Nuke Those Fears! By Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D.
Greens dismiss nuclear energy based on little more than greatly exaggerated depictions of the supposed dangers and difficulties of its use.
American Council on Science and Health, Jan 27, 2009
Excerpts:
The environmental mantra these days has two main components -- clean energy and green (sustainable) energy -- anything but oil and coal. Proponents strongly encourage the development of solar and wind energy, neither of which is ready yet for widespread commercial use. But they ignore or downplay the use of a well understood and already commercialized technology -- nuclear energy -- based on little more than greatly exaggerated depictions of the supposed dangers and difficulties of its use.
One fear that has been widely promoted is that of large-scale accidents in nuclear power plants. Anti-nuclear activists point to two examples of that -- the explosion at the Russian Chernobyl reactor in 1986, and the partial meltdown of the fuel rods at the Three Mile Island reactor in 1979.
The Chernobyl explosion was due to errors made by the operators during a test and a lack of adequate safety features and procedures that could have prevented such errors. It will surprise many that, with the exception of workers who were on the scene and received massive acute doses of radiation, there has been no evidence of increased radiation-caused mortality. In contrast to the Chernobyl plant, modern nuclear facilities have redundant safety features to prevent such errors.
Although it has also been used as an example of a large-scale accident, there was actually little release of radioactivity from the Three Mile Island reactor -- even though about half of the fuel melted. The level of radioactivity received by the surrounding area was not significantly greater than that normally supplied by natural background sources. In other words, the containment precautions were effective. Of course, the anti-nuclear fanatics' propaganda pays no attention to these simple facts.
Another fear that has been widely promoted is that release of radioactivity from a nuclear plant -- specifically the radioactive iodine, I131 -- would cause thyroid cancer in exposed children. This fear actually has some biological basis in that the thyroid gland avidly takes up iodine. It can be prevented from absorbing the radioactive iodine, however, by giving a large dose of non-radioactive iodine. An even simpler preventive measure: avoid drinking milk for a week or two after such an (unlikely) event. Of course prevention of I131 release is a much better option.
It is true that a year after the Chernobyl accident screening studies revealed an increased occurrence of thyroid cancer in exposed children. However, many scientists have questioned whether this was really due to the Chernobyl-related exposure, since thyroid cancer typically has a latency period of thirty years. Further, it is important to note that prior to the explosion, there was very little screening of children in the Chernobyl area -- but around 90% were screened afterwards. This fact alone very likely contributed to the increased incidence observed. In addition, the incidence of thyroid cancer was actually lower in the highly contaminated region than in the general Russian population.
[...]
Dr. Ruth Kava is Director of Nutrition at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
IER on Oil Speculation
60 Minutes Spectacle on Speculators
Institute for Energy Research, Jan 26, 2009
Excerpts:
The January 11 edition of 60 Minutes featured a segment on oil speculation. Correspondent Steve Kroft interviewed hedge fund manager Michael Masters and others who blamed the run-up in oil prices on hedge funds and other investors. Unfortunately, Kroft failed to interview a single person who explained the benefits of hedging and even speculation on oil contracts. The 60 Minutes takeaway message—that government should increase regulation of commodities futures markets—could actually increase volatility in the oil market and hurt consumers.
[...]
The Benefits of Futures Markets
As we explained in an IER study issued last summer, the commodities futures markets perform a vital function by allowing parties to “lock in” a price of oil months or even years in advance. By removing their exposure to huge price swings, both oil producers and major consumers (such as refiners and airlines) can more confidently plan their future operations.
For example, the owner of an oil field might be willing to sink new wells if he expects oil prices to average at least $50 per barrel in 2010, while an airline might expand its service area to include a new city, but only if it can buy oil at less than $75 per barrel throughout 2010. If there were no futures markets, the oil producer and airline might decide to play it safe, rather than investing millions in projects that could prove unprofitable if oil prices move the wrong way. But fortunately with sophisticated financial markets, the two enterprises can hedge away this risk with futures contracts. The oil producer can sell (“go short”) futures contracts, agreeing to sell his output in 2010 for, say, $65 per barrel, and the airline can take the other side of the contracts. Both parties benefit by locking in the price of $65, rather than being subject to the volatile spot price of oil.
Successful Speculation Reduces Price Volatility
Just about everyone agrees on the benefits of futures markets when the buyers and sellers are those who physically deal with oil by the nature of their business. But even non-traditional “speculative” buyers—who plan on unloading their futures contracts before taking physical delivery—perform a useful service if they accurately forecast price moves.
The motto of the speculator is to “buy low, sell high.” (Or a more sophisticated version is to “short-sell high, cover low.”) But these actions reduce the volatility in the market, because the speculator’s buying pulls up prices when they are too low, while the speculator’s selling pushes down prices when they are too high. This is exactly what consumers want speculators to do. When the price strays from where they “ought” to be, an astute speculator comes along and knocks it back into line.
Now it’s true that many investors piled into commodities through the summer of 2008, thinking they would move ever higher—and then they had the rug pulled out from them in August and September. But we don’t need the government to impose penalties on such faulty speculation (which pushed prices the wrong way), because these investors lost their shirts! The market itself provides the appropriate reward and punishment for wise or foolish forecasts.
People often forget that for every speculator who “went long” on oil futures contracts, there was another party who had to go short. Indeed, after the 60 Minutes piece aired, investment manager Kevin Duffy reminded us of his warnings to clients over the summer that oil was overpriced. His hedge fund, Bearing Fund, shorted futures contracts and made money from the accurate call.
Another wrinkle in the typical complaint against speculators is that the statistical evidence shows the causality ran in the opposite direction. According to the CFTC’s analysis of confidential data, it was far more typical for a price change in oil to precede a change in investors’ holdings, rather than vice versa. Yes, big investors were enlarging their clients’ exposure to commodities in 2007 and 2008, but this was often because these sectors were outperforming others. So it wasn’t that a bunch of pension funds rushed into oil, and pushed up its price. Rather, the rising price of oil led to more and more investment in oil futures, by fund managers who were trying to shield their clients from skyrocketing energy prices. The process was mutually reinforcing, but the line between hedging and speculation is blurred. After all, soaring oil prices were hurting stock performance. By diversifying holdings to include commodities, fund managers were trying to limit the volatility in their clients’ returns.
A final point is that the presence of large, institutional investors provides more liquidity to the futures markets, allowing the traditional hedgers (such as producers and airlines) to use these contracts more flexibly. New regulations that restricted the ability of “speculators” to enter these markets would ironically hurt even the non-speculators because of higher bid-ask spreads.
Was It Speculators, or Supply and Demand?
A recurring theme in the 60 Minutes segment was that the price swings in oil weren’t due to the fundamentals of supply and demand, and so they must have been the fault of the insidious speculators [...].
The true situation is far more nuanced. Part of what happened on Sept. 22 was that the dollar fell sharply against other currencies; recall that these weeks involved the bailout of AIG and the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Because oil is traded internationally but quoted in U.S. dollars, a fall in the dollar translates into a higher quoted price for oil, which is perfectly consistent with “fundamentals.”
Moreover, Sept. 22 was the last trading day before the expiration of the October futures contracts. There were investors who had shorted oil—they were pushing down its price, betting that it would fall further—and they needed to unwind their positions, because they didn’t actually have physical barrels to deliver to the holders of the contracts. According to oil economist James Williams, the Nymex contracts had a delivery point of Cushing, Oklahoma, but the inventories in Cushing were low because of the hurricane drawdown. The situation led to a “short squeeze” where short-sellers were trying to buy back their positions and were scrambling for the unusually tight supplies. Thus the 60 Minutes piece is right that speculation was involved that day, but it’s the opposite of their interpretation: The people pushing down oil prices hit a temporary snag, caused by a physical bottleneck, and so the price popped back up briefly.
Masters’ analysis of the EIA data is also misleading. It is true that world oil supply had been steadily increasing every quarter since the beginning of 2007, while world oil demand finally peaked in the fourth quarter of 2007 and then began falling in 2008. But what Masters neglects to mention is that world oil demand was always higher than supply, up until April 2008, as the EIA data (XLS spreadsheet) show.
The market price of oil during this period did exactly what consumers would want. Starting in 2006, the world began consuming more barrels of oil per day than producers could deliver to market. The deficit was covered by drawing down on previously accumulated stockpiles. In this environment of a supply crunch, the market price needed to rise rapidly in order to call forth greater supply and curtail demand.
Even as late as the first quarter of 2008, on average there was more than a million barrel a day deficit, where world oil demand exceeded supply. Of course the “fundamentals” would drive higher prices in this environment. And then, after years of rising oil prices in this deficit environment, the situation finally reversed in April 2008. From that point on, world oil output had finally caught up with and overtaken demand. A few months later, the price of oil crashed back down. The presence of large investors definitely influenced the movement of prices, but ultimately the explanation based on supply and demand is accurate.
Even the sudden collapse of oil prices may be partially or completely attributable to “real” forces in the economy. The economic outlook changed considerably in the late summer of 2008, meaning that oil consumption will not grow nearly as quickly over the next few years as forecasters previously believed. The dollar has also strengthened tremendously because of the “flight to safety” by investors around the world. The rising dollar translates into lower oil prices, quoted in U.S. dollars.
Conclusion
Institutional investors rushed into the commodities futures markets as oil prices steadily rose from the fall of 2007 through the summer of 2008. This correlation led many analysts to conclude that the hedge funds were causing the prices to rise. But a more careful analysis shows that the situation was more nuanced, with price rises (fueled by legitimate, fundamental supply and demand) leading rational investors to diversify their holdings by gaining exposure to the energy sector.
In any event, it is wrong to assume that giving government bureaucrats more power will somehow make financial markets more transparent or efficient. Masters and the folks at 60 Minutes should read up on how the SEC ignored letters about Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme that a suspicious analyst in the private sector began sending them back in 1999. In the private sector, speculators who make bad forecasts lose money, big time. In contrast, the SEC will probably see its budget increased even though it ignored a reputed $50 billion swindle for 9 years.
Many investors overshot the rise in oil prices, and the market punished them accordingly. But record oil prices really were driven by the fundamentals of supply and demand. Futures markets, and large institutional investors who use them, provide a valuable service to consumers by actually reducing volatility in the long run. It’s too bad that 60 Minutes seems to have overshot in their finger-pointing, but there won’t be any market correction for them.
Institute for Energy Research, Jan 26, 2009
Excerpts:
The January 11 edition of 60 Minutes featured a segment on oil speculation. Correspondent Steve Kroft interviewed hedge fund manager Michael Masters and others who blamed the run-up in oil prices on hedge funds and other investors. Unfortunately, Kroft failed to interview a single person who explained the benefits of hedging and even speculation on oil contracts. The 60 Minutes takeaway message—that government should increase regulation of commodities futures markets—could actually increase volatility in the oil market and hurt consumers.
[...]
The Benefits of Futures Markets
As we explained in an IER study issued last summer, the commodities futures markets perform a vital function by allowing parties to “lock in” a price of oil months or even years in advance. By removing their exposure to huge price swings, both oil producers and major consumers (such as refiners and airlines) can more confidently plan their future operations.
For example, the owner of an oil field might be willing to sink new wells if he expects oil prices to average at least $50 per barrel in 2010, while an airline might expand its service area to include a new city, but only if it can buy oil at less than $75 per barrel throughout 2010. If there were no futures markets, the oil producer and airline might decide to play it safe, rather than investing millions in projects that could prove unprofitable if oil prices move the wrong way. But fortunately with sophisticated financial markets, the two enterprises can hedge away this risk with futures contracts. The oil producer can sell (“go short”) futures contracts, agreeing to sell his output in 2010 for, say, $65 per barrel, and the airline can take the other side of the contracts. Both parties benefit by locking in the price of $65, rather than being subject to the volatile spot price of oil.
Successful Speculation Reduces Price Volatility
Just about everyone agrees on the benefits of futures markets when the buyers and sellers are those who physically deal with oil by the nature of their business. But even non-traditional “speculative” buyers—who plan on unloading their futures contracts before taking physical delivery—perform a useful service if they accurately forecast price moves.
The motto of the speculator is to “buy low, sell high.” (Or a more sophisticated version is to “short-sell high, cover low.”) But these actions reduce the volatility in the market, because the speculator’s buying pulls up prices when they are too low, while the speculator’s selling pushes down prices when they are too high. This is exactly what consumers want speculators to do. When the price strays from where they “ought” to be, an astute speculator comes along and knocks it back into line.
