Open for the weekend

We covered a lot this week, but in case there’s something you think I missed, here’s your chance to address it … in this week’s open thread:

Reader Comments 0

333 comments
IReportYouWhine
IReportYouWhine

 Other notes of interest about Mr. Klain include his membership in the Algore Cult ofGlobal Warming and that he was a lobbyist for Fannie Mae, helping a firm that required tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts with “regulatory issues,” according to theWashington Post. He has publicly supported the ill-conceived “Buffett Rule” — calling for higher taxes on the wealthy — although within an analysis that at least recognizes that the “middle class” is as skeptical of Democrats as it is of Republicans.


http://spectator.org/articles/60704/who-says-you-need-doctor-fight-ebola


The man knows how to waste money, he's perfect for the obama administration/

IReportYouWhine
IReportYouWhine

Why would the President appoint this character to such a sensitive position? Well, anyone who has worked with incompetent “leaders” will tell you that they prefer to surround themselves with sycophants of mediocre ability.


This is why people like Valerie Jarrett have such inordinate influence on the President. Unlike Panetta, his current inner circle doesn’t push Obama to make decisions on Iraq, Ebola, or anything else. His “advisors” don’t care if veterans are neglected in VA hospitals, if millions of people lose their insurance, or even if their boss appears as though he doesn’t know what he’s doing. They give Obama bad advice, leavened with flattery, and encourage him to think that his only problem is poor messaging.


http://spectator.org/articles/60702/incompetence-virus


Does he even realize it?

MHSmith
MHSmith

Here we go again.

Liar Loans: part 2

.

.

.

Federal Housing Regulator Poised To Clarify and Implement New Lending Rules

.

.

Freddie Mac's (OTCQB: FMCC) and Fannie Mae's (OTCQB: FNMA) share values are getting a boost over speculation  that Mel Watt, the regulatory chief that oversees quasi-public mortgage-finance giants, will soon make it easier for consumers to get a loan to buy a house.  

Earlier this year, Watt called for the loosing of credit restrictions on mortgages, but industry experts now say he is ready to clarify those modifications and have them implemented.

One thing is certain: fiscally conservative members of Congress will be against such polices, which they blame for the meltdown of the mortgage market and near collapse of many major U.S. banks in 2008.

 (you ^^^betcha!)

Nonetheless, the mere possibility that lending restrictions could be significantly loosened helped FMCC's share value Oct. 17 close at $2.09, up 14 cents, or 7.25% from its closing price of $1.95 the previous day, on volume of 12.6 million shares. This is double its 30-day average volume of 6.3 million shares. 

Meanwhile, FNMA's stock value closed at $2.16, up 12 cents, or 5.88%, from its close of $2.04 the previous day, with 11.8 million shares slightly less than its 30-day average volume of 13.5 million.

MHSmith
MHSmith

This could be a real game changer, all the way around, once commercialized.

.

.

Lockheed says makes breakthrough on fusion energy project

.

.

...Lockheed’s work on fusion energy could help in developing new power sources amid increasing global conflicts over energy, and as projections show there will be a 40 percent to 50 percent increase in energy use over the next generation, McGuire said.

.

If it proves feasible, Lockheed’s work would mark a key breakthrough in a field that scientists have long eyed as promising, but which has not yet yielded viable power systems. The effort seeks to harness the energy released during nuclear fusion, when atoms combine into more stable forms.

.

“We can make a big difference on the energy front,” McGuire said, noting Lockheed’s 60 years of research on nuclear fusion as a potential energy source that is safer and more efficient than current reactors based on nuclear fission.

.

Lockheed sees the project as part of a comprehensive approach to solving global energy and climate change problems.

.

Compact nuclear fusion would produce far less waste than coal-powered plants since it would use deuterium-tritium fuel, which can generate nearly 10 million times more energy than the same amount of fossil fuels, the company said.

.

Ultra-dense deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen, is found in the earth’s oceans, and tritium is made from natural lithium deposits.

.

It said future reactors could use a different fuel and eliminate radioactive waste completely.

.

.

 http://www.morningticker.com/lockheed-says-makes-breakthrough-on-fusion-energy-project/15267/

.

