Thursday, September 18, 2014


News Clips For The Day


Lawmakers call for resignation of judge charged with domestic violence
By JAKE MILLER CBS NEWS September 18, 2014, 10:30 AM

Three U.S. senators called for the resignation of U.S. District Court Judge Mark Fuller on Wednesday, citing charges that the judge beat his wife in Atlanta last month.

Alabama Republican Sens. Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions said Fuller had violated the trust placed in his office, and that he should step down. They were joined by Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill.

"The American people's trust in our judicial system depends on the character and integrity of those who have the distinct honor of sitting on the bench," Shelby said in a statement. "I believe that Judge Mark Fuller has lost the confidence of his colleagues and the people of the state of Alabama. I urge him to resign immediately."

Fuller, who was appointed by then-President George W. Bush in 2002, was charged with misdemeanor battery after the incident with his wife, which occurred in an Atlanta hotel room, according to Reuters.

He resolved the charge by agreeing to complete a six-month domestic violence program and a substance abuse evaluation, but he was stripped of his docket by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals following the incident.

Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Alabama, was the first member of Congress to call for Fuller's resignation last week.

"All acts of domestic violence are unacceptable and should not be tolerated," she said in a statement. "No one committing such abusive acts should get a pass. This is especially true for those charged with upholding and enforcing the law. Judge Fuller has violated the public trust and should resign."

Lawmakers have been especially attentive to the problem of domestic violence of late. After former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice was fired following the release of a video showing him punching his wife in an elevator, sixteen female senators sent a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell questioning the league's handling of the matter.

"We were shocked and disgusted by the images we saw this week of one of your players violently assaulting his now-wife and knocking her unconscious, and at new reports that the NFL may have received this video months ago," the senators wrote in the letter. "Tragically, this is not the only case of an NFL player allegedly assaulting a woman even within the last year."

Fuller alluded to the Ray Rice controversy in her statement. "If an NFL player can lose his job because of domestic violence then a federal judge should definitely not be allowed to keep his life-time appointment to the federal bench," she said. "It is my hope that Judge Fuller would spare us the expense and further public humiliation by doing the right thing and resigning."




I clipped this article to show that domestic violence is a societal problem, not just a sports related issue. The military, policemen and also just the average John Doe across the nation and the world have too many instances of domestic violence.

I don't think there are necessarily more men abusing their family members in the last few decades. They always have. In fact, I think there may fewer cases, as men are being taught better by both their parents now. Women in the US have been treated roughly and with disrespect since I can remember.

The rise of the Women's Liberation Movement in the early 20th Century, going back to the days of the Suffragettes, has in general improved women's lives, but it has made many men feel “disrespected” in their relationships, which I think is the primary cause of their lashing out physically against the women who are closest to them. They are suffering the loss of a position of privilege and they don't like it.

It is no longer considered dogma that “a man's home is his castle.” That old viewpoint didn't leave any room for women except in the kitchen, the nursery and the bedroom, and even those things were under the thumb of their husbands. What is happening now is that society, from little girls to the President of the US, are rising up and claiming their places, and when a case of domestic abuse is unearthed into the light of day, there is a societal awareness of it. It's a scandal now and a crime. This is the way things should be. Men who feel they have been treated unfairly in modern times should rethink the issue completely, talk to their church minister or a psychologist, enter a men's therapy group aimed at the problem and open up their hearts. Men who love a woman will not hit her.





Parents don't want more kids to die from little-known condition
By VINITA NAIR CBS NEWS September 17, 2014, 8:03 PM

WASHINGTON -- Health experts gathered in Washington Wednesday to talk strategy in the battle against sepsis.

It kills more than 250,000 Americans every year, making it the third-leading cause of death behind heart disease and cancer.

When 12-year-old Rory Staunton died, his parents Ciaran and Orlaith had no idea what happened. Rory had been a healthy kid until he got injured in gym class.

"He fell and scraped his arm, jumping for a ball," Orlaith said. "About 24 hours later, he started feeling sick."

His parents took him to the hospital, where he was misdiagnosed with the flu. Three days later, Rory died.

"Our son was dead before we heard the word sepsis," Ciaran said.

Sepsis is a condition triggered by an infection entering a person's bloodstream. In Rory's case, it was after he scraped his arm. The immune system has an overly aggressive response that can lead to organ failure.

On Wednesday, the Stauntons held a national symposium on sepsis. They've already helped change the law for New York hospitals, where doctors are now required to use a checklist to rule out the condition.

At the North Shore-LIJ Health System, the rate of sepsis has dropped by roughly 50 percent.