Now it’s true that many investors piled into commodities through the summer of 2008, thinking they would move ever higher—and then they had the rug pulled out from them in August and September. But we don’t need the government to impose penalties on such faulty speculation (which pushed prices the wrong way), because these investors lost their shirts! The market itself provides the appropriate reward and punishment for wise or foolish forecasts.
People often forget that for every speculator who “went long” on oil futures contracts, there was another party who had to go short. Indeed, after the 60 Minutes piece aired, investment manager Kevin Duffy reminded us of his warnings to clients over the summer that oil was overpriced. His hedge fund, Bearing Fund, shorted futures contracts and made money from the accurate call.
Another wrinkle in the typical complaint against speculators is that the statistical evidence shows the causality ran in the opposite direction. According to the CFTC’s analysis of confidential data, it was far more typical for a price change in oil to precede a change in investors’ holdings, rather than vice versa. Yes, big investors were enlarging their clients’ exposure to commodities in 2007 and 2008, but this was often because these sectors were outperforming others. So it wasn’t that a bunch of pension funds rushed into oil, and pushed up its price. Rather, the rising price of oil led to more and more investment in oil futures, by fund managers who were trying to shield their clients from skyrocketing energy prices. The process was mutually reinforcing, but the line between hedging and speculation is blurred. After all, soaring oil prices were hurting stock performance. By diversifying holdings to include commodities, fund managers were trying to limit the volatility in their clients’ returns.
A final point is that the presence of large, institutional investors provides more liquidity to the futures markets, allowing the traditional hedgers (such as producers and airlines) to use these contracts more flexibly. New regulations that restricted the ability of “speculators” to enter these markets would ironically hurt even the non-speculators because of higher bid-ask spreads.
Was It Speculators, or Supply and Demand?
A recurring theme in the 60 Minutes segment was that the price swings in oil weren’t due to the fundamentals of supply and demand, and so they must have been the fault of the insidious speculators [...].
The true situation is far more nuanced. Part of what happened on Sept. 22 was that the dollar fell sharply against other currencies; recall that these weeks involved the bailout of AIG and the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Because oil is traded internationally but quoted in U.S. dollars, a fall in the dollar translates into a higher quoted price for oil, which is perfectly consistent with “fundamentals.”
Moreover, Sept. 22 was the last trading day before the expiration of the October futures contracts. There were investors who had shorted oil—they were pushing down its price, betting that it would fall further—and they needed to unwind their positions, because they didn’t actually have physical barrels to deliver to the holders of the contracts. According to oil economist James Williams, the Nymex contracts had a delivery point of Cushing, Oklahoma, but the inventories in Cushing were low because of the hurricane drawdown. The situation led to a “short squeeze” where short-sellers were trying to buy back their positions and were scrambling for the unusually tight supplies. Thus the 60 Minutes piece is right that speculation was involved that day, but it’s the opposite of their interpretation: The people pushing down oil prices hit a temporary snag, caused by a physical bottleneck, and so the price popped back up briefly.
Masters’ analysis of the EIA data is also misleading. It is true that world oil supply had been steadily increasing every quarter since the beginning of 2007, while world oil demand finally peaked in the fourth quarter of 2007 and then began falling in 2008. But what Masters neglects to mention is that world oil demand was always higher than supply, up until April 2008, as the EIA data (XLS spreadsheet) show.
The market price of oil during this period did exactly what consumers would want. Starting in 2006, the world began consuming more barrels of oil per day than producers could deliver to market. The deficit was covered by drawing down on previously accumulated stockpiles. In this environment of a supply crunch, the market price needed to rise rapidly in order to call forth greater supply and curtail demand.
Even as late as the first quarter of 2008, on average there was more than a million barrel a day deficit, where world oil demand exceeded supply. Of course the “fundamentals” would drive higher prices in this environment. And then, after years of rising oil prices in this deficit environment, the situation finally reversed in April 2008. From that point on, world oil output had finally caught up with and overtaken demand. A few months later, the price of oil crashed back down. The presence of large investors definitely influenced the movement of prices, but ultimately the explanation based on supply and demand is accurate.
Even the sudden collapse of oil prices may be partially or completely attributable to “real” forces in the economy. The economic outlook changed considerably in the late summer of 2008, meaning that oil consumption will not grow nearly as quickly over the next few years as forecasters previously believed. The dollar has also strengthened tremendously because of the “flight to safety” by investors around the world. The rising dollar translates into lower oil prices, quoted in U.S. dollars.
Conclusion
Institutional investors rushed into the commodities futures markets as oil prices steadily rose from the fall of 2007 through the summer of 2008. This correlation led many analysts to conclude that the hedge funds were causing the prices to rise. But a more careful analysis shows that the situation was more nuanced, with price rises (fueled by legitimate, fundamental supply and demand) leading rational investors to diversify their holdings by gaining exposure to the energy sector.
In any event, it is wrong to assume that giving government bureaucrats more power will somehow make financial markets more transparent or efficient. Masters and the folks at 60 Minutes should read up on how the SEC ignored letters about Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme that a suspicious analyst in the private sector began sending them back in 1999. In the private sector, speculators who make bad forecasts lose money, big time. In contrast, the SEC will probably see its budget increased even though it ignored a reputed $50 billion swindle for 9 years.
Many investors overshot the rise in oil prices, and the market punished them accordingly. But record oil prices really were driven by the fundamentals of supply and demand. Futures markets, and large institutional investors who use them, provide a valuable service to consumers by actually reducing volatility in the long run. It’s too bad that 60 Minutes seems to have overshot in their finger-pointing, but there won’t be any market correction for them.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Medicine's Miracle Man
Medicine's Miracle Man. By John E. Calfee
Maurice Hilleman's remarkable period of industrial scientific research yielded the most cost-effective medicines ever made.
The American, Friday, January 23, 2009
The pharmaceutical industry has been under attack for longer than most people realize. In the 1950s and 1960s, when for the first time in history we had quite a few drugs that worked very well—including many antibiotics, the first miracle drugs—there was the full panoply of congressional hearings, outraged newspaper editorials, and dour experts who described an industry in which prices were too high, marketing too important, and innovation in decline amid a flood of “me-too” drugs barely distinguishable from the original innovative brands. But I doubt that the atmosphere then was as hostile as it has been in the past five years or so. A flood of books, including some by authors with academic credentials, have re-circulated many of the same arguments (albeit with more emphasis on safety). The more scholarly works include Merrill Goozner’s The $800 Million Pill: The Truth Behind the Cost of New Drugs; Jerome Kassirer’s On The Take: How Medicine’s Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health; and Jerry Avorn’s Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Prescription Drugs. Others have a more muckrakian tone, beginning with the muchquoted The Truth About the Drug Companies by former New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell, and continuing on to many others including Ray Moynihan and Alan Cassels’s Selling Sickness: How the World’s Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients; Howard Brody’s Hooked: Ethics, the Medical Professions, and the Pharmaceutical Industry; Alison Bass’s Side-effects: A Prosecutor, a Whistleblower, and a Bestselling Antidepressant on Trial (about the drug Paxil); and Philip R. Lee’s Pills, Profits, and Politics.
What’s with R&D?
To my mind, the most serious of these indictments focus on industry research. No doubt, the stakes are high for the industry. If drugs are truly innovative life-modifiers or life-savers, the argument over prices and spending tends to be marginalized. But if there hasn’t been a lot of innovation and if the innovation we do get comes mainly from the taxpayer-supported National Institutes of Health and other nonprofit organizations, the politics of drugs becomes difficult for the industry to handle.
We need to look ahead, and when we do it’s hard not to get excited. The entire field of immunology has taken off along with so much else in this age of biotechnology.
I have had occasion to write about innovation and its sources in the pages of The American. As I explained in “The Golden Age of Medical Innovation” (March/April 2007), the critics have paid too much attention to the annual count of new drug approvals by the FDA and too little attention to two crucial developments. One is the increasing importance of research that occurs after a drug is approved. Newer drugs, especially so-called biotech drugs including monoclonal antibodies, involve complex biological processes that are themselves subject to ever more sophisticated research on everything from DNA to drug interactions. Basic research and clinical trials have been running side by side, often with drugs themselves serving as research tools to find out what happens when a particular receptor is suppressed (such as the epidermal growth factor receptor, or EGFR, to cite a target that is important for cancer and much more). Sometimes, scientists harvest a series of improved treatments using existing drugs without actually getting a new one approved. Rituxan, originally approved for certain types of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cancer, is now approved for other types of cancer along with multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and Crohn’s Disease, and is being researched to treat lupus, idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
The other phenomenon that has been largely lost in popular discussion of drug R&D and its discontents is the extraordinary role played by “follow-on” drugs (a much more accurate term than “me-too”). The story with statin cholesterol-reducing drugs, where a decade or more of research on follow-ons revolutionized the prevention and treatment of coronary heart disease, is a familiar one. Similar stories are playing out now, but much faster. Competition among rapidly developed drugs to attack a promising target (such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors for rheumatoid arthritis) can bring about revolutions in treatments as doctors and patients dance through one drug after another while dealing with the unique mix of side effects and drug resistance that plague each individual patient.
The interested reader can get a flavor of this blend of basic science and practical drug development by reading the fascinating discussion by Jan Vermorken, et al., of evolving treatments for head-and-neck cancer in the September 11, 2008 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine. Much of this story involves Erbitux, the monoclonal antibody that put Martha Stewart in jail after a disappointing FDA decision put the owners of ImClone, the developer, into a panic. The many years of up-and-down research and results on that drug, costing hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars back when no revenues were in sight, is probably as good an example as any of the vagaries and payoffs from high-risk drug research informed by ongoing work in pure science.
Hilleman set out to develop vaccines for the chief life-threatening viral and bacterial infectious diseases of childhood. Amazingly, he came close to clearing the table.
In another recent article in The American, I addressed the thorny question of the role of publicly supported basic research in drug development (“The Indispensable Industry,” May/June 2008). To put it in the simplest terms, a close look reveals a striking pattern that seems to be little noticed by the critics of private drug development: no matter how far-flung the curiosity-driven NIH-supported research is, the only results that seem to get translated into useable drugs are the ones that are grabbed by drug firms and put through the difficult research necessary to produce appropriate quantities of promising substances to run through years of arduous clinical trials. Take away the private sector, and basic research nearly always languishes with little practical effect, as is unceasingly and tragically illustrated by the dearth of new drugs and vaccines for malaria and tuberculosis. Sometimes, the drug firms themselves do perform crucial basic research, as in the case of Genentech’s Avastin for cancer and Lucentis to prevent blindness. These were the fruits of the firm’s own top-tier basic research forces.
Just Two Words
But there is something else in drug development that hardly gets talked about: the sheer energy and determination that you find in the private sector. Combine that with substantial financial resources and you get what John Maynard Keynes called “animal spirits,” a singular motivating force in creative capitalism. When this force attacks big problems, the results can be both spectacular and unexpected, sometimes with fabulous benefits for mankind. It so happens that animal spirits are very much involved in one of the great blessings of modern medicine: an armamentarium of vaccines, mainly given to children, which have been saving lives by the millions at astonishingly low costs. “The most cost-effective treatments ever created by mankind” is a typical summary of the value of vaccines for mumps, measles, rubella (German measles), and half a dozen or so others, including those for diphtheria, whooping cough, hepatitis A, and hepatitis B.
Where, you might ask, did all those life-saving vaccines come from? Amazingly, for half or more of them, the answer can be summarized in two words: Hilleman and Merck. You’ve likely never heard of Maurice Hilleman even though he probably saved more lives than any other scientist in the 20th century. For most of his career, Hilleman was a biologist at Merck, where he developed one vaccine after another, stretching through four extraordinary decades of productive work. Along the way, he pioneered new ways to create, test, and manufacture vaccines, and played a crucial role in the creation of an entirely different class of drugs known as interferons.
We know a lot about Hilleman’s career thanks to a wonderful book published last year by Paul Offit: Vaccinated: One Man’s Quest to Defeat the World’s Deadliest Diseases. Offit was the perfect vehicle for getting this story the attention it deserves. A prominent academic immunologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania Medical School, Offit is also a vaccine developer. He is a co-inventor and co-developer of Rotateq, the first fully successful vaccine for rotavirus, a cause of deadly dehydration that kills thousands of children annually in poor nations.