 ...Initial work demonstrated the feasibility of building a 100-megawatt reactor measuring seven feet by 10 feet, which could fit on the back of a large truck, and is about 10 times smaller than current reactors, McGuire told reporters...

FIGMO2
FIGMO2

Technical issues? 

RantNRave
RantNRave

"You killed this blog, gotalife."


IREPORT You killed this blog with your constant HATE and DISRESPECT for anyone who disagreed with you.


WE GOT SICK AND TIRED OF YOUR HATE FILLED RANTS ABOUT OBAMA.


You once PROCLAIMED YOU OWNED THIS BLOG AND THAT IS WHY THEY HAVE CHANGED


THE FORMAT AND RULES.............................................


OWN IT........

MHSmith
MHSmith

Citing A Market Driven Failure:

"Market forces alone will not overcome these challenges and provide new antibiotics when we need them," said John G. Bartlett, MD



New Antibiotics Needed as Drug Resistance Continues to Grow

With health providers running short on ammunition in their battle against antibiotic-resistant infections, experts warn that the lack of investment in antibiotic research and development could cost Americans their health.

"There simply aren't enough new drugs in the pharmaceutical pipeline to keep pace with the evolution of drug-resistant bacteria, the so-called 'superbugs,'" said Joseph R. Dalovisio, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America...

...Out of the 506 new drugs currently in development, only five are new antibiotics. Two years ago, out of the 89 new medications that emerged, not one was an antibiotic, Dalovisio said.

According to the report, major pharmaceutical companies have abandoned or cut back antibiotic research and development. Because antibiotics work so fast and so well, the drugs reap weak returns on investments for manufacturers. More companies invest in long-term drugs for the treatment of chronic illnesses, such as insulin for diabetes, which can be taken for a lifetime. Evolving bacteria that resist drugs make antibiotics less effective to the patient and less profitable to the manufacturing company in the long term, the report said.

"Market forces alone will not overcome these challenges and provide new antibiotics when we need them," said John G. Bartlett, MD, the chair of the Infectious Diseases Society of America's task force on antimicrobial availability, who helped prepare the report. "Policy-makers must act now, because it can take 10 or more years to bring a new antibiotic to market, and drug-resistant bacteria are evolving fast."

 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/488335

MHSmith
MHSmith

@IReportYouWhineTheGreat 

By pointing out that an absolute travel ban is more than likely to be counter-productive? 

That all of this Eboal hype is politically  "subjective" rather than scientifically and medically "objective"?  


I doubt geta killed anything. 

gotalife
gotalife

SANTA MONICA, Calif. -- Janet Napolitano on Saturday lambasted Congress for politicizing concerns about the Ebola virus, and drew parallels to the response to 2009's H1N1 flu pandemic, which she oversaw as Homeland Security Secretary.

Napolitano criticized a recent Congressional hearing on Ebola featuring Dr. Tom Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “In the middle of a crisis, pulling Dr. Frieden away from the work he needs to do so Congress members could all make their little press statements -- it was shameful,” Napolitano, now president of the University of California, said to The WorldPost at a Pacific Council on International Relations conference.

“It was outrageous to drag the head of the CDC so that they can make very partisan comments and tell him to do something that makes no sense," said Napolitano, referring to congressional calls to ban travel from Ebola-affected countries.

After three recent Ebola diagnoses in the U.S., at least 40 members of Congress have gone on record seeking a travel ban –- and several pressed for it at the hearing.

Napolitano said the situation was similar when she was Homeland Security Secretary during the H1N1 pandemic in 2009. “We had the same calls," she said. "‘Close the border. Close the airports. Close the schools.’”

She continued, “I resisted that and said it doesn’t make any sense at all. I said, ‘Look, let’s take a deep breath. Let’s understand the problem.’”

Good to hear from a adult in the room.

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@gotalife Big Sis afraid she has been forgotten, trying to get some attention supporting Team Obama's Ebola follies.  


She is campaigning for Barry's attention, as she hopes he will offer her that AG job, after the election.


gotalife
gotalife

@RafeHollister @gotalife 

America needs to get a grip on reality.


Experts, facts, history and the truth still matter in the real world.


The rw should be ignored as America's crazy uncle ted nugent.