"It can move quite quickly," said Dr. Martin Doerfler, North Shore-LIJ's associate chief medical officer. "The data says that, from the point of recognition, every hour delay increases the risk of mortality, and that's really why we need to be as aggressive as we are."

For Ciaran, knowing how the regulations have helped other people doesn't make his loss make any easier.

"Burying your child, we'll never have an easy day again," he said. "One of the things that makes us very angry is that Rory could have been saved."

The Stauntons say their greatest regret is not knowing about sepsis. Now, their mission is to make sure other families do.



Sepsis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sepsis (/ˈsɛpsɨs/; Greek: σῆψις, "putrefaction, decay") is a potentially fatal whole-body inflammation (a systemic inflammatory response syndrome or SIRS) caused by severe infection.[1][2] Sepsis can continue even after the infection that caused it is gone. Severe sepsis is sepsis complicated by organ dysfunction. Septic shock is sepsis complicated by a high lactate level or by shock that does not improve after fluid resuscitation.[3] Bacteremia is the presence of viable bacteria in the blood. The term septicemia, the presence of microorganisms or their toxins in the blood, is no longer used by the consensus committee.[2]

Sepsis causes millions of deaths globally each year.[4]

Sepsis is caused by the immune system's response to a seriousinfection, most commonly bacteria, but also fungi, viruses, andparasites in the blood, urinary tract, lungs, skin, or other tissues. Sepsis can be thought of as falling within a continuum from infection tomultiple organ dysfunction syndrome.[5]

Common symptoms of sepsis include those related to a specific infection, but usually accompanied by high fevers, hot, flushed skin,elevated heart rate, hyperventilation, altered mental status, swelling, and low blood pressure. In the very young and elderly, or in people withweakened immune systems, the pattern of symptoms may be atypical, with hypothermia and without an easily localizable infection.[6][7]

Sepsis is usually treated with intravenous fluids and antibiotics. If fluid replacement is not sufficient to maintain blood pressure, vasopressors can be used. Mechanical ventilation and dialysis may be needed to support the function of the lungs and kidneys, respectively. To guide therapy, a central venous catheter and an arterial catheter may be placed; measurement of other hemodynamic variables (such as cardiac output, mixed venous oxygen saturation or stroke volume variation) may also be used. Sepsis patients require preventive measures for deep vein thrombosis,stress ulcers and pressure ulcers, unless other conditions prevent this. Some might benefit from tight control of blood sugar levels with insulin (targeting stress hyperglycemia).[4] The use of corticosteroids is controversial.[8] Activated drotrecogin alfa (recombinant activated protein C), originally marketed for severe sepsis, has not been found to be helpful, and has recently been withdrawn from sale.[9]

The most common primary sources of infection resulting in sepsis are the lungs, the abdomen, and the urinary tract.[12] Typically, 50% of all sepsis cases start as an infection in the lungs. No source is found in one third of cases.[12]

The infectious agents are usually bacteria but can also be fungi and viruses.[12] While gram-negative bacteria were previously the most common cause of sepsis, in the last decade, gram-positive bacteria, most commonlystaphylococci, are thought to cause more than 50% of cases of sepsis.[13]

Prompt diagnosis is crucial to the management of sepsis, as initiation of early-goal-directed therapy is key to reducing mortality from severe sepsis.[15]

In severe sepsis, broad spectrum antibiotics are recommended within 1 hour of making the diagnosis.[4] For every hour delay in the administration there is an associated 6% rise in mortality.[16] Antibiotic regimens should be reassessed daily and narrowed if appropriate.[15] Duration of treatment is typically 7–10 days with the type of antibiotic used directed by the results of cultures.[4]





“When 12-year-old Rory Staunton died, his parents Ciaran and Orlaith had no idea what happened. Rory had been a healthy kid until he got injured in gym class. 'He fell and scraped his arm, jumping for a ball,' Orlaith said. 'About 24 hours later, he started feeling sick.' His parents took him to the hospital, where he was misdiagnosed with the flu. Three days later, Rory died.”

I have always been cautious about wounds and burns, using iodine and triple antibiotic cream. That is to avoid an infection. People's hands and skin are a fertile biome of miniature critters, and any break in the skin can cause one of them to enter the body, in this case the blood stream. This article states that various organs are also common sources of the bacteria, parasites or fungi – especially the lungs and the urinary tract. The trick is for parents and general practioners to be alert to the possibility and look for the symptoms.

The Wikipedia article says, “In severe sepsis, broad spectrum antibiotics are recommended within 1 hour of making the diagnosis.[4] For every hour delay in the administration there is an associated 6% rise in mortality.” Kids are particularly prone to ignoring a small wound until it becomes a serious problem. In this case the gym teacher at school failed the student. When he became aware that there was a break in the skin he should have sent the child to the school nurse for treatment with antibiotic cream. This is a sad story, and not, unfortunately, uncommon.