Offit is attuned to public policy. He has been a member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, whose child vaccination recommendations are gospel for physicians and payers. His previous book, The Cutter Incident, was an insightful historical account of how litigation over an early miracle vaccine—for polio—helped shape (very much for the worse) the entire litigation environment of vaccines and pharmaceuticals. Offit’s academic journal articles and newspaper op-eds on the consequences of unscientific attacks on vaccine safety are required reading for anyone interested in this contentious topic.
Offit’s Vaccinated is informed by 11 interviews with the 85-year-old Hilleman in 2005, during the last months of his life before he succumbed to cancer. Judging by dozens of meaty quotes, Offit is a probing interviewer, capturing a great scientist’s personality and working style to a degree that cannot be matched without personal experience with the subject, and is seldom matched even then.
His basic strategy was simple: solve whatever problems had to be solved in order to reach the goal, which was usually a new vaccine.
Who was Maurice Hilleman and what did he do? Born to a German-American family in 1919 and raised on a Montana farm near his birthplace, Hilleman was a brilliant student on scholarship at Montana State University. After graduation he moved to the Midwest intellectual mecca at the University of Chicago, where in 1944 he finished a Ph.D. in microbiology based on groundbreaking research on the chlamydia bacterium (previously thought to be a virus). To the dismay of his new intellectual peers, Hilleman left academia to work for a pharmaceutical firm, E.R. Squibb, where he achieved advances in flu vaccine development and manufacturing. In 1948, he moved to the Walter Reed military hospital in Washington. His work there culminated in an extraordinary episode in 1957 when he correctly forecast the arrival of a new Asian Flu to which almost no one was immune. He led the development and manufacturing (by private firms) of a vaccine in time to save hundreds of thousands of lives and perhaps many more.
In 1957 Hilleman returned to the private sector, this time at Merck, where he was head of virus and cell biology in Merck’s relatively new vaccine enterprise. Hilleman apparently set out to develop vaccines for the chief life-threatening viral and bacterial infectious diseases of childhood. Amazingly, he came close to clearing the table. First was the mumps, with the approval in 1967 of the “Jeryl Lynn” vaccine based on a mumps virus taken from his daughter of that same name. A measles vaccine arrived the next year. In 1969, we got a vaccine for rubella. Hilleman soon concocted the immensely useful idea of combining these three vaccines into a single shot. Approved in 1971, this proved a blessing to untold millions of small children and their mothers. The 1981 vaccine for hepatitis B (not really a childhood disease, of course) was a scientific and technological tour de force essentially from start to finish. In 1995 came the hepatitis A vaccine. For chicken pox, pneumococcus, and Hib (haemophilus influenzae type b), Hilleman transformed relatively untested vaccines into the mass-produced tools with which we are now familiar. It is hard to imagine the cumulative benefits of this research. (Hilleman also developed a vaccine for a destructive form of chicken cancer, rescuing a substantial part of the poultry industry.) Hilleman’s work sometimes ranged beyond vaccines. Starting in the late 1950s, he figured out how to mass-produce a newly discovered virus-killing substance in chickens called interferon. He soon detailed interferon’s basic physical, chemical, and biological properties, discovering that it was produced in many animals, including humans, and that it could impede or kill many viruses, such as those involved in cancer. He correctly predicted that interferon could be used to treat chronic infections and cancer. Today, it is used against hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and several types of cancer.
Problem Solving for Fun and Profit
This is more than the history of medicine, science, and technology. It is also business history, a classic story of problem solving for fun and profit and humanity. How was Hilleman able to accomplish so much in basic research, drug development, and manufacturing technology, often working essentially from scratch because vaccine development was still in its infancy when he set to work? The answer lies in Hilleman’s decision to work at Merck instead of pursuing a top-tier academic career. He realized that to attack the most pressing illnesses susceptible to immune-based prevention, he would have to marshal massive forces even after solving the purely intellectual puzzles. Merck had supported that kind of work before in Max Tishler’s research on the vitamin B complex. Offit tells us relatively little about internal Merck affairs, but it is clear that Hilleman enjoyed an extraordinary degree of autonomy combined with generous funding increases for low-profit products (now there’s a combination we’d all like to have!).
The Nobel Prize committee was not willing to award a prize to an industry scientist. It is hard not to see this as a miscarriage of scientific justice.
Hilleman sometimes exercised an iron fist over such normally mundane matters as manufacturing, where any deviation from his recipe could result in undetectable dangers. Indeed, Hilleman was apparently a bit of a tyrant, demanding almost as much of his staff as of himself, facilitated by his mastery of the art of profanity. Nonetheless, he retained the respect and often the devotion of his hard-driven staff along with near-legendary status among his academic peers.
In 1984, when Hilleman reached Merck’s mandatory retirement age of 65, he refused to retire and Merck kept him on. One result was the hepatitis A virus vaccine that arrived in 1995, along with a steady stream of academic work of all sorts until shortly before his death in 2005. Hilleman never jettisoned the problem solving method of a successful Montana farmer. Like Orville and Wilbur Wright when they built the first successful heavier-than-air flying machine, Hilleman’s basic strategy was simple: solve whatever problems had to be solved in order to reach the goal, which was usually a new vaccine. The list of problems included daunting scientific puzzles, excruciating judgments about whether dangerous side effects had been defeated, and the vagaries of regulation (much easier before the FDA got into the action).
As the 80-plus-year-old Hilleman approached death, Offit and other academic scientists lobbied the Nobel committee to award Hilleman the Nobel Prize for Medicine, based partly on his vaccine work and partly on his contributions to the basic science of interferons. The committee made clear that it was not going to award the prize to an industry scientist. (Offit has assured me that the situation was even more hopeless than he describes in his book.) It is hard not to see this as a miscarriage of scientific justice. Perhaps Hilleman would have done better if his volcanic personality had not included a surprising element of self-effacement. None of the vaccines or the crucial agents or processes he created were named after himself. At one point, he even called the developer of a new rubella vaccine to say that he thought it should replace his own because it was better. Hilleman’s absence from the academic and public spotlight was quite extraordinary. In one of the most striking of the dozens of anecdotes told by Offit, Hilleman’s death was announced to a meeting of prominent public health officials, epidemiologists, and clinicians gathered to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Salk polio vaccine. Not one of them recognized Hilleman’s name!
Next…
Thanks to Offit and his book, Hilleman’s light and the extraordinary research achieved by the Merck company will shine for many, many years. What about vaccine research itself? There have been formidable obstacles. One was the liability system, which in the 1980s nearly killed off the child vaccine market before Congress removed child vaccines from the liability system altogether. Another, more persistent problem has been low reimbursement rates, especially by government, for traditional child vaccines (including most of Hilleman’s crop). This can discourage new research and production, and cause shortages. The situation was sufficiently worrisome to trigger a 2003 report by the federally sponsored Institute of Medicine entitled “Financing Vaccines in the 21st Century: Assuring Access and Availability.” Reimbursement seems to have improved recently. Better yet, newer vaccines are sufficiently protected by patents so that prices are set through ordinary market forces rather than government fiat. Merck and its competitors, such as GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi-Aventis plus smaller firms, have developed a series of important new vaccines—notable among them are the pneumococcal vaccine, a vaccine for the human papilloma virus (which causes cervical cancer), and two rotavirus vaccines (including the one co-invented by Offit). Traditional vaccine research is now flourishing but will probably never again be dominated by a single person’s laboratory like the one run by Hilleman in his prime.
Hilleman was apparently a bit of a tyrant, demanding almost as much of his staff as of himself, facilitated by his mastery of the art of profanity.
But we need to look ahead, and when we do it’s hard not to get excited. The entire field of immunology—roughly speaking, the harnessing of the human immune system to fight disease—has taken off along with so much else in this age of biotechnology. We are discovering faster and more efficient ways to manufacture traditional vaccines (especially for the flu), better methods for identifying newly arrived infectious agents such as avian flu (the dreaded “bird flu” that could cause an epidemic on the scale of the one in 1918 that killed millions worldwide), and new techniques for developing vaccines once their targets have been identified.
And there is the extraordinary prospect of therapeutic vaccines, i.e., vaccines that harness the immune system to attack illnesses already present in the body rather than just preparing the body to reject infections that have not yet been encountered. None has been approved, but a brain cancer vaccine from the biotech firm Dendreon received a favorable rating from an FDA advisory committee and may yet gain approval from the FDA (despite its reluctance to approve highly innovative drugs in this era of attacks on it for paying too much attention to new benefits and too little attention to safety). Alzheimer’s Disease vaccines have achieved striking results against the beta-amyloid plaques typically found in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients. Other therapeutic vaccines are in various stages of testing.
It’s about time for the biotech revolution to hit the vaccine industry in a big way. It has already upended the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and a few cancers, and is starting to do the same for multiple sclerosis and other conditions including rare diseases like psoriasis. Now let us see what happens in this once-quiet corner of the biopharmaceutical market. As Hilleman’s career demonstrates, when industrial science is harnessed to the profit motive, enormous advances in human welfare are possible.
John E. Calfee is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, which is about to publish a new book on recent developments in the vaccine market, U.S. Vaccine Markets: Overview, Case Studies, and Comparisons with Pharmaceuticals and Other Biologics, by economists Ernest Berndt, Rena N. Denoncourt, and Anjli C. Warner of MIT. It provides the best summary yet published of vaccine development in the past two decades, along with a preview of what is on the way.
Maurice Hilleman's remarkable period of industrial scientific research yielded the most cost-effective medicines ever made.
The American, Friday, January 23, 2009
The pharmaceutical industry has been under attack for longer than most people realize. In the 1950s and 1960s, when for the first time in history we had quite a few drugs that worked very well—including many antibiotics, the first miracle drugs—there was the full panoply of congressional hearings, outraged newspaper editorials, and dour experts who described an industry in which prices were too high, marketing too important, and innovation in decline amid a flood of “me-too” drugs barely distinguishable from the original innovative brands. But I doubt that the atmosphere then was as hostile as it has been in the past five years or so. A flood of books, including some by authors with academic credentials, have re-circulated many of the same arguments (albeit with more emphasis on safety). The more scholarly works include Merrill Goozner’s The $800 Million Pill: The Truth Behind the Cost of New Drugs; Jerome Kassirer’s On The Take: How Medicine’s Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health; and Jerry Avorn’s Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Prescription Drugs. Others have a more muckrakian tone, beginning with the muchquoted The Truth About the Drug Companies by former New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell, and continuing on to many others including Ray Moynihan and Alan Cassels’s Selling Sickness: How the World’s Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients; Howard Brody’s Hooked: Ethics, the Medical Professions, and the Pharmaceutical Industry; Alison Bass’s Side-effects: A Prosecutor, a Whistleblower, and a Bestselling Antidepressant on Trial (about the drug Paxil); and Philip R. Lee’s Pills, Profits, and Politics.
What’s with R&D?
To my mind, the most serious of these indictments focus on industry research. No doubt, the stakes are high for the industry. If drugs are truly innovative life-modifiers or life-savers, the argument over prices and spending tends to be marginalized. But if there hasn’t been a lot of innovation and if the innovation we do get comes mainly from the taxpayer-supported National Institutes of Health and other nonprofit organizations, the politics of drugs becomes difficult for the industry to handle.
We need to look ahead, and when we do it’s hard not to get excited. The entire field of immunology has taken off along with so much else in this age of biotechnology.
I have had occasion to write about innovation and its sources in the pages of The American. As I explained in “The Golden Age of Medical Innovation” (March/April 2007), the critics have paid too much attention to the annual count of new drug approvals by the FDA and too little attention to two crucial developments. One is the increasing importance of research that occurs after a drug is approved. Newer drugs, especially so-called biotech drugs including monoclonal antibodies, involve complex biological processes that are themselves subject to ever more sophisticated research on everything from DNA to drug interactions. Basic research and clinical trials have been running side by side, often with drugs themselves serving as research tools to find out what happens when a particular receptor is suppressed (such as the epidermal growth factor receptor, or EGFR, to cite a target that is important for cancer and much more). Sometimes, scientists harvest a series of improved treatments using existing drugs without actually getting a new one approved. Rituxan, originally approved for certain types of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cancer, is now approved for other types of cancer along with multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and Crohn’s Disease, and is being researched to treat lupus, idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
The other phenomenon that has been largely lost in popular discussion of drug R&D and its discontents is the extraordinary role played by “follow-on” drugs (a much more accurate term than “me-too”). The story with statin cholesterol-reducing drugs, where a decade or more of research on follow-ons revolutionized the prevention and treatment of coronary heart disease, is a familiar one. Similar stories are playing out now, but much faster. Competition among rapidly developed drugs to attack a promising target (such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors for rheumatoid arthritis) can bring about revolutions in treatments as doctors and patients dance through one drug after another while dealing with the unique mix of side effects and drug resistance that plague each individual patient.