ThulsaDoom
ThulsaDoom

So Debbiedo was complaining about the CDC being underfunded. Well perhaps they would have plenty of money to spend on Ebola vaccines and other research if they weren't spending, oh, let's see


spending nearly 3 million to find out why Lesbians are fat,


spending 3.2 million studying drunken monkeys,


granting 90 million to Chinese researchers to study a parasitic disease in China that effects the Chinese


spending money on how cocaine effects Japanese quail's sex drive,


spending money to study obscure sexual habits,


spending money on "gun related violence"


We could go on and on and on. 


CDC gave The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN), the homosexual activist group, $1.4 million to create “safe spaces” in public schools starting in 2011. - 


Obamacare carved out $15 billion for CDC to convince Americans to make “healthy” choices through “Community Transformation Grants” (CTG).  The CTG program “supports efforts to modify behavior through anti-obesity campaigns, as well as anti-smoking and pro-sin tax regulations and legislation” at the state and local levels, according to the bipartisan Citizens Against Government Waste




Trefusis
Trefusis

@ThulsaDoom  Yet don't you like community transformation?  I mean, who could be against community transformation, or the pride parade of transmutational fish?  My God, have you no brother-in-law who is a registered Democrat?  If not then surely you are the only one.  It takes a rare skinflint like you to bother with problems such as so-called "Spanish Influenza" at a time when we have got to bear down on the mating rituals of Krill.  You really don't get it, do you.  Environmentalism is meant to save the ENTIRE environment, absent Human Beings, who are wholly unnatural pollutants.  Likewise, the only thing wrong with the Constitution is that it was written by brilliant Caucasian snobs with penises.  If I were you, ThulsaDoom, I'd go back to school.


Smiles, ThulsaDoom.  Lift up thine eyes unto the hills.  This too shall pass, and eventually even the President will get older.

MHSmith
MHSmith

@ThulsaDoom 

Like where are the rest of the industrialized civilized countries in this world with THEIR BIG BUCKS to fund nonprofitable drug development I ask?

Don't they too, have their own versions of our CDC? 

Not only do we serve as the world's Super-cop we gotta be their Super-Doctor too?

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@ThulsaDoom The grants given out for studies by NIH are just as awful.  This is nothing but politicians transferring taxpayer money back to their campaign supporters.  Then they whine that some agency is not getting enough money.


No one brings up that Obama's proposed 2012 budget for CDC was a cut.  He obviously thought there was no longer a need for bioterrorism funds to CDC, since that was a Bush initiative.  He was ending all wars and expected that the terrorists would be grateful and surrender all their lethal potions, in gratitude.

straker
straker

Rafe - "where of Earth cound they have got that idea"


And yet, I'm sure you think that if only Romney, Huckabee, Palin, Cruz or Bacchman were President, things would be just peachy.

NorthAtlanta
NorthAtlanta

@D_Lucy

It's official.  You're now in the same "club" as Bernie, LithoniaGuy, RantNRave, Ralph43, gotalife and a few others whose posts should be completely ignored because of the massive chip on their shoulders and extremely nutty perspectives.

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

Once upon a time, President Obama was largely taken at his word, his assiduously cultivated reputation as a calm and detached man of competence having gained a purchase in the national psyche. Now, six years after he stood before the Greek columns and the adoring fans, he has been largely reduced to a Walter Mitty figure, whose quixotic ambition and messianic demeanor have stretched the credulity of the electorate to its breaking point. Today we are told that a good portion of the country doesn’t believe that the federal government will deal proficiently with an unpredictable threat. Well, where on Earth could they have got that idea?


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390588/what-left-cant-admit-about-politics-ebola-charles-c-w-cooke


Don't worry, we are in good hands, ha!  The government is here to protect you!

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@DebbieDoRight @RafeHollister "Black churches will burn" , "You could be another James Byrd", "They gonna put ya'll back in Chains", "they want dirty air and dirty water" remember those.  They worked, so we know where the GOP got the fear campaign! 