Is Obamacare causing a surge in part-time work? – CBS
By ALAIN SHERTER MONEYWATCH
September 18, 2014, 10:57 AM

In the political close-combat before the Affordable Care Act took effect in January, a major criticism of the health insurance program was that it would spur employers to cut workers' hours, and perhaps even act as a "job-killer." The concern was that companies would shift people out of full-time jobs into part-time positions to avoid a financial penalty for failing to offer coverage to any employee who works at least 30 hours a week.

Such fears appear to have been unwarranted.

Data out this week from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that the percentage of Americans in full-time jobs rose last year, while the share of part-time workers fell. Nearly 73 percent of working-age men and 61 percent of women worked in full-time, year-round jobs in 2013, higher than the estimated 71 percent and 59 percent who did so the previous year.

If companies had been cutting workers' hours or hiring more part-timers, experts note, the share of people in part-time jobs should have increased over the last year. It hasn't.

"There's little evidence to date that health reform has caused a shift to part-time work," writes Paul Van de Water, a health care expert with the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in an analysis of the latest Census numbers.

The share of U.S. employees in part-time jobs who would rather work full-time didn't decline only last year -- it has been falling throughout the recovery that followed the Great Recession. In 2009, the year the recovery officially began, 6.3 percent of workers reported being in involuntary part-time employment. By this year, that figure has fallen to just over 5 percent, economists Dean Baker and Helene Jorgensen of the Center for Economic and Policy Research note in a recent study.

What Obamacare does seem to have done, by contrast, is liberate more people to work part-time if they choose. Through the first six months of the year, 13.2 percent of U.S. workers were in voluntary part-time jobs, compared with 13.1 percent in 2013. Who is opting for part-time jobs? Mostly younger parents with children, according to CEPR, which supported Obamcare ahead of its passage in 2010.

"This is consistent with a story where many workers who previously needed to work full-time to get health care insurance at their job are taking the option of buying insurance on the exchanges and working part-time jobs in order to have more time to be with young children," Baker and Jorgensen write.

Obamacare's limited impact on the labor market is borne out by other research. Although the main headline out of a February study by the Congressional Budget Office was that the program would stifle job-creation, the agency found that "there is no compelling evidence that part-time work has increased as a result of the ACA."

Indeed, CBO did not try to measure whether employers were less likely to hire because of the new health law, as was widely reported at the time. Rather, it focused on whether people would stop working or shift to part-time employment now that they could get health coverage without holding down a job. And that appears to be the best option for at least some Americans, the latest federal data suggest.

It is early days for Obamacare, and it remains to be seen what impact it will have on the labor market over the long-term. The White House in February postponed the so-called employer mandate -- the portion of the ACA that requires companies with 50 to 99 full-time workers to offer health insurance or pay a $2,000 penalty -- until 2016 (Businesses with at least 100 employees must comply by January of next year.) Small businesses, which account for most new jobs, could reduce their hiring as the mandate gets set to take effect.

But for now, it is clear, most employers aren't responding to the program by shifting their workforce to part-time employees.





“The share of U.S. employees in part-time jobs who would rather work full-time didn't decline only last year -- it has been falling throughout the recovery that followed the Great Recession. In 2009, the year the recovery officially began, 6.3 percent of workers reported being in involuntary part-time employment. By this year, that figure has fallen to just over 5 percent, economists Dean Baker and Helene Jorgensen of the Center for Economic and Policy Research note in a recent study. What Obamacare does seem to have done, by contrast, is liberate more people to work part-time if they choose. Through the first six months of the year, 13.2 percent of U.S. workers were in voluntary part-time jobs, compared with 13.1 percent in 2013. Who is opting for part-time jobs? Mostly younger parents with children, according to CEPR, which supported Obamcare ahead of its passage in 2010.”

Included in this CBS article on the rise of less desirable part-time jobs is evidence from The CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES, BLS, which gives a chart showing the rise in involuntary part-time jobs beginning in 2008, rising quickly in 2009, holding steady in a plateau until 2012, and then slowly declining in number during 2012. The dates of implementation of the law are described as follows in this website: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/11/25/obamacare-key-dates-in-2014/ – “The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law March 2010. Over the ensuing three years, various provisions of the law have gone into effect. The newly created health insurance marketplaces opened for enrollment on October 1, 2013. Implementation of the law continues through 2014....”