The interested reader can get a flavor of this blend of basic science and practical drug development by reading the fascinating discussion by Jan Vermorken, et al., of evolving treatments for head-and-neck cancer in the September 11, 2008 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine. Much of this story involves Erbitux, the monoclonal antibody that put Martha Stewart in jail after a disappointing FDA decision put the owners of ImClone, the developer, into a panic. The many years of up-and-down research and results on that drug, costing hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars back when no revenues were in sight, is probably as good an example as any of the vagaries and payoffs from high-risk drug research informed by ongoing work in pure science.
Hilleman set out to develop vaccines for the chief life-threatening viral and bacterial infectious diseases of childhood. Amazingly, he came close to clearing the table.
In another recent article in The American, I addressed the thorny question of the role of publicly supported basic research in drug development (“The Indispensable Industry,” May/June 2008). To put it in the simplest terms, a close look reveals a striking pattern that seems to be little noticed by the critics of private drug development: no matter how far-flung the curiosity-driven NIH-supported research is, the only results that seem to get translated into useable drugs are the ones that are grabbed by drug firms and put through the difficult research necessary to produce appropriate quantities of promising substances to run through years of arduous clinical trials. Take away the private sector, and basic research nearly always languishes with little practical effect, as is unceasingly and tragically illustrated by the dearth of new drugs and vaccines for malaria and tuberculosis. Sometimes, the drug firms themselves do perform crucial basic research, as in the case of Genentech’s Avastin for cancer and Lucentis to prevent blindness. These were the fruits of the firm’s own top-tier basic research forces.
Just Two Words
But there is something else in drug development that hardly gets talked about: the sheer energy and determination that you find in the private sector. Combine that with substantial financial resources and you get what John Maynard Keynes called “animal spirits,” a singular motivating force in creative capitalism. When this force attacks big problems, the results can be both spectacular and unexpected, sometimes with fabulous benefits for mankind. It so happens that animal spirits are very much involved in one of the great blessings of modern medicine: an armamentarium of vaccines, mainly given to children, which have been saving lives by the millions at astonishingly low costs. “The most cost-effective treatments ever created by mankind” is a typical summary of the value of vaccines for mumps, measles, rubella (German measles), and half a dozen or so others, including those for diphtheria, whooping cough, hepatitis A, and hepatitis B.
Where, you might ask, did all those life-saving vaccines come from? Amazingly, for half or more of them, the answer can be summarized in two words: Hilleman and Merck. You’ve likely never heard of Maurice Hilleman even though he probably saved more lives than any other scientist in the 20th century. For most of his career, Hilleman was a biologist at Merck, where he developed one vaccine after another, stretching through four extraordinary decades of productive work. Along the way, he pioneered new ways to create, test, and manufacture vaccines, and played a crucial role in the creation of an entirely different class of drugs known as interferons.
We know a lot about Hilleman’s career thanks to a wonderful book published last year by Paul Offit: Vaccinated: One Man’s Quest to Defeat the World’s Deadliest Diseases. Offit was the perfect vehicle for getting this story the attention it deserves. A prominent academic immunologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania Medical School, Offit is also a vaccine developer. He is a co-inventor and co-developer of Rotateq, the first fully successful vaccine for rotavirus, a cause of deadly dehydration that kills thousands of children annually in poor nations.
Offit is attuned to public policy. He has been a member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, whose child vaccination recommendations are gospel for physicians and payers. His previous book, The Cutter Incident, was an insightful historical account of how litigation over an early miracle vaccine—for polio—helped shape (very much for the worse) the entire litigation environment of vaccines and pharmaceuticals. Offit’s academic journal articles and newspaper op-eds on the consequences of unscientific attacks on vaccine safety are required reading for anyone interested in this contentious topic.
Offit’s Vaccinated is informed by 11 interviews with the 85-year-old Hilleman in 2005, during the last months of his life before he succumbed to cancer. Judging by dozens of meaty quotes, Offit is a probing interviewer, capturing a great scientist’s personality and working style to a degree that cannot be matched without personal experience with the subject, and is seldom matched even then.
His basic strategy was simple: solve whatever problems had to be solved in order to reach the goal, which was usually a new vaccine.
Who was Maurice Hilleman and what did he do? Born to a German-American family in 1919 and raised on a Montana farm near his birthplace, Hilleman was a brilliant student on scholarship at Montana State University. After graduation he moved to the Midwest intellectual mecca at the University of Chicago, where in 1944 he finished a Ph.D. in microbiology based on groundbreaking research on the chlamydia bacterium (previously thought to be a virus). To the dismay of his new intellectual peers, Hilleman left academia to work for a pharmaceutical firm, E.R. Squibb, where he achieved advances in flu vaccine development and manufacturing. In 1948, he moved to the Walter Reed military hospital in Washington. His work there culminated in an extraordinary episode in 1957 when he correctly forecast the arrival of a new Asian Flu to which almost no one was immune. He led the development and manufacturing (by private firms) of a vaccine in time to save hundreds of thousands of lives and perhaps many more.
In 1957 Hilleman returned to the private sector, this time at Merck, where he was head of virus and cell biology in Merck’s relatively new vaccine enterprise. Hilleman apparently set out to develop vaccines for the chief life-threatening viral and bacterial infectious diseases of childhood. Amazingly, he came close to clearing the table. First was the mumps, with the approval in 1967 of the “Jeryl Lynn” vaccine based on a mumps virus taken from his daughter of that same name. A measles vaccine arrived the next year. In 1969, we got a vaccine for rubella. Hilleman soon concocted the immensely useful idea of combining these three vaccines into a single shot. Approved in 1971, this proved a blessing to untold millions of small children and their mothers. The 1981 vaccine for hepatitis B (not really a childhood disease, of course) was a scientific and technological tour de force essentially from start to finish. In 1995 came the hepatitis A vaccine. For chicken pox, pneumococcus, and Hib (haemophilus influenzae type b), Hilleman transformed relatively untested vaccines into the mass-produced tools with which we are now familiar. It is hard to imagine the cumulative benefits of this research. (Hilleman also developed a vaccine for a destructive form of chicken cancer, rescuing a substantial part of the poultry industry.) Hilleman’s work sometimes ranged beyond vaccines. Starting in the late 1950s, he figured out how to mass-produce a newly discovered virus-killing substance in chickens called interferon. He soon detailed interferon’s basic physical, chemical, and biological properties, discovering that it was produced in many animals, including humans, and that it could impede or kill many viruses, such as those involved in cancer. He correctly predicted that interferon could be used to treat chronic infections and cancer. Today, it is used against hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and several types of cancer.
Problem Solving for Fun and Profit
This is more than the history of medicine, science, and technology. It is also business history, a classic story of problem solving for fun and profit and humanity. How was Hilleman able to accomplish so much in basic research, drug development, and manufacturing technology, often working essentially from scratch because vaccine development was still in its infancy when he set to work? The answer lies in Hilleman’s decision to work at Merck instead of pursuing a top-tier academic career. He realized that to attack the most pressing illnesses susceptible to immune-based prevention, he would have to marshal massive forces even after solving the purely intellectual puzzles. Merck had supported that kind of work before in Max Tishler’s research on the vitamin B complex. Offit tells us relatively little about internal Merck affairs, but it is clear that Hilleman enjoyed an extraordinary degree of autonomy combined with generous funding increases for low-profit products (now there’s a combination we’d all like to have!).
The Nobel Prize committee was not willing to award a prize to an industry scientist. It is hard not to see this as a miscarriage of scientific justice.
Hilleman sometimes exercised an iron fist over such normally mundane matters as manufacturing, where any deviation from his recipe could result in undetectable dangers. Indeed, Hilleman was apparently a bit of a tyrant, demanding almost as much of his staff as of himself, facilitated by his mastery of the art of profanity. Nonetheless, he retained the respect and often the devotion of his hard-driven staff along with near-legendary status among his academic peers.
In 1984, when Hilleman reached Merck’s mandatory retirement age of 65, he refused to retire and Merck kept him on. One result was the hepatitis A virus vaccine that arrived in 1995, along with a steady stream of academic work of all sorts until shortly before his death in 2005. Hilleman never jettisoned the problem solving method of a successful Montana farmer. Like Orville and Wilbur Wright when they built the first successful heavier-than-air flying machine, Hilleman’s basic strategy was simple: solve whatever problems had to be solved in order to reach the goal, which was usually a new vaccine. The list of problems included daunting scientific puzzles, excruciating judgments about whether dangerous side effects had been defeated, and the vagaries of regulation (much easier before the FDA got into the action).
As the 80-plus-year-old Hilleman approached death, Offit and other academic scientists lobbied the Nobel committee to award Hilleman the Nobel Prize for Medicine, based partly on his vaccine work and partly on his contributions to the basic science of interferons. The committee made clear that it was not going to award the prize to an industry scientist. (Offit has assured me that the situation was even more hopeless than he describes in his book.) It is hard not to see this as a miscarriage of scientific justice. Perhaps Hilleman would have done better if his volcanic personality had not included a surprising element of self-effacement. None of the vaccines or the crucial agents or processes he created were named after himself. At one point, he even called the developer of a new rubella vaccine to say that he thought it should replace his own because it was better. Hilleman’s absence from the academic and public spotlight was quite extraordinary. In one of the most striking of the dozens of anecdotes told by Offit, Hilleman’s death was announced to a meeting of prominent public health officials, epidemiologists, and clinicians gathered to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Salk polio vaccine. Not one of them recognized Hilleman’s name!
Next…
Thanks to Offit and his book, Hilleman’s light and the extraordinary research achieved by the Merck company will shine for many, many years. What about vaccine research itself? There have been formidable obstacles. One was the liability system, which in the 1980s nearly killed off the child vaccine market before Congress removed child vaccines from the liability system altogether. Another, more persistent problem has been low reimbursement rates, especially by government, for traditional child vaccines (including most of Hilleman’s crop). This can discourage new research and production, and cause shortages. The situation was sufficiently worrisome to trigger a 2003 report by the federally sponsored Institute of Medicine entitled “Financing Vaccines in the 21st Century: Assuring Access and Availability.” Reimbursement seems to have improved recently. Better yet, newer vaccines are sufficiently protected by patents so that prices are set through ordinary market forces rather than government fiat. Merck and its competitors, such as GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi-Aventis plus smaller firms, have developed a series of important new vaccines—notable among them are the pneumococcal vaccine, a vaccine for the human papilloma virus (which causes cervical cancer), and two rotavirus vaccines (including the one co-invented by Offit). Traditional vaccine research is now flourishing but will probably never again be dominated by a single person’s laboratory like the one run by Hilleman in his prime.
Hilleman was apparently a bit of a tyrant, demanding almost as much of his staff as of himself, facilitated by his mastery of the art of profanity.
But we need to look ahead, and when we do it’s hard not to get excited. The entire field of immunology—roughly speaking, the harnessing of the human immune system to fight disease—has taken off along with so much else in this age of biotechnology. We are discovering faster and more efficient ways to manufacture traditional vaccines (especially for the flu), better methods for identifying newly arrived infectious agents such as avian flu (the dreaded “bird flu” that could cause an epidemic on the scale of the one in 1918 that killed millions worldwide), and new techniques for developing vaccines once their targets have been identified.
And there is the extraordinary prospect of therapeutic vaccines, i.e., vaccines that harness the immune system to attack illnesses already present in the body rather than just preparing the body to reject infections that have not yet been encountered. None has been approved, but a brain cancer vaccine from the biotech firm Dendreon received a favorable rating from an FDA advisory committee and may yet gain approval from the FDA (despite its reluctance to approve highly innovative drugs in this era of attacks on it for paying too much attention to new benefits and too little attention to safety). Alzheimer’s Disease vaccines have achieved striking results against the beta-amyloid plaques typically found in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients. Other therapeutic vaccines are in various stages of testing.
It’s about time for the biotech revolution to hit the vaccine industry in a big way. It has already upended the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and a few cancers, and is starting to do the same for multiple sclerosis and other conditions including rare diseases like psoriasis. Now let us see what happens in this once-quiet corner of the biopharmaceutical market. As Hilleman’s career demonstrates, when industrial science is harnessed to the profit motive, enormous advances in human welfare are possible.
