| ||||||||||||
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Shooting of US satellite 'delayed'
US warships position for satellite shoot down
he U.S. Navy likely will make its first attempt to shoot down a faulty spy satellite Wednesday night. 
A Delta II rocket lifts off in December, carrying a reconnaissance satellite that failed hours later.
The U.S. government issued a formal notice warning ships and planes to stay clear of a large area of the Pacific Ocean west of Hawaii.
The notice says the two- and-a-half hour window begins 2:30 a.m. Thursday Greenwich Mean Time, which is 9:30 p.m. Wednesday on the East Coast, and 4:30 p.m. Wednesday in Hawaii.
The timing is also after the U.S. space shuttle Atlantis is scheduled to be safely on the ground.
Pentagon officials caution that the notice reflects the first opportunity to take a shot at the satellite, but it's possible the attempt could be delayed until later. Watch Pentagon spokesman Jeff Morrell describe the launch window
"We have to make the notification, but it's possible the conditions won't be ideal, or that everything won't be ready," said a Pentagon official who asked not to be identified.
Pentagon officials says if the first attempt to hit the satellite fails, there may be time for a second attempt, but that would only come after an assessment that would be hours or even days after the first attempt.
Because the 5,000-pound satellite malfunctioned immediately after launch in December 2006, it has a full tank of fuel. It would likely survive re-entry and disperse potentially deadly fumes over an area the size of two football fields, officials have said.
The Navy plans to fire at the satellite as it enters Earth's atmosphere at an altitude of about 150 miles.
Officials want the missile to hit the edge of the atmosphere to ensure debris re-enters and burns up quickly.
Shooting down spy satellite to cost up to $60 million. Shooting down satellite doesn't worry space crew The Missile Defense Agency estimated the cost of a sea-based attempted intercept at $40 million to $60 million.Without any intervention, Pentagon officials have said they believe the satellite would come down on its own in early March.
The option of striking the satellite with a missile launched from an Aegis cruiser was decided upon by President Bush after consultation with several government and military officials and aerospace experts, said Deputy National Security Adviser James Jeffrey."If we miss, nothing changes," said NASA administrator Michael Griffin. "If we shoot and barely touch it, the satellite is just barely in orbit" and would still burn up somewhat in the atmosphere, he said.
"If we shoot and get a direct hit, that's a clean kill and we're in good shape," he addedTuesday, February 19, 2008
Juicy Campus - More to come
The Cornell University junior was in his dorm between classes when the text message came in from a friend. Check out JuicyCampus.com, it said.
The student found his name on the website beside a rambling, filthy passage about his sexual exploits, posted by an anonymous student on campus. The young man could only hope the commentary was so ridiculous nobody would believe it.
"I thought, 'Is this going to affect my job employment? Is this going to make people on campus look at me? Are people going to talk about me behind my back?" said the student, who asked not to be identified. He also wondered about his 11-year-old sister, who is spending more time on the Internet. "What if she Googles me? What will she think about her big brother?" he said.
JuicyCampus's endless threads of anonymous innuendo have been a popular web destination on the seven college campuses where the site launched last fall, including Duke, UCLA and Loyola Marymount. It recently expanded to 50 more, and many of the postings show they've been viewed hundreds and even thousands of times.
But JuicyCampus has proved so poisonous there are signs of a backlash.
In campus debates over Internet freedom, students normally take the side of openness and access. This time, however, student leaders, newspaper editorials and posters on the site are fighting back - with some even asking administrators to ban JuicyCampus. It's a kind of plea to save the students, or at least their reputations, from themselves.
"It is an expression from our student body that we don't want this junk in our community," said Andy Canales, leader of the student government at Pepperdine, which recently voted 23-5 to ask for a ban.
The vote came after a long and emotional debate on the limits of free speech, and was swayed by stories from students such as Haley Frazier, a junior residential adviser. She had recently come across a teary transfer student who had been humiliated on the site barely a week after arriving on campus.
"I can't imagine the disgust she must have for Pepperdine if that's what (students) say," Frazier said.