It looks to me as though the number of part-time positions declined in 2013 and 2012, probably as a part of the recovery from the Great Recession. The rise in part-time jobs came at the same time as the economy began to fail and improved after a few years. The effects of Obamacare couldn't have occurred before March 2010. What did happen in 2008 was that the US economy all but imploded, causing widespread fear of a full-scale depression, which is a factor known to cause loss of jobs and degrading of employment opportunities. I think “the marketplace” panicked that year, and jobs were affected by that. It had absolutely nothing to do with employers tightening up on their workers hours due to the Affordable Care Act. The article even theorizes that there was a voluntary shift to part-time when workers became able to get insurance without its coming from their employer, caused by parents with children desiring fewer working hours.





Boeing, SpaceX to team with NASA on space taxis
By WILLIAM HARWOOD CBS NEWS
September 16, 2014, 4:20 PM

Aerospace giant Boeing and newcomer SpaceX will share $6.8 billion in NASA contracts to build commercial space taxis to fly astronauts to and from the space station starting in 2017, ending reliance on Russia for access to low-Earth orbit and kick starting a new era of commercial space transportation, agency officials said Tuesday.

Boeing will receive a $4.2 billion Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCAP) contract to continue development of the company's CST-100 capsule while SpaceX will receive $2.6 billion to press ahead with work to perfect its futuristic Dragon crew craft.

"Today's announcement sets the stage for what promises to be the most ambitious and exciting chapter in the history of NASA and human spaceflight," said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.

"From day one, the Obama administration has made it very clear that the greatest nation on Earth should not be dependent on any other nation to get into space. ... Today we're one step closer to launching our astronauts from U.S. soil on American spacecraft and ending the nation's sole reliance on Russia by 2017."

Left out in the cold was defense contractor Sierra Nevada Corp., which is developing an innovative winged spaceplane known as the Dream Chaser that, unlike its competitors, is designed to glide to a runway landing like a mini space shuttle.

Company officials have said they hoped to continue development of Dream Chaser with or without NASA money, but the company's near-term plans are not yet known.

It also is not yet known whether Congress will appropriate enough money to fund the development of two spacecraft or whether NASA will be forced to down select to a single provider at some point down the road. But Bolden said he was confident Congress will provide the funding necessary to keep SpaceX and Boeing on track for maiden flights in the 2017 timeframe.

Congress has appropriated about $2 billion for the commercial crew program since 2011, about a billion dollars less than NASA requested. The agency hopes to get around $800 million for the program in its fiscal 2015 budget.

In any case, the space agency now plans to begin NASA-sanctioned flights carrying astronauts to the space station in 2017, using either the CST-100 or a Dragon V2. Or both.

"Once NASA determines SpaceX and Boeing have met our requirements, the systems will be certified for NASA human spaceflight missions," said Kathy Lueders, manager of NASA's commercial crew program. "They will then conduct at least two and up to six missions under these contracts to deliver a crew of four to the International Space Station.

"These missions will also carry powered cargo and vital science experiments to the station and safely return them to U.S. soil. These missions will enable NASA and its international partners to perform more research, nearly doubling today's scientific research potential."

The new spacecraft also will be able to serve as lifeboats for station crew members, remaining attached to the station for up to 210 days at a stretch and "keeping our crew members safe in the event of an emergency," Lueders said.

Before regular missions begin, "Boeing and SpaceX will run their systems through rigorous ground tests," she added. "They also will perform at least one crewed flight test to the station with a NASA crew member aboard. During that flight test, they will demonstrate the ability to safely deliver crew and cargo, dock to the station and then return the crew safely home."

The new spacecraft will be the first American vehicles to carry astronauts on NASA-sanctioned flights since the space shuttle's last mission in 2011. And they will be the first built as a commercial endeavor that represents a break with normal NASA practice in a bid to lower the cost of access to space.

Just as important, supporters say, the spacecraft will end America's reliance on Russian Soyuz spacecraft for access to the $100 billion International Space Station. While NASA's use of Soyuz spacecraft will not end with the advent of U.S. space taxis, the agency will once again have independent access to low-Earth orbit using U.S. spacecraft launched from U.S. Soil

"You can't really be a serious leader in space if you can't get your people there on your own spaceship," space historian John Logsdon, former director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, said in an interview. "The relationship with Russia has been successful, it's cost us less money than doing it on our own. If we were still flying shuttles, we'd be paying a hell of a lot more than the cost of seats on a Soyuz."

The commercial crew program "is both a real and symbolic indication that the United States is one of the leading space countries," he said.

Astronaut Barry "Butch" Wilmore is scheduled for launch next week aboard a Soyuz spacecraft bound for the station. In a telephone interview from Moscow last week, Wilmore told CBS News "it's vitally important to our nation going forward in space exploration. We want to be able to build our own rockets and launch from our own (soil)."