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@MHSmith -- "Now argue the points all you want but one of those talking points that must be discussed is at what price does human health and life  become paramount to making a huge PROFIT? "


GREAT question.  I did some research and looked up Jonas Salk, who took a position at the University of Pittsburgh, where he began conducting research on polio. So at first it was the University who was funding research into a cure per se and started doing the trial testing on students 7 years later and then on children.  But is this how it works today?  Maybe.  And I'm wondering if the University took any profits from the research, (once it was shown that the vaccine worked) or just the "props" that came with it.


I do know though that the subsequent 2nd version of the vaccine, (I guess this one could be called the "generic version"), was developed by a pharmaceutical company using Dr. Salk's research.  This second version cost less than Salk's original version and hence was distributed more widely and cheaply and yes, the pharma company made the profit.  


Now to answer your question, (which is a GREAT one btw), " at what price does human health and life  become paramount to making a huge PROFIT? "; I'm going to say at the outset.  If the Government requests that big Pharma makes / do the follow up research to a vaccine, then their profit margin at first will not be as high, (I'm going to equate Big Pharma and Big Military in this instance only, as having similiar goals), BUT the demand will be more and that should make the profit.


Until Big Pharma has a demand, you're correct, they won't even bother to make a cure -- not profitable enough. In that case, we'll have to depend on the universities and colleges to start the building blocks of research; however once a cure is found, Big Pharma can step in and market it. 

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@DebbieDoRight On this we agree.  Private pharmaceutical companies have previously had little to no interest in developing vaccines and medicines for Ebola, as it was an African only disease, that had little if any profit incentive.  


Saw Greta was doing research on a possible Ebola vaccine and the only ones she found working on one was the Army and the NIH.


Not sure what the answer is, you can't expect private companies to develop medicines that are not profitable, unless they are incentivized by some government to do so.  Then we get back to, the proggies complaint about us being the worlds policeman, so do they think we should be the new drug source, doctors, hospitals, caregivers, and hospital builders for the world.  Sounds like a job for a worldwide organization of nations, if only we had one.

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@RafeHollister  ---   "Then we get back to, the proggies complaint about us being the worlds policeman"

And rightfully so......

"so do they think we should be the new drug source, doctors, hospitals, caregivers, and hospital builders for the world"

This is NOT about the developing a vaccine so much for the world, as it is having a vaccine available here for AMERICANS just in case.  

Foresight and planning are not just words, it should be a state of being.



ThulsaDoom
ThulsaDoom

@DebbieDoRight


"Until Big Pharma has a demand, you're correct, they won't even bother to make a cure -- not profitable enough."


And why should they conduct expensive, cash draining research for a vaccine or cure to a disease that until recently wasn't particularly important? Are you asking them to work for free all because you just think they should. Do you work for free?  

MHSmith
MHSmith

@ThulsaDoom @DebbieDoRight 

No one works for free, and NOTHING IS FREE - NOT EVEN MARKETS!



But when drugs like new anti-biotics are no longer being produced because of PROFITABILITY it's time to back up and take another look before millions of us begin dying of things we have long since felt very safe from killings us like the "INFECTIONS" from the Flu that are once arsenal of old anti-biotic would treat and cure. 

I don't have the answer to this problem but somehow we better come up with something to bring the non-profitable but necessary life saving drugs to the market at affordable prices, or one day when these drug resistant strains of bacteria emerge to epidemic levels, then we will be looking at something far far worse than Ebola.  

straker
straker

MHSMITH


There are things known as "orphan diseases".


They are serious but occur only rarely in us humans. Because of this, there are few if any vaccines or other treatments because that would not be PROFITABLE to the big pharmacy companies.


This is why there is no vaccine for Ebola in the US and I'll bet there never will be one.

ThulsaDoom
ThulsaDoom

@straker


If a pandemic arises there will then be a need for a vaccine. But only then. Too many other things to worry about. Heck, Malaria alone kills about a million or more people a year worldwide. But you don't see too many people screaming about that. 

MHSmith
MHSmith

@straker 

You're repeating my statement and ignoring the connection I made to no new anti-biotics being produced for the same PROFIT reasons. However, those drugs fight very common very very OFTEN occurring diseases and infections. When people begin dying from staph infections again maybe then YOU and the others will treat a SUBSTANTIVE comment a little more seriously?      

straker
straker

Captain Oblivious - "vaccines aren't perfect"


Does that mean you don't ever get vaccinated?


