptoms mirror pneumonia and other respiratory virus infections, and it requires a series of complex laboratory tests to definitively determine the presence of the H5N1 virus. To suggest that a kid in a uniform with an M-16 should be charged with making a correct off-the-cuff diagnosis of a person exiting an airplane with a cough and runny nose is simply preposterous.

A more measured and less alarming response would be to call for an increase in antiviral vaccine production and to begin to stockpile that vaccine in advance of the spread of the virus — not to go immediately to the military option.

Once again, Bush has demonstrated a brain-dead inability to respond to a complex problem in any manner other than point a gun at it and pull the trigger.

The danger here is that, instead of killing 2,000 American soldiers and 125,000 Iraqis, Bush’s pathetic stupidity could result in the deaths of millions of Americans.

Zogby:

President Bush’s job approval rating has remained in the low 40s despite a more favorable public rating of his handling of Hurricane Rita than Hurricane Katrina, the storm that demolished his approval rating nearly a month ago…

The survey finds that, despite a more favorable rating for Hurricane Rita preparation and leadership, President Bush continues to be viewed in negative terms for the government’s performance during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It also finds that his signature strong issue, the War on Terror, has ticked downward slightly, and his handling of the war is now approved by a minority of voters.

In a sign of ongoing difficulty for the administration, however, fewer Americans say the nation is heading in the right direction than a month ago, with just 40% saying the nation is on the right track—versus 54% who say it is headed in the wrong direction, a number that has ticked upwards a point since last month’s poll…

President Bush’s 43% approval rating marks a slight increase from last month’s 41%, but a significant decline from post-re-election numbers posted as recently as this February.

Alternative fuel: Writing in the New York Times yesterday, the Democratic governor of Montana, Bryan Schweitzer, made a very strong pitch for refining fuel oil from the nation’s – and especially Montana’s – vast coal reserves. Schweitzer is a soil scientist by trade and says fuel made from coal, which is called “synfuel,” is better for the environment than fuel made from oil – and it works in today’s combustion engines:

Most people are surprised to learn that we can produce gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other petroleum products out of coal. Indeed, the process was used in America as early as 1928. In World War II, 92 percent of Germany’s aviation fuel and half its total petroleum came from synthetic-fuel plants. South Africa has used a similar technology for 50 years, and now makes 200,000 barrels per day of synthetic gasoline and diesel.

“Synfuels” have remarkable properties: they are high-performing substances that run in existing engines without any technical modifications, and they burn much more cleanly than conventional fuels. The synfuel process, which is nothing like conventional coal use, removes greenhouse gases as well as toxins like sulfur, mercury and arsenic. And the technology has other applications: a synfuel plant can generate electric power, make synthetic natural gas, and produce the hydrogen that many (including President Bush) believe is the energy source of the future.

Sounds great but what’s the downside?

The hurdle in making synfuel has always been the cost of production, about $35 a barrel, more expensive than oil has historically been. But as we all know, times have changed. Yes, there will be significant start-up costs for private companies, but risk can be alleviated with long-term buyers like the military and with new federal loan guarantees. And while Montana will do its part to help with appropriate transportation and other public facilities, a stronger federal investment – like the billions in annual subsidies and tax breaks big oil companies have long received – could really kick-start the industry.

Thanks to L.R. for the tip!

Boy king on his own: President Bush held a news conference today that was intended to quell the trepidacious howling from his party’s lunatic fringe about the questionable idealogical purity of Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers.

After watching the news conference, Chris Matthews, on MSNBC, noticed that during the course of the President’s 55 minute blither he never once mentioned Vice President Cheney. The implication, of course, is that Cheney – who used to call the shots – was not involved in the decision to nominate Miers, who served as White House Counsel after Alberto Gonzalez moved to the Cabinet as Attorney General.

As we reported last month, rumors have been swirling about the deteriorating relationship between the President and Vice President, including this:

Cheney has been getting tired of being called upon to fix Bush’s mistakes. Cheney said Bush is almost incapable of making any decision. He waffles and waffles. Then, once he makes a decision, he refuses to change it. Because of his born-again faith, he says “It’s in the hands of G-d now” and washes his hands of it. Then Cheney is called in to repair the damage.

It sounds like Cheney’s withdrawal from decision-making forced Bush to come up with the Supreme Court nominee on his own. Faced with this tiresome task, what does Mr. Bush do? He repeats an earlier pattern and chooses the person in charge of vetting candidates. This time it was Harriet Miers who was vetting Supremes; in the earlier instance, it was Dick Cheney who was charged with vetting prospective VPs.

This half-assed decision-making suggests a high degree of impatience, an inability to focus and a paucity of imagination. Think about it. When the initial round of vetting is complete, Bush is given the resumes of the best and brightest Republicans in the land. Certain people – Condi, Mom, Dad, Jeb, Laura and others – have their favorites. But this is one for the history books. Who should he pick? The pressure is just too much.

So Bush makes a non-decision decision: He picks someone he knows – someone he’s “comfortable with.” Someone who’s been right there, all along.

This is the facile mind of the man who sits in America’s Big Chair.

Whether then-candidate Bush made the right decision in picking Dick Cheney is up for grabs.

Whether President Bush has made the right decision by nominating Harriet Miers will be made clear if she joins the Court and votes in a way that forfends proceedings against Cheney, Bush or other highly placed officials.