While the Russians have been good partners for NASA in the absence of a U.S. spacecraft "certainly we want to get back to that, we want to be able to do those types of things ourselves and we're working hard to get there. That's the big picture. From a personal standpoint, hopefully I get assigned for the first one!"

Boeing's CST-100 spacecraft is a state-of-the-art capsule incorporating weld-less fabrication, flight proven navigation software, powerful "pusher" escape rockets to propel the capsule away from a malfunctioning booster and a parachute-and-airbag landing system.

The spacecraft can carry up to seven astronauts and will be launched atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas 5 rocket, one of the most reliable boosters in the U.S. Inventory.

SpaceX, owned and operated by entrepreneur Elon Musk, already holds a $1.6 billion contract to deliver supplies to the International Space Station with its uncrewed Dragon cargo ships.

Musk has made no secret of his personal ambition to help launch astronauts to low-Earth orbit and, eventually, to Mars, using a futuristic spacecraft known as Dragon V2 that he unveiled in July.

The crewed Dragon also would carry up to seven crew members, featuring pull-down flat-screen instrument displays, a powerful escape rocket system and sophisticated computer control.

"SpaceX is deeply honored by the trust NASA has placed in us," Musk said in a statement. We welcome today's decision and the mission it advances with gratitude and seriousness of purpose. It is a vital step in a journey that will ultimately take us to the stars and make humanity a multi-planet species."

The Dragon crew craft would launch atop SpaceX-built Falcon 9 rockets, boosters that Musk advertises for sale at around $60 million each. The United Launch Alliance Atlas 5 rocket is powered by a Russian RD-180 first stage engine and goes for around $150 million per vehicle.

How that price disparity played into the unequal contract awards was not immediately clear.

But Musk has launched a wide-ranging attack on the Atlas 5, arguing its reliance on the Russian-built RD-180 makes it vulnerable to politics at a time when superpower relations are deteriorating. Musk also has filed a lawsuit protesting SpaceX's exclusion from Air Force contracts for near-term military missions using ULA's Delta 4 and Atlas 5 boosters.

How the RD-180 concern might have played into NASA's decision is not known, but Reuter reported Tuesday that United Launch Alliance and Amazon-founder Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin company planned to develop a new engine for the Atlas 5 that could replace the RD-180.

Both Boeing and SpaceX envision customers beyond NASA.

Boeing has partnered with Bigelow Aerospace, which hopes to build a commercial space station using inflatable modules that could serve as a base of operations for university researchers, space tourists and astronauts from non space-faring nations. Boeing managers have said the CST-100 would support Bigelow's ambitions if the company won the contract.

SpaceX also has grand plans for commercial exploitation of space, including eventual flights to deep space. Musk has said on multiple occasions that his long range goal is nothing less than the colonization of Mars.

"It's very important, not just that the United States is getting its independence back and is not going to be relying on the Russians, but we are, I don't know, what, 50 years kind of overdue getting the private sector involved in space," Joan Johnson Freese, professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, said in an interview.

"To me, that's the bigger part of this puzzle. Anything related to space development that can be moved out of government hands and into the private sector is a step toward normalizing space. ... Anything that takes us closer to a normal pattern of development I think is a big deal."

The commercial crew and cargo programs are a direct result of the 2003 destruction of the shuttle Columbia during re-entry. In the wake of the disaster, the Bush administration ordered NASA to complete the space station and retire the shuttle by the end of the decade. In their place, the agency was tasked with developing new rockets and spacecraft for eventual flights to the moon and establishment of semi-permanent research stations on the surface.

NASA came up with the Constellation program to carry out those directives and began development of a Saturn 5-class super rocket to loft lunar landers and habitats and a smaller booster to launch crews on moon-bound missions or to the space station.

But the Obama administration ordered a dramatic change of course, opting to cancel Constellation and bypass the moon in favor of a "flexible path" architecture that called for two families of rockets and spacecraft with two different objectives.

NASA is now developing a heavy-lift rocket known as the Space Launch System, or SLS, that will boost the Constellation program's Orion capsule on crewed missions to retrieve and explore a small asteroid before eventual flights to the vicinity of Mars.

The first unpiloted test flight of an Orion capsule is planned for December. The first crewed mission is not expected before 2021.

But the SLS/Orion system is too expensive for routine use to low-Earth orbit. The Obama administration, in a bid to encourage development of commercial crewed spacecraft, supported a competition using NASA contracts to finance private-sector spacecraft that the government would then lease, or rent, for flights to the station.

"It's a little bit different than our traditional space flight programs in that we are transitioning some of the responsibilities over to the private sector," Phil McAllister, a senior NASA manager, told CBS News in a recent interview. "It used to be in a traditional NASA program, NASA would make almost all the decisions about the design, we would own and operate the hardware and we would be primarily responsible for its operation.