College administrators say they are appalled by the site but have no control over it since students can see it outside the campus computer network. They say all they can do is urge students not to post items or troll for malicious gossip - and hope that in the process they learn about how to get along.
That tactic may be having an effect.
At a number of campuses where JuicyCampus was a hot topic even just a few weeks ago, students and administrators say use and complaints have tapered off sharply. That's hard to confirm; Internet tracker comScore Inc. says the site's visitor numbers are too low to be counted by its system.
But more and more postings criticize the site, with comments like, "let's not ruin each other's lives," and, "If you can't personalize any of the stuff you read or write here, imagine it happening to your sister or your best friend."
"People have gotten just extremely sick of hearing all this stuff," said Rachelle Palisoc, a freshman at Loyola Marymount in California, who joined a Facebook group called "Ban Juicycampus" that has about 850 members.
Free to use and supported by advertising, JuicyCampus is a simple conduit urging users to post gossip and promising them total anonymity. There are threads on campus hook-ups, who's popular and who's overweight.
"Top 10 freshman sluts" reads one typical thread, and "The Jews ruin this school" another. Homophobia is common. Many postings combine the cruelty of a middle school playground, the tight social dynamics of a college campus and the alarming global reach of the Internet.
JuicyCampus pledges that it blocks its discussion boards from being indexed by search sites like Google, and that appears to be true.
"College students are clever and fun-loving, and we wanted to create a place where they could share their stories," said Matt Ivester, the site's founder, who agreed to answer questions by e-mail.
"Like anything that is even remotely controversial, there are always people who demand censorship," he said in response to calls he has rejected - including one from his alma mater, Duke - for him to shut down the site. "However, we believe that JuicyCampus can have a really positive impact on college campuses, as a place for both entertainment and free expression. Frankly, we're surprised that any college administration would be against the free exchange of ideas."
Duke's vice-president for student affairs, Larry Moneta, said the school asked Ivester to consider "moderating the venom or at least moderating the opportunity for venom." However, "my sense is that's not that person's interest," Moneta said.
Under U.S. law, sites like JuicyCampus generally bear no responsibility for what their users post, said George Washington University law professor Daniel Solove, author of the recent book "The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet."
But Solove believes Congress and the courts have gone overboard protecting such sites. It's one thing to protect the owner of a website when someone posts a defamatory message unbeknownst to the operator. But Solove says sites like JuicyCampus exist solely to propagate gossip and should be held to a different standard.
In fact, JuicyCampus seems designed to shield its users from the threat of libel claims. The site's privacy page notes that it logs the numeric Internet protocol addresses of its users, but does not associate those addresses with specific posts. That is unlike mainstream social networking sites, which do maintain such detailed logs.
JuicyCampus also goes further by directing posters to free online services that cloak IP addresses. "Just do a quick search on Google and find one you like," JuicyCampus advises.
The site's companion blog reminds users that "our terms and conditions require users to agree not to post anything that is defamatory, libelous, etc." But a few paragraphs later, the blog implies that it will rebuff anything short of a public safety query: "If your school calls upset about some girl being called a slut, we're not handing over access to our server data. If the LAPD calls telling us there is a shooting threat, you better believe we're gonna help them ..."
Fraternity and sorority leaders and student governments are mainly urging students to sap the site of advertisers by turning a blind eye.
"If we don't get on there it will die," said C.J. Slicklen, student government president at Cornell, where students vented at a meeting last week.
The concerns extend beyond hurt feelings. At Loyola Marymount, a now-former student was arrested after allegedly posting a threat of a campus shooting spree on JuicyCampus. And the dangers of social network bullying were highlighted by the recent death of a 13-year-old suburban St. Louis girl who committed suicide after receiving cruel messages on her MySpace page - messages that turned out to be a hoax.
Pepperdine spokesman Jerry Derloshon said the school applauds the student government's reaction, though Pepperdine has not banned the site.
"In the end," he said, "the site's shock value will diminish and it will be revealed for what it is: empty."