John E. Calfee is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, which is about to publish a new book on recent developments in the vaccine market, U.S. Vaccine Markets: Overview, Case Studies, and Comparisons with Pharmaceuticals and Other Biologics, by economists Ernest Berndt, Rena N. Denoncourt, and Anjli C. Warner of MIT. It provides the best summary yet published of vaccine development in the past two decades, along with a preview of what is on the way.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Media reactions the day after inauguration
Media reactions the day after inauguration:
1 Kids Around the World on ABC: Obama Means 'Peace' & 'Yes We Can!'
ABC's World News on Wednesday night used limited news time to feature a silly piece with soundbites from naive kids around the world sputtering beauty pageant-like simplicities about how President Barack Obama will bring "world peace" and inspires them to say "yes, we can!" Reporter Jim Sciutto touted how "we heard children around the world expressing hope and fascination with the new American President." Viewers heard a boy in Russia yearn for "peace, democracy and friendship" and a girl in the United Arab Emirates assert "he's interested in giving peace to the world and stopping wars," all before a boy from Indonesia promised: "He's going to change the world and make world peace." From Gaza, a kid hoped Obama will "prevent Israel from attacking us." From Pakistan, Sciutto relayed, "hope for an American President with a Muslim father." A boy then wished "he can make the citizens of the U.S. recognize that we, not all Muslims are terrorists and not all terrorists are Muslims." And what story on foreign reaction would be complete without input from France? A French girl: "I think that he may stop the war in Iraq. At least I hope he will."
2 ABC's GMA Touts Kids to Obama: Stop the Wars! Save the Earth!
Good Morning America on Wednesday featured video messages from young children to Barack Obama. GMA news anchor Chris Cuomo asserted that the kids, ranging in age from seven to 17, had "strong opinion[s]." Yet, every single one of these youths spouted the type of liberal propaganda usually reserved for people like Keith Olbermann and not one conservative voice was featured. One young boy sputtered: "Stop the wars. And because more people die. And it's just, they don't want to die. They just die. But they don't want to die." Another child, who couldn't have been older than seven, bizarrely informed: "All this time, I've been alive, I've been having white presidents. And I think now, it's, this is my chance to have a black president." One boy incorrectly wondered: "And how come people who earn millions of dollars pay less taxes than us middle-class people?" A regulation-minded girl pleaded: "I want you to make people stop littering because our Earth is dying." Of course, this pleased liberal weatherman Sam Champion, who sat next to Cuomo. After the segment, he approved: "You heard global warming and trees and recycling. That's great. That's great."
3 CBS's Harry Smith: Obama Inauguration a 'Sacred Event'
At the end of Wednesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith reflected on Barack Obama's inauguration: "Politics, and patriotism, and the presidency. It is the place where the secular and the religious merge. And one of the sacraments of our national religion is the inauguration...So it was that as many as 2 million pilgrims made their way to Washington and the Mall to witness this most sacred event." Smith continued to use religious language throughout the report: "As the oath was recited, as the speech was delivered...emotions were laid bear. Tears were shed...An inauguration is a renewal of faith...A confirmation that the republic, and our belief in it, endures."
4 Lee Cowan: Obama Inaugural Like Being in a 'Political Cathedral'
On Monday's inauguration edition of the NBC Nightly News, well known Obama fan Lee Cowan made no effort to restrain his fawning over the new President, likening the experience of watching the Democrat's speech to being in a "political cathedral." After featuring clips of people viewing the address all over the country, Cowan cooed: "In the end, though, it really didn't matter where you were as long as you weren't alone." He added: "Just ordinary street corners like this one here in Chicago fell silent, almost becoming a political cathedral of sorts."
5 CNN's John Roberts Dubs Inaugural Crowds 'Barack-Sstock'
During a short segment on Wednesday's American Morning, CNN anchor John Roberts responded to the excited demeanor of the crowds attending President Barack Obama's inauguration by labeling the festivity "Barack-stock." Earlier in the segment, correspondent Carol Costello dubbed it "a gigantic love fest" after she stated there were no serious incidents or arrests involving the approximately 1.5 million people in attendance for the inauguration. The three-minute segment, which began 20 minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour of the CNN program, focused on the reactions of those in attendance on the National Mall for the swearing-in of President Obama. After giving her "gigantic love fest" label, Costello gave a gushing account about what it was like to be in the middle of the crowd there: "Suddenly, someone would just come up and hug you. It was just amazing. It was -- it was like you were standing in the middle of these strangers, and all of a sudden, you had a million friends around you. That's what it felt like yesterday."
6 George Stephanopoulos Recites Dem Talking Points on Economy
This Week host George Stephanopoulos appeared on Wednesday's Good Morning America to claim that the stock market's 330 point drop on Inauguration Day was not an indictment of Obama but indicated the need for a swift confirmation of Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary. Stephanopoulos, a former top Democratic aide, asserted: "The reason they want to get Geithner confirmed and in place so quickly, they want to have a complete overhaul of this financial rescue package within days." According to Stephanopoulos, Geithner, who faces questions for not paying $34,000 in taxes since 2001, has "run into a little bit of trouble" on the topic. GMA co-host Diane Sawyer prompted the ABC anchor to tout more Democratic spin when she asked, "But every president wants his first day to have a sentence, a headline. What is the sentence beneath the meetings [Obama is having on Wednesday]?" Stephanopoulos helpfully retorted, "Help is on the way, I think is the sentence."
7 Chris Matthews: 'Does Rush Limbaugh Hate This Country?'
On Wednesday's Hardball, Chris Matthews questioned Rush Limbaugh's patriotism, as the MSNBC host wondered how the radio talk show host could dare to oppose Barack Obama as he exclaimed to his viewers: "Does Rush Limbaugh hate this country?" Matthews jumped on a quote from Limbaugh saying of Obama: "I hope he fails," apparently not understanding the concept that Limbaugh opposes any and all who would promote liberal policies precisely because he believes they will be harmful to the country. Matthews slammed Limbaugh in the following tease before going to a commercial break: "Up next, does Rush Limbaugh hate this country? Wait till you hear what he said about the new president. He wants him to fail. What an amazing-, I've never heard anybody say they wanted a new president to fail. Usually you want the new president to succeed and then later on you argue the politics of what he or she does. But to want them to fail at the outset? What's that about?"
8 NBC's Roker Jabs Matthews and Olbermann for Obama Infatuation
During Tuesday's inauguration coverage on MSNBC, the Today show's Al Roker poked fun at co-anchors Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann as the NBC weather man, on location at the inaugural parade site, appeared with the MSNBC duo and joked that Matthews "got that tingle down his leg" because Obama looks good without a shirt. Discussing the admiration that so many young people feel for Obama, Roker declared: "It doesn't hurt...that he's a good-looking guy!...This is a guy, this is a President who can take his shirt off, you know. I mean, if I take my shirt off, people are running and screaming. You know, that's, so I think it's just an exciting, exciting time. And I know that's why Chris got that tingle down his leg!" After Matthews tried to go along with Roker's jovial mood by quipping that "we tingle up the leg, okay? It is a big freakin' difference. And don't you forget about it, buddy," Olbermann set himself up to receive a jab as well, as he joked that "it's left to me to be the referee." Roker, presumably referring to Olbermann's penchant for delivering outlandish tirades on his Countdown show, shot back: "And what does that say, if Keith Olbermann is the referee, Keith Olbermann is the voice of reason?"
9 Wash Post Emphasizes Critics In Obit of 'Media Elite' Co-Author
Tuesday's Washington Post obituary for Linda Lichter, co-author of the groundbreaking 1986 book documenting the liberal tilt of the mainstream media, The Media Elite, pettily devoted more paragraphs to critics assailing Lichter's work than explaining what she and her husband documented and its lasting importance -- affirming the old saying, "Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel." Reporter Adam Bernstein: "The book became widely cited but was harshly criticized by media leaders."
1 Kids Around the World on ABC: Obama Means 'Peace' & 'Yes We Can!'
ABC's World News on Wednesday night used limited news time to feature a silly piece with soundbites from naive kids around the world sputtering beauty pageant-like simplicities about how President Barack Obama will bring "world peace" and inspires them to say "yes, we can!" Reporter Jim Sciutto touted how "we heard children around the world expressing hope and fascination with the new American President." Viewers heard a boy in Russia yearn for "peace, democracy and friendship" and a girl in the United Arab Emirates assert "he's interested in giving peace to the world and stopping wars," all before a boy from Indonesia promised: "He's going to change the world and make world peace." From Gaza, a kid hoped Obama will "prevent Israel from attacking us." From Pakistan, Sciutto relayed, "hope for an American President with a Muslim father." A boy then wished "he can make the citizens of the U.S. recognize that we, not all Muslims are terrorists and not all terrorists are Muslims." And what story on foreign reaction would be complete without input from France? A French girl: "I think that he may stop the war in Iraq. At least I hope he will."
2 ABC's GMA Touts Kids to Obama: Stop the Wars! Save the Earth!
Good Morning America on Wednesday featured video messages from young children to Barack Obama. GMA news anchor Chris Cuomo asserted that the kids, ranging in age from seven to 17, had "strong opinion[s]." Yet, every single one of these youths spouted the type of liberal propaganda usually reserved for people like Keith Olbermann and not one conservative voice was featured. One young boy sputtered: "Stop the wars. And because more people die. And it's just, they don't want to die. They just die. But they don't want to die." Another child, who couldn't have been older than seven, bizarrely informed: "All this time, I've been alive, I've been having white presidents. And I think now, it's, this is my chance to have a black president." One boy incorrectly wondered: "And how come people who earn millions of dollars pay less taxes than us middle-class people?" A regulation-minded girl pleaded: "I want you to make people stop littering because our Earth is dying." Of course, this pleased liberal weatherman Sam Champion, who sat next to Cuomo. After the segment, he approved: "You heard global warming and trees and recycling. That's great. That's great."
3 CBS's Harry Smith: Obama Inauguration a 'Sacred Event'
At the end of Wednesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith reflected on Barack Obama's inauguration: "Politics, and patriotism, and the presidency. It is the place where the secular and the religious merge. And one of the sacraments of our national religion is the inauguration...So it was that as many as 2 million pilgrims made their way to Washington and the Mall to witness this most sacred event." Smith continued to use religious language throughout the report: "As the oath was recited, as the speech was delivered...emotions were laid bear. Tears were shed...An inauguration is a renewal of faith...A confirmation that the republic, and our belief in it, endures."
4 Lee Cowan: Obama Inaugural Like Being in a 'Political Cathedral'
On Monday's inauguration edition of the NBC Nightly News, well known Obama fan Lee Cowan made no effort to restrain his fawning over the new President, likening the experience of watching the Democrat's speech to being in a "political cathedral." After featuring clips of people viewing the address all over the country, Cowan cooed: "In the end, though, it really didn't matter where you were as long as you weren't alone." He added: "Just ordinary street corners like this one here in Chicago fell silent, almost becoming a political cathedral of sorts."
5 CNN's John Roberts Dubs Inaugural Crowds 'Barack-Sstock'
During a short segment on Wednesday's American Morning, CNN anchor John Roberts responded to the excited demeanor of the crowds attending President Barack Obama's inauguration by labeling the festivity "Barack-stock." Earlier in the segment, correspondent Carol Costello dubbed it "a gigantic love fest" after she stated there were no serious incidents or arrests involving the approximately 1.5 million people in attendance for the inauguration. The three-minute segment, which began 20 minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour of the CNN program, focused on the reactions of those in attendance on the National Mall for the swearing-in of President Obama. After giving her "gigantic love fest" label, Costello gave a gushing account about what it was like to be in the middle of the crowd there: "Suddenly, someone would just come up and hug you. It was just amazing. It was -- it was like you were standing in the middle of these strangers, and all of a sudden, you had a million friends around you. That's what it felt like yesterday."