"In this context for commercial crew it's pretty much a public, private partnership," he said. "NASA is providing financial investment and our expertise and lessons learned to the companies who are really responsible for developing the hardware. It's really them making the decisions about the design. They are going to own and operate these systems and through this partnership, we hope to get safe, reliable and cost effective U.S. access to space, hopefully very quickly."

As the shuttle program was winding down, NASA envisioned a two-year gap between the end of shuttle operations and the debut of a replacement vehicle. That gap has stretched into six years, and possibly more, because of funding shortfalls and conflicting priorities in Congress.

Between 2011 and 2014, NASA requested $3 billion for commercial crew. Congress appropriated only $1.927 billion, according to Space Policy Online, a billion-dollar shortfall that has stretched out development and pushed the initial NASA-sponsored flights to 2017.

NASA has requested $848 million in its fiscal 2015 budget, but it's not yet clear how much the agency ultimately will receive. The House and Senate have not yet settled on a final number, but another shortfall of $50 million or more is expected.

Developing multiple crewed spacecraft -- Orion and now, the CST-100 and Dragon V2 -- has led to conflicting priorities on Capitol Hill. Supporters of the Orion/Space Launch System want to ensure steady funding to permit deep space exploration while protecting jobs in states like Alabama where the hardware is built.

Supporters of the commercial crew initiative argue it is crucial for NASA to end its reliance on the Russians for basic space transportation. Given the high cost of flying on a Soyuz -- more than $80 million a seat under the current contract -- and deteriorating superpower relations in the wake of Russia's actions in Ukraine, supporters say it is vital for the commercial crew program to receive full funding.

NASA started the competition to build a commercial crewed spacecraft in 2011, with the first in a series of contracts intended to encourage innovative designs for reliable, affordable transportation to and from low-Earth orbit.

The most recent contracts, awarded in 2012, gave SpaceX $440 million to develop detailed plans for launching the crewed Dragon capsule. Boeing won $460 million to develop plans for its CST-100 capsule while Sierra Nevada received $212.5 million to continue development of a winged lifting body that would land on a runway.

Many space insiders believed SpaceX would offer the least expensive alternative and a more innovative design while Boeing would provide the most reliability based on decades of space experience.

"Human space flight has been at our core since day one," John Mulholland, Boeing's commercial crew program manager, told CBS News in a recent interview. "In fact, every (U.S.) capsule that has taken United States astronauts to space has been a product that Boeing has developed in partnership with NASA."




"Aerospace giant Boeing and newcomer SpaceX will share $6.8 billion in NASA contracts to build commercial space taxis to fly astronauts to and from the space station starting in 2017, ending reliance on Russia for access to low-Earth orbit and kick starting a new era of commercial space transportation, agency officials said Tuesday....Boeing will receive a $4.2 billion Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCAP) contract to continue development of the company's CST-100 capsule while SpaceX will receive $2.6 billion to press ahead with work to perfect its futuristic Dragon crew craft. 'Today's announcement sets the stage for what promises to be the most ambitious and exciting chapter in the history of NASA and human spaceflight,' said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.... The new spacecraft also will be able to serve as lifeboats for station crew members, remaining attached to the station for up to 210 days at a stretch and "keeping our crew members safe in the event of an emergency," Lueders said.... 'It's a little bit different than our traditional space flight programs in that we are transitioning some of the responsibilities over to the private sector,' Phil McAllister, a senior NASA manager, told CBS News in a recent interview. 'It used to be in a traditional NASA program, NASA would make almost all the decisions about the design, we would own and operate the hardware and we would be primarily responsible for its operation.'... Supporters of the commercial crew initiative argue it is crucial for NASA to end its reliance on the Russians for basic space transportation. Given the high cost of flying on a Soyuz -- more than $80 million a seat under the current contract -- and deteriorating superpower relations in the wake of Russia's actions in Ukraine, supporters say it is vital for the commercial crew program to receive full funding."

This is an exciting change in the space program. It's good to break the dependence on Russia and it's also good to bring experienced private sector players into the picture. The development of new types of vehicles is also very good. The future has been opened up to ever new and better technology and projects will hopefully follow new directions. Colonizing another planet or asteroid for economic reasons such as mining is often a subject in science fiction stories, but it's within the range of possibility, and to do it we would need a fleet of ships like this “space taxi” to move back and forth. An active space industry could be a stimulant to our economy and to scientific discoveries of the future. This could really be big stuff!