The student found his name on the website beside a rambling, filthy passage about his sexual exploits, posted by an anonymous student on campus. The young man could only hope the commentary was so ridiculous nobody would believe it.
"I thought, 'Is this going to affect my job employment? Is this going to make people on campus look at me? Are people going to talk about me behind my back?" said the student, who asked not to be identified. He also wondered about his 11-year-old sister, who is spending more time on the Internet. "What if she Googles me? What will she think about her big brother?" he said.
JuicyCampus's endless threads of anonymous innuendo have been a popular web destination on the seven college campuses where the site launched last fall, including Duke, UCLA and Loyola Marymount. It recently expanded to 50 more, and many of the postings show they've been viewed hundreds and even thousands of times.
But JuicyCampus has proved so poisonous there are signs of a backlash.
In campus debates over Internet freedom, students normally take the side of openness and access. This time, however, student leaders, newspaper editorials and posters on the site are fighting back - with some even asking administrators to ban JuicyCampus. It's a kind of plea to save the students, or at least their reputations, from themselves.
"It is an expression from our student body that we don't want this junk in our community," said Andy Canales, leader of the student government at Pepperdine, which recently voted 23-5 to ask for a ban.
The vote came after a long and emotional debate on the limits of free speech, and was swayed by stories from students such as Haley Frazier, a junior residential adviser. She had recently come across a teary transfer student who had been humiliated on the site barely a week after arriving on campus.
"I can't imagine the disgust she must have for Pepperdine if that's what (students) say," Frazier said.
College administrators say they are appalled by the site but have no control over it since students can see it outside the campus computer network. They say all they can do is urge students not to post items or troll for malicious gossip - and hope that in the process they learn about how to get along.
That tactic may be having an effect.
At a number of campuses where JuicyCampus was a hot topic even just a few weeks ago, students and administrators say use and complaints have tapered off sharply. That's hard to confirm; Internet tracker comScore Inc. says the site's visitor numbers are too low to be counted by its system.
But more and more postings criticize the site, with comments like, "let's not ruin each other's lives," and, "If you can't personalize any of the stuff you read or write here, imagine it happening to your sister or your best friend."
"People have gotten just extremely sick of hearing all this stuff," said Rachelle Palisoc, a freshman at Loyola Marymount in California, who joined a Facebook group called "Ban Juicycampus" that has about 850 members.
Free to use and supported by advertising, JuicyCampus is a simple conduit urging users to post gossip and promising them total anonymity. There are threads on campus hook-ups, who's popular and who's overweight.
"Top 10 freshman sluts" reads one typical thread, and "The Jews ruin this school" another. Homophobia is common. Many postings combine the cruelty of a middle school playground, the tight social dynamics of a college campus and the alarming global reach of the Internet.
JuicyCampus pledges that it blocks its discussion boards from being indexed by search sites like Google, and that appears to be true.
"College students are clever and fun-loving, and we wanted to create a place where they could share their stories," said Matt Ivester, the site's founder, who agreed to answer questions by e-mail.
"Like anything that is even remotely controversial, there are always people who demand censorship," he said in response to calls he has rejected - including one from his alma mater, Duke - for him to shut down the site. "However, we believe that JuicyCampus can have a really positive impact on college campuses, as a place for both entertainment and free expression. Frankly, we're surprised that any college administration would be against the free exchange of ideas."
Duke's vice-president for student affairs, Larry Moneta, said the school asked Ivester to consider "moderating the venom or at least moderating the opportunity for venom." However, "my sense is that's not that person's interest," Moneta said.
Under U.S. law, sites like JuicyCampus generally bear no responsibility for what their users post, said George Washington University law professor Daniel Solove, author of the recent book "The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet."
But Solove believes Congress and the courts have gone overboard protecting such sites. It's one thing to protect the owner of a website when someone posts a defamatory message unbeknownst to the operator. But Solove says sites like JuicyCampus exist solely to propagate gossip and should be held to a different standard.