6 George Stephanopoulos Recites Dem Talking Points on Economy
This Week host George Stephanopoulos appeared on Wednesday's Good Morning America to claim that the stock market's 330 point drop on Inauguration Day was not an indictment of Obama but indicated the need for a swift confirmation of Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary. Stephanopoulos, a former top Democratic aide, asserted: "The reason they want to get Geithner confirmed and in place so quickly, they want to have a complete overhaul of this financial rescue package within days." According to Stephanopoulos, Geithner, who faces questions for not paying $34,000 in taxes since 2001, has "run into a little bit of trouble" on the topic. GMA co-host Diane Sawyer prompted the ABC anchor to tout more Democratic spin when she asked, "But every president wants his first day to have a sentence, a headline. What is the sentence beneath the meetings [Obama is having on Wednesday]?" Stephanopoulos helpfully retorted, "Help is on the way, I think is the sentence."
7 Chris Matthews: 'Does Rush Limbaugh Hate This Country?'
On Wednesday's Hardball, Chris Matthews questioned Rush Limbaugh's patriotism, as the MSNBC host wondered how the radio talk show host could dare to oppose Barack Obama as he exclaimed to his viewers: "Does Rush Limbaugh hate this country?" Matthews jumped on a quote from Limbaugh saying of Obama: "I hope he fails," apparently not understanding the concept that Limbaugh opposes any and all who would promote liberal policies precisely because he believes they will be harmful to the country. Matthews slammed Limbaugh in the following tease before going to a commercial break: "Up next, does Rush Limbaugh hate this country? Wait till you hear what he said about the new president. He wants him to fail. What an amazing-, I've never heard anybody say they wanted a new president to fail. Usually you want the new president to succeed and then later on you argue the politics of what he or she does. But to want them to fail at the outset? What's that about?"
8 NBC's Roker Jabs Matthews and Olbermann for Obama Infatuation
During Tuesday's inauguration coverage on MSNBC, the Today show's Al Roker poked fun at co-anchors Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann as the NBC weather man, on location at the inaugural parade site, appeared with the MSNBC duo and joked that Matthews "got that tingle down his leg" because Obama looks good without a shirt. Discussing the admiration that so many young people feel for Obama, Roker declared: "It doesn't hurt...that he's a good-looking guy!...This is a guy, this is a President who can take his shirt off, you know. I mean, if I take my shirt off, people are running and screaming. You know, that's, so I think it's just an exciting, exciting time. And I know that's why Chris got that tingle down his leg!" After Matthews tried to go along with Roker's jovial mood by quipping that "we tingle up the leg, okay? It is a big freakin' difference. And don't you forget about it, buddy," Olbermann set himself up to receive a jab as well, as he joked that "it's left to me to be the referee." Roker, presumably referring to Olbermann's penchant for delivering outlandish tirades on his Countdown show, shot back: "And what does that say, if Keith Olbermann is the referee, Keith Olbermann is the voice of reason?"
9 Wash Post Emphasizes Critics In Obit of 'Media Elite' Co-Author
Tuesday's Washington Post obituary for Linda Lichter, co-author of the groundbreaking 1986 book documenting the liberal tilt of the mainstream media, The Media Elite, pettily devoted more paragraphs to critics assailing Lichter's work than explaining what she and her husband documented and its lasting importance -- affirming the old saying, "Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel." Reporter Adam Bernstein: "The book became widely cited but was harshly criticized by media leaders."
Media treatment of the inauguration
Media treatment of the inauguration:
1 ABC: 'National Pride' Made Cold Feel Warmer While Seagulls 'Awed'
Offering the most hyperbolic take of the night on the crowds who attended President Obama's inauguration, on World News ABC's Bill Weir delighted in wondering "can national pride make a freezing day feel warmer?" He decided it can indeed since "never have so many people shivered so long with such joy" while "from above, even the seagulls must have been awed by the blanket of humanity." Weir was certainly awed. Meanwhile, over on the NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams must have been as awed as those seagulls since he contended he could "feel" the masses watching from around the nation: "While it was unfolding today here in Washington, you could feel the millions around the country who were watching it all."
2 Mitchell: Cell Cameras 'Seemed Like Stars Shining Back' at Obama
NBC's Andrea Mitchell encapsulated the veneration for Barack Obama and what his inauguration means to the media elite as she began a Tuesday NBC Nightly News story about her day watching the festivities: "It may take days or years to really absorb the significance of what happened to America today, even for those of us who were lucky enough to have a very close up front view." Showing a clip of the new President saying "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear," Mitchell proudly trumpeted: "His very name opening doors, as did his speech, to the rest of the world." And while most saw a sea of people waving flags, Mitchell saw something more meaningful for Obama, though it reflected more about her: "The mass flickering of cell phone cameras on the mall seemed like stars shining back at him."
3 NBC News Panel 'Emotional' and Cries Over Obama's Inauguration
The truly historic moment of the first African-American to be sworn-in as President cannot, nor should not, go without some comment but to the degree NBC News' anchors and reporters were willing to share their personal feelings, on air, about the moment was a bit remarkable for purported objective journalists. During NBC News' live coverage on Tuesday of Barack Obama's Inauguration, Meredith Vieira observed: "I think the hardest thing is, is not getting emotional because it is such an emotional morning, you just want to, you want to laugh, you want to cry," and later claimed she was "blissful." NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams admitted, repeatedly, that their panel, which included Tom Brokaw and Lester Holt broke down: "Lester and I were remarking that 'No Drama Obama,' kept it together, none of the rest of us did."
4. On Nightline, Obama's Ascension = 'America the Beautiful'
Nightline's slug for its Tuesday night story about President Obama's inauguration: "America the Beautiful." With that iconic song title on screen over images of Barack Obama being sworn in as President, President Obama and Michelle Obama walking during the parade and views of the crowd, at the top of the program ABC's Terry Moran plugged a segment: "America the Beautiful: The nation and the world pause to witness an extraordinary milestone as nearly two million people come together to hail the new chief and celebrate an era of change."
5 Tom Brokaw Cheers Obama Inauguration Like 'Velvet Revolution'
Reflecting on the mood of the crowd at Barack Obama's inauguration, NBC's Tom Brokaw likened it to when he was present for the fall of the communist regime in Czechoslovakia. During NBC's live coverage of Obama's swearing-in on Tuesday, Brokaw declared, "It reminds me of the Velvet Revolution," and while Brokaw noted "a communist regime," was not being overthrown he pointed out: "An unpopular President is leaving and people have been waiting for this moment."
6 Tom Brokaw Compares Dick Cheney in Wheelchair to Dr. Strangelove
As Dick Cheney was literally rolled out of office, in a wheelchair due to a packing accident, Tom Brokaw had one final kick out the door for the Vice President as he compared him to "Dr. Strangelove," the mad scientist title character from the film of the same name. During NBC News' live coverage of Tuesday's inaugural ceremonies Brokaw made the following observation of Cheney as he was being ushered towards Barack Obama's swearing-in ceremony at about 11:32am EST: "It's unfortunate for Vice President Cheney to have had this accident obviously, because there will be those who don't like him, who will be writing tomorrow that he had a Dr. Strangelove appearance as he appeared today in his wheelchair."
7 MSNBC: Bush Family Like Romanovs, Obama 'Oratorical Mt. Rushmore'
During Tuesday morning's inaugural coverage on MSNBC, Chris Matthews twice compared the Bush family to the Romanovs as he contended that the Bushes are now likely to go into hiding because of President Bush's unpopularity: "It's going to be like the Romanovs, too, and I mean that. There's a sense here that they are fallen from grace, that they're not popular, that the whole family will now go into retreat." Even liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson had to call him out on the exaggeration as it sounds like he says in the background that "it didn't happen exactly like the Romanovs," referring to the overthrow and execution of the Russian royal family after the Bolshevik communists seized power in 1917. A few minutes earlier, claiming "this isn't a partisan statement," Matthews raised the possibility that Obama could give such a good speech that he would join the "oratorical Mount Rushmore"
8 ABC's Gibson on Al Gore: 'Had He Gotten a Second Term...'
Less than an hour before Barack Obama took the oath of office, ABC News anchor Charles Gibson spotted former Vice President Al Gore arriving at the inauguration, and Gibson fantasized about how this could have been Gore's last day in office, not George W. Bush's. "Had he gotten a second term," Gibson began before correcting himself, "had he been elected President in the first place in the year 2000, and then gotten a second term -- he would be there as the outgoing President of the United States."
9 Matthews Gushes About How MSNBC 'Has Opened Its Heart to Change'
MSNBC's Chris Matthews, in his latest heart-palpitation over the new era of Barack Obama, marveled about how the crowds apparently reacted to his network's presence at the inauguration: "This is the network that has opened its heart to change -- to change and its possibilities. Let's be honest about it. These -- these people watch this network out here." His co-anchor, Keith Olbermann, jokingly seconded his observation: "He's Chris Matthews and he approved that message." Matthews then made an indirect slam at Obama's detractors: "We're not crotchety about change -- stuffy."
10 Matthews Criticizes Anti-Bush Booing, Olbermann Not So Much
During Tuesday morning's inaugural coverage on MSNBC, when spectators were heard booing President Bush as he was introduced, Chris Matthews seemed to become uncomfortable and criticized the protest as "bad form," remarking, "Don't do that. Don't boo, don't boo, don't boo." But minutes later, when protesters could be heard singing "Hey, hey, goodbye," co-anchor Keith Olbermann seemed to suggest that he was only bothered by the behavior because it distracted attention from Michelle Obama's introduction. Olbermann: "Far be it for me to have been critical of anyone critical of this President, obviously, but, unfortunately, during that demonstration, something of the introduction of Mrs. Obama was lost because people were singing the, they still are, the 'Hey, hey,' song from various sporting events over the year, towards the 43rd President."
11 ABC Enthuses 'New Face' of Obama; 'Driven by an Audacity to Hope'
Good Morning America kicked off its inauguration coverage on Tuesday with an anonymous announcer enthusiastically repeating the talking points of Barack Obama. During a 7am tease, this voice trumpeted: "Barack Obama sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. A new face from a new generation. Driven by an audacity to hope." The male announcer continued his introduction of the ABC show: "The nation's capital, filled to capacity. A journey of millions, fueled by hope and the shared dreams of a renewed America...And a call to overcome challenges not seen in generations." While discussing the throng of visitors descending on Washington D.C. a few minutes later, GMA host Diane Sawyer announced, "We saw a silent pilgrimage proceeding through this city."
12 CNN's Verjee: Obama Inauguration Like Muslim Pilgrimage to Mecca
CNN correspondent Zain Verjee, in a report posted on CNN.com on January 17, likened the expected large crowds for the inauguration of Barack Obama to the Hajj, the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca: "The coming political pilgrimage to Washington is similar to another grand event in both size and preparation -- the Hajj, the most important religious pilgrimage in the Muslim world."
1 ABC: 'National Pride' Made Cold Feel Warmer While Seagulls 'Awed'
Offering the most hyperbolic take of the night on the crowds who attended President Obama's inauguration, on World News ABC's Bill Weir delighted in wondering "can national pride make a freezing day feel warmer?" He decided it can indeed since "never have so many people shivered so long with such joy" while "from above, even the seagulls must have been awed by the blanket of humanity." Weir was certainly awed. Meanwhile, over on the NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams must have been as awed as those seagulls since he contended he could "feel" the masses watching from around the nation: "While it was unfolding today here in Washington, you could feel the millions around the country who were watching it all."
2 Mitchell: Cell Cameras 'Seemed Like Stars Shining Back' at Obama
NBC's Andrea Mitchell encapsulated the veneration for Barack Obama and what his inauguration means to the media elite as she began a Tuesday NBC Nightly News story about her day watching the festivities: "It may take days or years to really absorb the significance of what happened to America today, even for those of us who were lucky enough to have a very close up front view." Showing a clip of the new President saying "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear," Mitchell proudly trumpeted: "His very name opening doors, as did his speech, to the rest of the world." And while most saw a sea of people waving flags, Mitchell saw something more meaningful for Obama, though it reflected more about her: "The mass flickering of cell phone cameras on the mall seemed like stars shining back at him."
3 NBC News Panel 'Emotional' and Cries Over Obama's Inauguration
The truly historic moment of the first African-American to be sworn-in as President cannot, nor should not, go without some comment but to the degree NBC News' anchors and reporters were willing to share their personal feelings, on air, about the moment was a bit remarkable for purported objective journalists. During NBC News' live coverage on Tuesday of Barack Obama's Inauguration, Meredith Vieira observed: "I think the hardest thing is, is not getting emotional because it is such an emotional morning, you just want to, you want to laugh, you want to cry," and later claimed she was "blissful." NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams admitted, repeatedly, that their panel, which included Tom Brokaw and Lester Holt broke down: "Lester and I were remarking that 'No Drama Obama,' kept it together, none of the rest of us did."