U.S. man detained trying to swim to N. Korea – CBS
AP  September 16, 2014, 11:21 PM

SEOUL, South Korea - South Korean border guards arrested an American man who they believe was attempting to swim across the border into rival North Korea, a South Korean defense official said Wednesday.

The man was arrested Tuesday night at a river near the Korean Demilitarized Zone, part of a restricted military area, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity due to office policy. He said investigators are questioning the man about the purpose of his apparent attempt to enter North Korea but gave no further details.

Yonhap news agency, citing an unidentified government source, reported the man was in his late 20s or early 30s and told investigators that he tried to go to North Korea to meet leader Kim Jong Un. He was caught by South Korean marines while lying on the shore of the river after swimming north, the report said.

Last year, South Korean soldiers shot and killed a man with a South Korean passport who officials said ignored warnings to return the South after trying to go to North Korea via a river that runs through the border.

There have been occasional cases of Americans being arrested in North Korea after allegedly entering the country illegally from China, but an American trying to go to North Korea from South Korea is unusual.

In 1996, American Evan C. Hunziker entered the North by swimming across the Yalu River, which marks the border with China. Hunziker, who apparently made the swim on a drunken dare, was accused of spying and detained for three months.

Hunziker, then 26, was eventually freed after negotiations involving a special U.S. envoy. The North Koreans wanted to slap Hunziker with a $100,000 criminal fine but eventually agreed on a $5,000 payment to settle a bill for a hotel where he was detained.

North Korea is currently holding three Americans and the country's Supreme Court on Sunday sentenced one of them to six years of hard labor for illegally entering the country to commit espionage.

The Korean Peninsula remains in a technical state of war because the 1950-53 Korean War ended with an armistice, not a peace treaty. About 28,500 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea to deter potential aggression from North Korea.

About 27,000 North Koreans have defected to South Korea to avoid poverty and political suppression since the end of the Korean War. A few South Koreans have previously tried to defect to the impoverished, authoritarian country, but such cases are rare.





“He said investigators are questioning the man about the purpose of his apparent attempt to enter North Korea but gave no further details. Yonhap news agency, citing an unidentified government source, reported the man was in his late 20s or early 30s and told investigators that he tried to go to North Korea to meet leader Kim Jong Un.... In 1996, American Evan C. Hunziker entered the North by swimming across the Yalu River, which marks the border with China. Hunziker, who apparently made the swim on a drunken dare, was accused of spying and detained for three months.”

This doesn't sound as though the young American is in his right mind to me. Most Americans are aware that going to North Korea except with specific permission and for a good reason is a very dangerous thing to do. I personally have no desire to “meet Kim Jong Un” and don't see the appeal of it. To me he is a pathological personality who is running a nation with no “rights” for his citizens and not even enough food for them to eat. Everything I've heard about the situation there is very sad, and nobody has been able to cause him to open up his society to progress. That's the last place I would want to go.





Top Scientists Suggest A Few Fixes For Medical Funding Crisis – NPR
by RICHARD HARRIS
September 17, 2014

Many U.S. scientists had hoped to ride out the steady decline in federal funding for biomedical research, but it's continuing on a downward trend with no end in sight. So leaders of the science establishment are now trying to figure out how to fix this broken system.

It's a familiar problem. Biomedical science has a long history of funding ups and downs, and, in the past, the system has always righted itself with the passage of time and plumper budgets.

"You know I lived through those [cycles]; I know what they were like," says cancer biologist Dr. Harold Varmus, whose long research career includes a Nobel Prize. However, he says, the funding challenges "were never, in my experience, anywhere as dramatic as they are now."

Varmus knows the problem well – now head of the National Cancer Institute, he directed the entire National Institutes of Health in 1998, when President Clinton started an ambitious push to double the NIH budget.

"It has to be recognized that we actually weren't asking for that much that fast at that time," Varmus says. "And many voices — including my own — were saying, 'Yes, this is great, and we can spend the money well; but you have to be prepared for what you do at the end of that five years.' "

Doubling the budget, he realized, would, of course, encourage rapid growth — so smaller, continual increases would then be required to keep this bigger enterprise humming.

And the annual budget did grow to an impressive size — surpassing $30 billion. But (adjusting for inflation) today's federal budget for biomedical research has given up much of that gain.

Many scientists say the obvious solution is to give them more money.

"There's no doubt that having a bounce-back — an increase in our funding — would be helpful," Varmus says. "But I don't think it's going to solve all the problems at this point."
There are now deep structural problems in the way research is financed. Scientists and universities alike are thinking less and less about the exciting frontiers of science, and more and more about tactics they can use simply to stay afloat.

"It's difficult to operate, and difficult to operate in an adventurous way," Varmus says. And that's bad not just for the scientists, but for patients and universities hoping to benefit from the fruits of a scientist's labor.