In fact, JuicyCampus seems designed to shield its users from the threat of libel claims. The site's privacy page notes that it logs the numeric Internet protocol addresses of its users, but does not associate those addresses with specific posts. That is unlike mainstream social networking sites, which do maintain such detailed logs.
JuicyCampus also goes further by directing posters to free online services that cloak IP addresses. "Just do a quick search on Google and find one you like," JuicyCampus advises.
The site's companion blog reminds users that "our terms and conditions require users to agree not to post anything that is defamatory, libelous, etc." But a few paragraphs later, the blog implies that it will rebuff anything short of a public safety query: "If your school calls upset about some girl being called a slut, we're not handing over access to our server data. If the LAPD calls telling us there is a shooting threat, you better believe we're gonna help them ..."
Fraternity and sorority leaders and student governments are mainly urging students to sap the site of advertisers by turning a blind eye.
"If we don't get on there it will die," said C.J. Slicklen, student government president at Cornell, where students vented at a meeting last week.
The concerns extend beyond hurt feelings. At Loyola Marymount, a now-former student was arrested after allegedly posting a threat of a campus shooting spree on JuicyCampus. And the dangers of social network bullying were highlighted by the recent death of a 13-year-old suburban St. Louis girl who committed suicide after receiving cruel messages on her MySpace page - messages that turned out to be a hoax.
Pepperdine spokesman Jerry Derloshon said the school applauds the student government's reaction, though Pepperdine has not banned the site.
"In the end," he said, "the site's shock value will diminish and it will be revealed for what it is: empty."
Fidel Castro resigns as President
Over the past two months, RCC has seen the resignation of President Daniel Castro, the hiring and the transition of an acting president for an interim president and progress on the search for a replacement for Chancellor Salvatore Rotella.
The controversy began Dec. 8 when Tish Chavez, Castro's assistant, sent a mass e-mail to all faculty, staff and administration at RCC.
The e-mail was sent on the behalf of Castro and announced his resignation as president as of Dec. 11.
"I have had the opportunity to work with some of the best administrators, faculty, staff and students," Castro's e-mail read. "(I) know that I leave RCC in good hands."
Technically, Castro would remain president until the end of the year. Chancellor Rotella, however, chose Linda Lacy, then the vice chancellor of Student Services, to serve as acting president in Castro's absence.
No rationale for the sudden departure was given at the time, nor has one been confirmed as of now, but the lack of evidence did not stop the events to follow.
Accusations from faculty members on all sides of the issue began to surface, all of which remained consistent with the individual views of Castro's performance as president.
The first of these comments came Dec. 12 when Political Science instructors Dariush Haghighat and Ward Schinke sent their views via e-mail to the RCC administration, attacking Castro's previous record at other schools and his demeanor as president of RCC.
One of the major points the instructors made was the lack of information that the hiring committee gathered. "One of us served on Castro's hiring committee and what bothered this member... was the fact that nobody from this college was provided an opportunity to do any field research," the letter stated.
Another large problem that the e-mail addressed was the changing of class schedules; Haghighat and Schinke declared that the altered schedule could be linked to the drop in enrollment at RCC.
But it was not just the alleged administrative errors that Haghighat and Schinke dealt with, but what they claimed was Castro's "lack of vision... and his absolute contempt for the principle of shared governance."
The controversy began Dec. 8 when Tish Chavez, Castro's assistant, sent a mass e-mail to all faculty, staff and administration at RCC.
The e-mail was sent on the behalf of Castro and announced his resignation as president as of Dec. 11.
"I have had the opportunity to work with some of the best administrators, faculty, staff and students," Castro's e-mail read. "(I) know that I leave RCC in good hands."
Technically, Castro would remain president until the end of the year. Chancellor Rotella, however, chose Linda Lacy, then the vice chancellor of Student Services, to serve as acting president in Castro's absence.
No rationale for the sudden departure was given at the time, nor has one been confirmed as of now, but the lack of evidence did not stop the events to follow.
Accusations from faculty members on all sides of the issue began to surface, all of which remained consistent with the individual views of Castro's performance as president.