4. On Nightline, Obama's Ascension = 'America the Beautiful'
Nightline's slug for its Tuesday night story about President Obama's inauguration: "America the Beautiful." With that iconic song title on screen over images of Barack Obama being sworn in as President, President Obama and Michelle Obama walking during the parade and views of the crowd, at the top of the program ABC's Terry Moran plugged a segment: "America the Beautiful: The nation and the world pause to witness an extraordinary milestone as nearly two million people come together to hail the new chief and celebrate an era of change."
5 Tom Brokaw Cheers Obama Inauguration Like 'Velvet Revolution'
Reflecting on the mood of the crowd at Barack Obama's inauguration, NBC's Tom Brokaw likened it to when he was present for the fall of the communist regime in Czechoslovakia. During NBC's live coverage of Obama's swearing-in on Tuesday, Brokaw declared, "It reminds me of the Velvet Revolution," and while Brokaw noted "a communist regime," was not being overthrown he pointed out: "An unpopular President is leaving and people have been waiting for this moment."
6 Tom Brokaw Compares Dick Cheney in Wheelchair to Dr. Strangelove
As Dick Cheney was literally rolled out of office, in a wheelchair due to a packing accident, Tom Brokaw had one final kick out the door for the Vice President as he compared him to "Dr. Strangelove," the mad scientist title character from the film of the same name. During NBC News' live coverage of Tuesday's inaugural ceremonies Brokaw made the following observation of Cheney as he was being ushered towards Barack Obama's swearing-in ceremony at about 11:32am EST: "It's unfortunate for Vice President Cheney to have had this accident obviously, because there will be those who don't like him, who will be writing tomorrow that he had a Dr. Strangelove appearance as he appeared today in his wheelchair."
7 MSNBC: Bush Family Like Romanovs, Obama 'Oratorical Mt. Rushmore'
During Tuesday morning's inaugural coverage on MSNBC, Chris Matthews twice compared the Bush family to the Romanovs as he contended that the Bushes are now likely to go into hiding because of President Bush's unpopularity: "It's going to be like the Romanovs, too, and I mean that. There's a sense here that they are fallen from grace, that they're not popular, that the whole family will now go into retreat." Even liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson had to call him out on the exaggeration as it sounds like he says in the background that "it didn't happen exactly like the Romanovs," referring to the overthrow and execution of the Russian royal family after the Bolshevik communists seized power in 1917. A few minutes earlier, claiming "this isn't a partisan statement," Matthews raised the possibility that Obama could give such a good speech that he would join the "oratorical Mount Rushmore"
8 ABC's Gibson on Al Gore: 'Had He Gotten a Second Term...'
Less than an hour before Barack Obama took the oath of office, ABC News anchor Charles Gibson spotted former Vice President Al Gore arriving at the inauguration, and Gibson fantasized about how this could have been Gore's last day in office, not George W. Bush's. "Had he gotten a second term," Gibson began before correcting himself, "had he been elected President in the first place in the year 2000, and then gotten a second term -- he would be there as the outgoing President of the United States."
9 Matthews Gushes About How MSNBC 'Has Opened Its Heart to Change'
MSNBC's Chris Matthews, in his latest heart-palpitation over the new era of Barack Obama, marveled about how the crowds apparently reacted to his network's presence at the inauguration: "This is the network that has opened its heart to change -- to change and its possibilities. Let's be honest about it. These -- these people watch this network out here." His co-anchor, Keith Olbermann, jokingly seconded his observation: "He's Chris Matthews and he approved that message." Matthews then made an indirect slam at Obama's detractors: "We're not crotchety about change -- stuffy."
10 Matthews Criticizes Anti-Bush Booing, Olbermann Not So Much
During Tuesday morning's inaugural coverage on MSNBC, when spectators were heard booing President Bush as he was introduced, Chris Matthews seemed to become uncomfortable and criticized the protest as "bad form," remarking, "Don't do that. Don't boo, don't boo, don't boo." But minutes later, when protesters could be heard singing "Hey, hey, goodbye," co-anchor Keith Olbermann seemed to suggest that he was only bothered by the behavior because it distracted attention from Michelle Obama's introduction. Olbermann: "Far be it for me to have been critical of anyone critical of this President, obviously, but, unfortunately, during that demonstration, something of the introduction of Mrs. Obama was lost because people were singing the, they still are, the 'Hey, hey,' song from various sporting events over the year, towards the 43rd President."
11 ABC Enthuses 'New Face' of Obama; 'Driven by an Audacity to Hope'
Good Morning America kicked off its inauguration coverage on Tuesday with an anonymous announcer enthusiastically repeating the talking points of Barack Obama. During a 7am tease, this voice trumpeted: "Barack Obama sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. A new face from a new generation. Driven by an audacity to hope." The male announcer continued his introduction of the ABC show: "The nation's capital, filled to capacity. A journey of millions, fueled by hope and the shared dreams of a renewed America...And a call to overcome challenges not seen in generations." While discussing the throng of visitors descending on Washington D.C. a few minutes later, GMA host Diane Sawyer announced, "We saw a silent pilgrimage proceeding through this city."
12 CNN's Verjee: Obama Inauguration Like Muslim Pilgrimage to Mecca
CNN correspondent Zain Verjee, in a report posted on CNN.com on January 17, likened the expected large crowds for the inauguration of Barack Obama to the Hajj, the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca: "The coming political pilgrimage to Washington is similar to another grand event in both size and preparation -- the Hajj, the most important religious pilgrimage in the Muslim world."
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
WaPo: Will the White House and Congress find a better way to nominate and confirm judges?
Courting Common Sense. Washington Post Editorial
Will the White House and Congress find a better way to nominate and confirm judges?
WaPo, Wednesday, January 21, 2009; page A10
MIGHT A NEW administration and Congress bring a new approach to the handling of judicial nominations? Might pettiness give way to rationality and fair-mindedness? Don't count on it. But in such a week, we can hope.
Activists on both sides of the political spectrum already have started saber-rattling. Conservatives threaten to block "extreme" appointments by President Barack Obama without bothering to define what that means. In the process, they have all but abandoned their battle cry of the past eight years that the president is entitled to judges who reflect his "judicial philosophy." Liberal interest groups, many still bitter that the Clinton administration did not move the courts more to the left, are pressing the incoming administration to appoint "progressive" legal thinkers who can undo what they see as eight years worth of Republican damage.
There's room for improvement all around. President Bush was slow to name candidates to long-vacant seats. At times he ignored bipartisan recommendations and tapped hard-right nominees he knew had little chance of confirmation. This approach served to erode goodwill even with moderate Democrats. Democrats, meanwhile, at times engaged in unjustified filibusters and gross distortions of some nominees' records. During Mr. Bush's first term, the highly qualified Miguel Estrada was nominated to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, but the selection was filibustered and never given a floor vote. Democrats hid behind a flimsy, bureaucratic excuse to block the nomination. The real reason for opposition: Mr. Estrada, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Honduras, was seen as a top contender to become the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.
Mr. Bush's second term brought the nomination of Peter Keisler to the D.C. Circuit. Opponents used a long-standing controversy over the number of judicial slots and the workload of the D.C. Circuit to argue against Mr. Keisler; that opposition did not abate when Congress settled the workload matter.
We're under no illusions that the partisan mischief will end entirely with the start of a new administration. But we can hope for improvements -- for well-qualified nominees who are judged fairly on their merits.
Will the White House and Congress find a better way to nominate and confirm judges?
WaPo, Wednesday, January 21, 2009; page A10
MIGHT A NEW administration and Congress bring a new approach to the handling of judicial nominations? Might pettiness give way to rationality and fair-mindedness? Don't count on it. But in such a week, we can hope.
Activists on both sides of the political spectrum already have started saber-rattling. Conservatives threaten to block "extreme" appointments by President Barack Obama without bothering to define what that means. In the process, they have all but abandoned their battle cry of the past eight years that the president is entitled to judges who reflect his "judicial philosophy." Liberal interest groups, many still bitter that the Clinton administration did not move the courts more to the left, are pressing the incoming administration to appoint "progressive" legal thinkers who can undo what they see as eight years worth of Republican damage.
There's room for improvement all around. President Bush was slow to name candidates to long-vacant seats. At times he ignored bipartisan recommendations and tapped hard-right nominees he knew had little chance of confirmation. This approach served to erode goodwill even with moderate Democrats. Democrats, meanwhile, at times engaged in unjustified filibusters and gross distortions of some nominees' records. During Mr. Bush's first term, the highly qualified Miguel Estrada was nominated to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, but the selection was filibustered and never given a floor vote. Democrats hid behind a flimsy, bureaucratic excuse to block the nomination. The real reason for opposition: Mr. Estrada, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Honduras, was seen as a top contender to become the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.
Mr. Bush's second term brought the nomination of Peter Keisler to the D.C. Circuit. Opponents used a long-standing controversy over the number of judicial slots and the workload of the D.C. Circuit to argue against Mr. Keisler; that opposition did not abate when Congress settled the workload matter.
We're under no illusions that the partisan mischief will end entirely with the start of a new administration. But we can hope for improvements -- for well-qualified nominees who are judged fairly on their merits.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Bush's Real Sin Was Winning in Iraq
Bush's Real Sin Was Winning in Iraq, by William McGurn
WSJ, Jan 20, 2009
In a few hours, George W. Bush will walk out of the Oval Office for the last time as president. As he leaves, he carries with him the near-universal opprobrium of the permanent class that inhabits our nation's capital. Yet perhaps the most important reason for this unpopularity is the one least commented on.
Here's a hint: It's not because of his failures. To the contrary, Mr. Bush's disfavor in Washington owes more to his greatest success. Simply put, there are those who will never forgive Mr. Bush for not losing a war they had all declared unwinnable.
Here in the afterglow of the turnaround led by Gen. David Petraeus, it's easy to forget what the smart set was saying two years ago -- and how categorical they all were in their certainty. The president was a simpleton, it was agreed. Didn't he know that Iraq was a civil war, and the only answer was to get out as fast as we could?
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- the man who will be sworn in as vice president today -- didn't limit himself to his own opinion. Days before the president announced the surge, Joe Biden suggested to the Washington Post he knew the president's people had also concluded the war was lost. They were, he said, just trying to "keep it from totally collapsing" until they could "hand it off to the next guy."
For his part, on the night Mr. Bush announced the surge, Barack Obama said he was "not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Three months after that, before the surge had even started, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pronounced the war in Iraq "lost." These and similar comments, moreover, were amplified by a media echo chamber even more absolute in its sense of hopelessness about Iraq and its contempt for the president.
For many of these critics, the template for understanding Iraq was Vietnam -- especially after things started to get tough. In terms of the wars themselves, of course, there is almost no parallel between Vietnam and Iraq: The enemies are different, the fighting on the ground is different, the involvement of other powers is different, and so on.
Still, the operating metaphor of Vietnam has never been military. For the most part, it is political. And in this realm, we saw history repeat itself: a failure of nerve among the same class that endorsed the original action.
As with Vietnam, with Iraq the failure of nerve was most clear in Congress. For example, of the five active Democratic senators who sought the nomination, four voted in favor of the Iraqi intervention before discovering their antiwar selves.
As in Vietnam too, rather than finding their judgment questioned, those who flip-flopped on the war were held up as voices of reason. In a memorable editorial advocating a pullout, the New York Times gave voice to the chilling possibilities that this new realism was willing to accept in the name of bringing our soldiers home.
"Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave," read the editorial. "There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide." Even genocide. With no hint of irony, the Times nevertheless went on to conclude that it would be even worse if we stayed.
This is Vietnam thinking. And the president never accepted it. That was why his critics went ape when, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he touched on the killing fields and exodus of boat people that followed America's humiliating exit off an embassy rooftop. As the Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti noted, Mr. Bush had appropriated one of their most cherished analogies -- only he drew very different lessons from it.
Mr. Bush's success in Iraq is equally infuriating, because it showed he was right and they wrong. Many in Washington have not yet admitted that, even to themselves. Mr. Obama has. We know he has because he has elected to keep Mr. Bush's secretary of defense -- not something you do with a failure.
Mr. Obama seems aware that, at the end of the day, he will not be judged by his predecessor's approval ratings. Instead, he will soon find himself under pressure to measure up to two Bush achievements: a strategic victory in Iraq, and the prevention of another attack on America's home soil. As he rises to this challenge, our new president will learn that when you make a mistake, the keepers of the Beltway's received orthodoxies will make you pay dearly.