One of the biggest changes is in how NIH money is used. These days, it's not simply to conduct experiments — it's increasingly spent on scientists' salaries and even to repay the loans on new laboratory buildings that sprang up like mushrooms during budget boom times.

"This is a very tricky business," Varmus says, "because we recognize that universities are under tremendous pressures. In states for example that have some of the best public universities in the country, the amount of money that can be used to support research activities has declined precipitously."

So the NIH can't simply make bold new rules about how these universities can spend grant dollars. Instead, Varmus and some colleagues have been focusing on gentler changes that might help.

"We have to remember that this is a fragile system, Varmus says. " 'Do no harm,' the doctor's mantra, is very applicable here."

One idea is to reduce the number of young scientists being trained for careers that don't exist, and to instead hire staff scientists to carry out more of the day-to-day lab-work that the apprentices now perform.

"Staff scientists don't necessarily have to have Ph.D.'s," Varmus says. "They might have Master's degrees. And being a staff scientist these days is quite an appealing way to practice science," because you can concentrate on doing the work, and not get tangled up in the sometimes noxious process of fighting for funding.

The NIH could also help some scientists avoid the money scramble by following the example of theHoward Hughes Medical Institute, Varmus suggests. This private philanthropy gives generous grants to individual scientists, based on that person's broad ideas and talents, rather than funding a specific research proposal.

Whether scientists can gently solve the structural problems remains to be seen, Varmus says. Last April, he and some colleagues laid out several broad ideas in "Rescuing U.S. biomedical research from its systemic flaws," an avidly readarticle in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

He and his co-authors are hoping to broaden the conversation. "We want to bring together folks who are in government, administration, scientific societies, advocacy groups, students, faculty, even members of Congress," Varmus says.

One idea, he says, among other possibilities, might be to convene a summit akin to the Asilomar conference in 1975, where scientists gathered to set their own rules for dealing with genetic engineering.

Whatever the ultimate solution, much is at stake.

"We have a system that has worked well in the past, that has made the U.S. the leader in biomedical research worldwide," he says, "And while I don't think we've lost that [edge] yet, we do see a rising tide in lots of places."

Maybe, eventually, the threat of losing this competitive edge will spur the U.S. Congress to address the underlying problems in the way it authorizes funding for biomedical research. But that appears to be a distant prospect. In the meantime, another ancient injunction to doctors, 'Physician, heal thyself,' seems apt. The research establishment will try to find a way to ease the pain, on own.




“One of the biggest changes is in how NIH money is used. These days, it's not simply to conduct experiments — it's increasingly spent on scientists' salaries and even to repay the loans on new laboratory buildings that sprang up like mushrooms during budget boom times.... 'We have to remember that this is a fragile system, Varmus says.' 'Do no harm,' the doctor's mantra, is very applicable here.' One idea is to reduce the number of young scientists being trained for careers that don't exist, and to instead hire staff scientists to carry out more of the day-to-day lab-work that the apprentices now perform. 'Staff scientists don't necessarily have to have Ph.D.'s,' Varmus says. 'They might have Master's degrees. And being a staff scientist these days is quite an appealing way to practice science,' because you can concentrate on doing the work, and not get tangled up in the sometimes noxious process of fighting for funding.... This private philanthropy gives generous grants to individual scientists, based on that person's broad ideas and talents, rather than funding a specific research proposal.... Maybe, eventually, the threat of losing this competitive edge will spur the U.S. Congress to address the underlying problems in the way it authorizes funding for biomedical research.”

As economic conservatives cut away at the budgets in so many areas that we have considered to be safe from such an assault, more and more very important issues are going underfunded. The situation of the public school system is a prime example. People who vote Republican often give lip service to ideas like the voucher system rather than supporting the schools in general, but for so many families, paying a high tuition for their children to go to school isn't really within their budget if the family has less than $50,000 a year coming in. Private schools, unless they give scholarships for poor children, are for the well-to-do. We have to educate our entire population in this country for our society to succeed.

In this particular case the issue is the development of new vaccines and treatments, perhaps for horrific diseases like Ebola, and the situation is a crisis now in Africa partly because the problem had not been considered widespread enough for pharmaceutical companies to invest in a vaccine. That was baldly stated in a recent news article. They were afraid they wouldn't sell enough of it for it to be as profitable as they wanted, so now we have a raging emergency with no vaccine. Governments have to fund medical research to avoid such situations, even if the private sector doesn't step up to bat on it. That means Republicans have to spend money even if they think the budget is inflated. We just can't cut everything out like they are apparently doing, from this article. Hopefully things will open up soon. Maybe some of the changes recommended in here will ease the money flow.