The first of these comments came Dec. 12 when Political Science instructors Dariush Haghighat and Ward Schinke sent their views via e-mail to the RCC administration, attacking Castro's previous record at other schools and his demeanor as president of RCC.
One of the major points the instructors made was the lack of information that the hiring committee gathered. "One of us served on Castro's hiring committee and what bothered this member... was the fact that nobody from this college was provided an opportunity to do any field research," the letter stated.
Another large problem that the e-mail addressed was the changing of class schedules; Haghighat and Schinke declared that the altered schedule could be linked to the drop in enrollment at RCC.
But it was not just the alleged administrative errors that Haghighat and Schinke dealt with, but what they claimed was Castro's "lack of vision... and his absolute contempt for the principle of shared governance."
Juicy Campus - more updates
The Web site reads like the writing on the wall in a campus bathroom. Its motto is “Always Anonymous … Always Juicy.” And many students around the country are urging its leaders to take down the comments that have been scrawled there for all the world to see.
The site is called JuicyCampus, and it opened this summer. Some of the most viewed topics today are “Who is the sluttiest girl????,” “Hottest Cornell Sophomores,” and “Biggest Cornell Cokeheads?” Anonymous users of the site have posted their picks in each category and in many other, similar topics, and many of the students who are named on the site are not amused.
Pepperdine University’s student government passed a resolution calling on campus administrators to block the site from its campus network.
“We hoped to make a symbolic, public statement that Pepperdine does not support this sort of harmful, libelous gossip,” said Austin Maness, a student at Pepperdine and an officer in the student government, in an e-mail interview. “Furthermore, we had reason to be concerned for the immediate emotional health of a number of our fellow students.”
Critics of the site from Loyola Marymount University started a Facebook group called “BAN JuicyCampus!!!” which has attracted 854 members. An article this week in the Yale Daily News describes reaction to the site on that campus.
Officials from JuicyCampus did not respond to an e-mail message seeking comment. But the company posted a reply on its blog to what it described as the many requests it had received from people asking that their names be removed from the site:
“Two of the biggest problems we face when considering this issue are how strict to be and how exactly to implement some sort of restriction,” said the post on the blog. “But what if we decided to eliminate all posts with names? How would we implement it? Could we create a filter? But then people will just start writing Jo-h-nn_y instead of Johnny. Could we manually screen all posts? No, unfortunately not. … So, for now, we leave it to our users to decide how they want to use the site, and what they think is appropriate (subject to our Terms and Conditions).”
The site has set up specific channels for more than 50 college campuses, and apparently it plans to add more soon.
Should colleges block the site? Is this any different than the many sites that have popped up that let students rate their professors?
The site is called JuicyCampus, and it opened this summer. Some of the most viewed topics today are “Who is the sluttiest girl????,” “Hottest Cornell Sophomores,” and “Biggest Cornell Cokeheads?” Anonymous users of the site have posted their picks in each category and in many other, similar topics, and many of the students who are named on the site are not amused.
Pepperdine University’s student government passed a resolution calling on campus administrators to block the site from its campus network.
“We hoped to make a symbolic, public statement that Pepperdine does not support this sort of harmful, libelous gossip,” said Austin Maness, a student at Pepperdine and an officer in the student government, in an e-mail interview. “Furthermore, we had reason to be concerned for the immediate emotional health of a number of our fellow students.”
Critics of the site from Loyola Marymount University started a Facebook group called “BAN JuicyCampus!!!” which has attracted 854 members. An article this week in the Yale Daily News describes reaction to the site on that campus.
Officials from JuicyCampus did not respond to an e-mail message seeking comment. But the company posted a reply on its blog to what it described as the many requests it had received from people asking that their names be removed from the site:
“Two of the biggest problems we face when considering this issue are how strict to be and how exactly to implement some sort of restriction,” said the post on the blog. “But what if we decided to eliminate all posts with names? How would we implement it? Could we create a filter? But then people will just start writing Jo-h-nn_y instead of Johnny. Could we manually screen all posts? No, unfortunately not. … So, for now, we leave it to our users to decide how they want to use the site, and what they think is appropriate (subject to our Terms and Conditions).”