Or, was that just a red herring to distract us from Debbie calling you out?

MHSmith
MHSmith

@straker 

And  "vaccines" that are not profitable to make before something like Ebola becomes an epidemic, sending labs into panic mode to produce them simply will never be made until the market demand is high enough to support development and production of them.


One for the back burner: New Anti-bionics are not being produced for the same reason, which poses a great threat.

Now argue the points all you want but one of those talking points that must be discussed is at what price does human health and life  become paramount to making a huge PROFIT?       

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

I know Ebola, ISIS and the election are all front page stuff now, but does anyone want to debate global warming and science?  I've been waiting since the weather turned for someone to say, "It's cool outside!  Where's global warming?!"  (smirk)

FIGMO2
FIGMO2

@DebbieDoRight

I dunno...do you think Paul Ehrlich might see ebola as way of controlling population growth? Who does he blame? 

We have a problem with "emergent" diseases, ones that are becoming potentially serious to a larger and more vulnerable human population. Ebola and Marburg viruses, because of their high death rates, could become this generation's version of the flu pandemic that swept the globe at the end of World War I.

If it does, we have only to blame ourselves: Our degraded environment, our unchecked population growth, our nonchalance at global poverty, hunger and disease and our jet-setting ways.

Such a downer, that guy.



ThulsaDoom
ThulsaDoom

@DebbieDoRight


Not much to debate. The truth of the matter is there is a lot that we don't know. Anyone who thinks we absolutely know that global warming is real, that its man made or mostly man made, and that the results are certain to be cataclysmic for mankind is an abject fool who doesn't realize what he doesn't know. 


We then get to the essential difference between cons and the progs on things like global warming and knowledge in general. It takes a certain accumulated amount of knowledge before one realizes how much there is that he and we really don't know. Many cons know this and realize the extent of both our individual and collective ignorance about how much we really don't know. Very few progs, and none on this blog, have reached the level of knowledge required for them to realize the extent of their own ignorance.  

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@FIGMO2  --  the difference between being prepared for a Flu virus and the ebola virus is.........the envelope please........


The Flu virus comes EVERY YEAR.  Ebola has never left African soil until recently.  

FIGMO2
FIGMO2

@DebbieDoRight

The common flu does. The Avian flu originated in China. WHO warned of a pandemic.

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@FIGMO2 -- Two years previously according to the London Times.  I'm looking for that link now...

FIGMO2
FIGMO2

@DebbieDoRight

Don't tear yourself away to do research, Debbie. It'll slow down your back and forth...something you seem to enjoy immensely. I'll contribute to it when I can, but for the most part, it's become all too common.


DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@FIGMO2 --  No problem @@, I actually LIKE to do research; it barely breaks the "back and forth" one iota!

Tiberius-Constitutionus
Tiberius-Constitutionus

@Captain-Obvious

Hey, friend.  Long time no see.  Why you been so absent?  Moderation got your knickers in a knot?  In any event, hope both you and your mum are well.

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@Captain-Obvious --  Funny thing about me Capt O -- i actually READ the links that posters provide!  Freaky i know, right? Anywhooo reading the link YOU provided and noticed you left out one little part in that paragraph that you posted:


For NIH (see page 11), since 2006, there has been relatively little change in the size of the budget, going from about $28.5 billion in 2006 to $30.14 billion in 2014. That’s a slight increase, but in real terms that’s a cut given the impact of inflation


 Imagine that!  A republican only telling HALF the story!!  Who woulda thunk it!!


I guess I'll go with what the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins said,  “Frankly, if we had not gone through our 10-year slide in research support, we probably would have had a vaccine in time for this that would’ve gone through clinical trials and would have been ready,” Collins said.

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@Captain-Obvious   ---  "Vaccines are not perfect"


NOTHING is perfect Cpt. O.  NOTHING.

"I realize that no increases means less money during inflationary times, but given that we really haven't had any serious inflation, the amount of phony "cuts" is small"

In your world, probably but in the REAL word not so much.  It's amazing!  You cite an article to give credence to your argument.  Then when I call you out about the fact that you didn't cite ALL the article, you now denounce the article that YOU cited!

Priceless!