The site has set up specific channels for more than 50 college campuses, and apparently it plans to add more soon.
Should colleges block the site? Is this any different than the many sites that have popped up that let students rate their professors?
Juicy Campus creates controversy
JuicyCampus.com asks users to post gossip and promises users total anonymity.
NBC 10's Dawn Timmeney reported that, when you visit the Web site, you find a lot of mean, disturbing and downright nasty gossip. Anyone can write anything about others, and who knows whether it's true or not?
Victims said anonymous posters are ruining their reputations.
The Web site targets students at 50 colleges nationwide. In our area, there are gossip connections for the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton and Penn State.
There's a lot of raunchy rumors about campus hookups, who's overweight and who's gay. There are religious slurs and some really hurtful comments, Timmeney reported.
Here are some examples:
One post lists a student's name with this comment, "He's abusive, se* hungry, manipulative ... Stay away at all costs!"
Another rates sorority girls with mean-spirited comments like these: rich Jews; sporty, fratty girls; ugly and easy; or piggy piggy girls.
You have no way of knowing who's making those comments, or why.
There has been some backlash, with students at some colleges voting to ban JuicyCampus, but the Web site's founder said it's a place for entertainment and free expression.
NBC 10's Dawn Timmeney reported that, when you visit the Web site, you find a lot of mean, disturbing and downright nasty gossip. Anyone can write anything about others, and who knows whether it's true or not?
Victims said anonymous posters are ruining their reputations.
The Web site targets students at 50 colleges nationwide. In our area, there are gossip connections for the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton and Penn State.
There's a lot of raunchy rumors about campus hookups, who's overweight and who's gay. There are religious slurs and some really hurtful comments, Timmeney reported.
Here are some examples:
One post lists a student's name with this comment, "He's abusive, se* hungry, manipulative ... Stay away at all costs!"
Another rates sorority girls with mean-spirited comments like these: rich Jews; sporty, fratty girls; ugly and easy; or piggy piggy girls.
You have no way of knowing who's making those comments, or why.
There has been some backlash, with students at some colleges voting to ban JuicyCampus, but the Web site's founder said it's a place for entertainment and free expression.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Wine Bra - Wine holding bra that lets you drink - Wine bra helps slake thirst
A British company is advertising a wine bra. This is meant to serve as a practical aperitif for the travelling lady.
The Firebox company is selling a bra called WineRack for just on 20 pounds sterling. An integrated plastic bag allows you to fill this piece of apparel with up to 750 ml of wine; a tube can then be used to guide the liquid into the wearer's mouth. Those familiar with the invention claim it is not particularly suitable for white wine, as this becomes too warm after a short period of wearing the bra. On the other hand, customers claim to have made good experiences with sweetish red wines.
The product is currently sold out, but you can place an order to reserve one from the next production batch.
Obama - Clinton and Super Delegates
With the Democratic presidential race tied to a complex delegate system, the Clinton and Obama camps went after each other Sunday over "super delegates." 
Superdelegates -- delegates to the National Democratic Convention --are not selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, but rather based solely on their status as current or former elected officeholders and party officials. They are free to choose the candidate they like. 'Superdelegates' doesn't mean that they should leap over the will of the people in a single bound," joked Barack Obama's chief political strategist David Axelrod on CBS' "Face the Nation." But Sen. Hillary Clinton's communications director Howard Wolfson told CBS that those approximately 800 delegates "are supposed to vote their conscience." And Lanny Davis, a former White House special counsel supporting Clinton, told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" that Obama "very ironically wants to change the rules of the game in the middle of the game." Obama leads in the overall delegate count and among pledged delegates, who are assigned based on primaries and caucuses. Clinton has more superdelegates supporting her, and the overall count is close. Neither is expected to have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination before the party's convention in August. Making things even more complicated, the pledged delegate count does not directly reflect the popular vote. For example, in the Nevada caucuses, Clinton won by six points, but Obama ended up with one more delegate because of the way that state awards its delegates. Upcoming contests this week in Wisconsin, Washington state and Hawaii are expected to favor Obama, but the campaigns are looking to March 4, when delegate-rich Texas and Ohio hold their contests. Clinton is aiming for those critical victories that could help her recover in both the delegate count and the fight for political momentum. Clinton is also hoping for a win in Pennsylvania in April. The Clinton camp is also working to shore up its support among superdelegates. News reports in recent days have indicated that some African-American superdelegates are rethinking their support for her, given the strong support for Obama among their constituents. But Wolfson wrote off those concerns Sunday, telling reporters, "I think that all Democrats have a difficult choice in this election. We have two strong candidates with broad appeal. We feel very good about our support in the African-American community and we are quite confident that our superdelegate support is holding firm." While divided over which candidate to support, Democrats are largely agreed that the battle over delegates needs to be resolved without a sense that superdelegates -- which include Democratic lawmakers, governors, and other VIPs -- are making a decision that opposes what voters want. "There has to be some agreement between the Clinton and Obama campaigns as to how to handle it," New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a prominent supporter of her campaign, said Sunday. "We need to win in November and if one side tries to shove down the throats of the other side any rule, so that that camp today or all of her or his supporters walk away upset, we will lose." And that's not the only potential looming battle. There's also the matter of seating delegates from Michigan and Florida. The Democratic Party penalized those two states for moving their primaries early, and determined their delegates would not be seated at the convention, where the nominee is decided. Both states voted overwhelmingly for Clinton -- though in Michigan, her name was the only one on the ballot. In Florida, voters turned out in record numbers despite the party's decision.
If the party sticks to its plan, Democratic voters in those two key swing states may be turned off and be less likely to turn out in November.
Sen. Barack Obama leads in overall delegate count and among pledged delegates.
If the party sticks to its plan, Democratic voters in those two key swing states may be turned off and be less likely to turn out in November.
Trasylol Killed 22,000 People and the FDA could have Prevented It
In January 2006, private researcher Dr. Dennis Mangano came forward and published a study saying Bayer AG’s drug Trasylol had dangerous side effects.
The FDA advisory panel looked into Dr. Mangano’s claims in September 2006. Bayer had researched this claim but did not disclose their findings to the FDA panel at the meeting. The findings confirmed Dr. Mangano’s research, which would have lost Bayer money.
FDA advisory panel chairman Dr. William Hiatt told CBS’s 60 Minutes that he would have voted to remove the drug from the market had Bayer disclosed its findings.
It is figured that approximately 22,000 lives could have been saved had the drug been removed from the market. The drug was finally taken off the market in November of 2007. The drug, which is used to decrease bleeding during open heart surgery but caused kidney failure which lead to the need for dialysis and an increased change of death for the patients.
This brings up several serious issues that both the FDA and more importantly American citizens should be worrying about.
Bayer is, of course, a business and therefore is concerned about profit. But as a drug company, shouldn’t they also have a responsibility to protect their customers? The drugs that they create are to help, not hurt people. Yet their drug killed over 22,000 people.
It is one thing if a company does not realize what the side effects are, but they HAD the research and refused to disclose it. This shows an intentional disregard for its customers or how many lives they kill to make their profits.
Another thing that should be a concern is the FDA’s method of handling this. Yes, they did eventually recall the drug. But at the same time when this information first came out and they checked it out, they didn’t have someone else do the research or confirm that Bayer did not check this information.
Normally I do NOT agree with law suits, but in this case I do feel that the families are justified in suing Bayer. Bayer knowingly withheld information that led to the death of thousands of people. Those people’s blood is on Bayer’s hands.
Overall I question how safe many of the drugs on the market really are and if the FDA is an effective way to prove these drugs are safe. The fact that this information was known and what should have been a life saving procedure killed these people because the medicine doctors used was deemed safe by the FDA should make everyone question the drug companies motives for making medicine—profit or the well being of their customers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)