But it will not even be close to the price you pay for ignoring their advice and succeeding.
WSJ, Jan 20, 2009
In a few hours, George W. Bush will walk out of the Oval Office for the last time as president. As he leaves, he carries with him the near-universal opprobrium of the permanent class that inhabits our nation's capital. Yet perhaps the most important reason for this unpopularity is the one least commented on.
Here's a hint: It's not because of his failures. To the contrary, Mr. Bush's disfavor in Washington owes more to his greatest success. Simply put, there are those who will never forgive Mr. Bush for not losing a war they had all declared unwinnable.
Here in the afterglow of the turnaround led by Gen. David Petraeus, it's easy to forget what the smart set was saying two years ago -- and how categorical they all were in their certainty. The president was a simpleton, it was agreed. Didn't he know that Iraq was a civil war, and the only answer was to get out as fast as we could?
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- the man who will be sworn in as vice president today -- didn't limit himself to his own opinion. Days before the president announced the surge, Joe Biden suggested to the Washington Post he knew the president's people had also concluded the war was lost. They were, he said, just trying to "keep it from totally collapsing" until they could "hand it off to the next guy."
For his part, on the night Mr. Bush announced the surge, Barack Obama said he was "not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Three months after that, before the surge had even started, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pronounced the war in Iraq "lost." These and similar comments, moreover, were amplified by a media echo chamber even more absolute in its sense of hopelessness about Iraq and its contempt for the president.
For many of these critics, the template for understanding Iraq was Vietnam -- especially after things started to get tough. In terms of the wars themselves, of course, there is almost no parallel between Vietnam and Iraq: The enemies are different, the fighting on the ground is different, the involvement of other powers is different, and so on.
Still, the operating metaphor of Vietnam has never been military. For the most part, it is political. And in this realm, we saw history repeat itself: a failure of nerve among the same class that endorsed the original action.
As with Vietnam, with Iraq the failure of nerve was most clear in Congress. For example, of the five active Democratic senators who sought the nomination, four voted in favor of the Iraqi intervention before discovering their antiwar selves.
As in Vietnam too, rather than finding their judgment questioned, those who flip-flopped on the war were held up as voices of reason. In a memorable editorial advocating a pullout, the New York Times gave voice to the chilling possibilities that this new realism was willing to accept in the name of bringing our soldiers home.
"Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave," read the editorial. "There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide." Even genocide. With no hint of irony, the Times nevertheless went on to conclude that it would be even worse if we stayed.
This is Vietnam thinking. And the president never accepted it. That was why his critics went ape when, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he touched on the killing fields and exodus of boat people that followed America's humiliating exit off an embassy rooftop. As the Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti noted, Mr. Bush had appropriated one of their most cherished analogies -- only he drew very different lessons from it.
Mr. Bush's success in Iraq is equally infuriating, because it showed he was right and they wrong. Many in Washington have not yet admitted that, even to themselves. Mr. Obama has. We know he has because he has elected to keep Mr. Bush's secretary of defense -- not something you do with a failure.
Mr. Obama seems aware that, at the end of the day, he will not be judged by his predecessor's approval ratings. Instead, he will soon find himself under pressure to measure up to two Bush achievements: a strategic victory in Iraq, and the prevention of another attack on America's home soil. As he rises to this challenge, our new president will learn that when you make a mistake, the keepers of the Beltway's received orthodoxies will make you pay dearly.
But it will not even be close to the price you pay for ignoring their advice and succeeding.
TNYT: 70% of all contries are more energy efficient than the US
Massive Confusion in the New York Times, by Roger Pielke, Jr.
Prometheus, January 19th, 2009
Today’s New York Times has an editorial in which it claims that:
The plain truth is that the United States is an inefficient user of energy. For each dollar of economic product, the United States spews more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than 75 of 107 countries tracked in the indicators of the International Energy Agency. Those doing better include not only cutting-edge nations like Japan but low-tech countries like Thailand and Mexico.
The first problem with this set of claims is that the New York Times confuses energy efficiency with carbon dioxide intensity of the economy. The second error is that the New York Times uses market exchange rates as the basis for evaluating U.S. carbon dioxide per dollar of GDP against other countries, rather than the more appropriate metric of international GDP comparisons using purchasing power parities.
So the New York Times makes a muddle of reality when it suggests that the United States is an “inefficient user of energy” suggesting that 70% of all contries are more efficient than the United States.
This is just wrong.
Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration on energy consumption (BTUs) per unit of GDP (PPP) shows that the United States is more efficient than about 68% of all countries. Similarly, the United States emissions of carbon dioxide per unit of GDP is better than 69% of countries.
To be sure, there are a number of countries that make excellent models for how the United States might become more efficient and reduce the carbon intensity of its economy, including Japan and Germany. However, as models to emulate, Mexico and Thailand, as suggested by the Times, are probably not the best examples.
Decarbonizing the economy will be an enormous task. It will be impossible if the problem is fundamentally misunderstood.
Prometheus, January 19th, 2009
Today’s New York Times has an editorial in which it claims that:
The plain truth is that the United States is an inefficient user of energy. For each dollar of economic product, the United States spews more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than 75 of 107 countries tracked in the indicators of the International Energy Agency. Those doing better include not only cutting-edge nations like Japan but low-tech countries like Thailand and Mexico.
The first problem with this set of claims is that the New York Times confuses energy efficiency with carbon dioxide intensity of the economy. The second error is that the New York Times uses market exchange rates as the basis for evaluating U.S. carbon dioxide per dollar of GDP against other countries, rather than the more appropriate metric of international GDP comparisons using purchasing power parities.
So the New York Times makes a muddle of reality when it suggests that the United States is an “inefficient user of energy” suggesting that 70% of all contries are more efficient than the United States.
This is just wrong.
Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration on energy consumption (BTUs) per unit of GDP (PPP) shows that the United States is more efficient than about 68% of all countries. Similarly, the United States emissions of carbon dioxide per unit of GDP is better than 69% of countries.
To be sure, there are a number of countries that make excellent models for how the United States might become more efficient and reduce the carbon intensity of its economy, including Japan and Germany. However, as models to emulate, Mexico and Thailand, as suggested by the Times, are probably not the best examples.
Decarbonizing the economy will be an enormous task. It will be impossible if the problem is fundamentally misunderstood.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
History of Double Standards: Clinton Touted as Sturdy-Jawed Icon; Bush's Speech Paired with Funeral
Media Mudballs Unlikely for Obama Inaugural. By Rich Noyes, MRC Research Director
History of Double Standards: Clinton Touted as Sturdy-Jawed Icon; Bush's Speech Paired with Funeral.
Media Research Center, January 15, 2009
The news media are giddy with excitement as Barack Obama's Inauguration Day approaches -- CNN's Jim Acosta on Tuesday's American Morning touted how "Obama has some big shoes to fill, roughly the size of the ones up on the Lincoln Memorial....Barack Obama's inaugural address may be more than the speech of his lifetime. Historians and speechwriters say it could be one for the ages."
But it would be a mistake to think reporters are always so worshipful of new presidents. While most presidents do start with a media honeymoon, a review of the past 20 years finds reporters are more celebratory when Democrats are taking over the White House, while coverage of GOP inaugurals has included a fair number of anti-conservative stinkbombs:
# 1989. TV reporters chose to salute the incoming President George Bush by slamming the more conservative Ronald Reagan. ABC's Richard Threlkeld went to Overtown, a riot-scarred area of Miami, for Inauguration Day: "After eight years of what many saw as the Reagan administration's benign neglect of the poor and studied indifference to civil rights, a lot of those who lived through this week in Overtown seemed to think the best thing about George Bush is that he is not Ronald Reagan," Threlkeld claimed on the January 20, 1989 World News Tonight. "There is an Overtown in every big city in America -- pockets of misery made even meaner and more desperate the past eight years."
On NBC, anchor Bryant Gumbel praised Bush's speech as signaling "a new activism, a new engagement in the lives of others, a yearning for greater tolerance....Basically a rejection of everything that the Reagan years had been about."
# 1993. Bill Clinton's arrival was touted with the same fervor now bestowed on Obama. The New York Times asked in a January 3, 1993 headline: "Clinton as National Idol: Can the Honeymoon Last?" Newsweek magazine ran TV ads touting its commemorative edition "that's sure to be a collector's item because it covers the most important inauguration of our lifetime." Wall Street Journal reporter Jill Abramson -- now managing editor of news at the New York Times -- confessed: "It's an exciting time to be in Washington....People are excited. They're happy about change....I think you're going to see crowds for these inaugural events the likes of which we haven't seen in Washington ever."
# 1997. Clinton's second inaugural inspired just as much hero-worship. Howard Rosenberg reviewed Clinton's speech for the Los Angeles Times: "His sturdy jaw precedes him. He smiles from sea to shining sea. Is this President a candidate for Mt. Rushmore or what?...In fact, when it comes to influencing the public, a single medley of expressions from Clinton may be worth much more, to much of America, than every ugly accusation Paula Jones can muster."
# 2001. After the long recount, reporters applied an asterisk to Bush's first inaugural. NBC's Maria Shriver emphasized "millions of people who felt disenfranchised by this election, who don't feel that he's their President yet." On ABC, George Stephanopoulos warned Bush to avoid conservative policies: "With a 50-50 Senate and a tiny margin in the House, and a majority in the country who actually voted against President Bush, he'll be able to fulfill that central promise of unifying the country only if he's willing to compromise."
# 2005. Bush's second inaugural was met with far more hostility, with reporters attacking the $40 million price tag as obscene. "In a time of war and natural disaster, is it time for a lavish celebration?" ABC's Terry Moran doubted. The AP's Will Lester calculated that the money spent on Bush's inaugural could vaccinate "22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami....Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?" (Obama's inaugural will cost $45 million.)
The day before Bush's swearing-in, ABC's Web site pleaded for tips of "any military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 20." Sure enough, then-ABC anchor Peter Jennings got his wish to report how "just about the time the president was speaking, there was a funeral for a young Marine reservist: 21-year-old Matthew Holloway was killed in Iraq last week by a roadside bomb." Don't look for the networks to use such tactics to sour Obama's celebration.
h/t: No media mudballs this time, by Paul MirengoffPowerLine Blog, January 16, 2009 at 11:52 AM
History of Double Standards: Clinton Touted as Sturdy-Jawed Icon; Bush's Speech Paired with Funeral.
Media Research Center, January 15, 2009
The news media are giddy with excitement as Barack Obama's Inauguration Day approaches -- CNN's Jim Acosta on Tuesday's American Morning touted how "Obama has some big shoes to fill, roughly the size of the ones up on the Lincoln Memorial....Barack Obama's inaugural address may be more than the speech of his lifetime. Historians and speechwriters say it could be one for the ages."
But it would be a mistake to think reporters are always so worshipful of new presidents. While most presidents do start with a media honeymoon, a review of the past 20 years finds reporters are more celebratory when Democrats are taking over the White House, while coverage of GOP inaugurals has included a fair number of anti-conservative stinkbombs:
# 1989. TV reporters chose to salute the incoming President George Bush by slamming the more conservative Ronald Reagan. ABC's Richard Threlkeld went to Overtown, a riot-scarred area of Miami, for Inauguration Day: "After eight years of what many saw as the Reagan administration's benign neglect of the poor and studied indifference to civil rights, a lot of those who lived through this week in Overtown seemed to think the best thing about George Bush is that he is not Ronald Reagan," Threlkeld claimed on the January 20, 1989 World News Tonight. "There is an Overtown in every big city in America -- pockets of misery made even meaner and more desperate the past eight years."
On NBC, anchor Bryant Gumbel praised Bush's speech as signaling "a new activism, a new engagement in the lives of others, a yearning for greater tolerance....Basically a rejection of everything that the Reagan years had been about."
# 1993. Bill Clinton's arrival was touted with the same fervor now bestowed on Obama. The New York Times asked in a January 3, 1993 headline: "Clinton as National Idol: Can the Honeymoon Last?" Newsweek magazine ran TV ads touting its commemorative edition "that's sure to be a collector's item because it covers the most important inauguration of our lifetime." Wall Street Journal reporter Jill Abramson -- now managing editor of news at the New York Times -- confessed: "It's an exciting time to be in Washington....People are excited. They're happy about change....I think you're going to see crowds for these inaugural events the likes of which we haven't seen in Washington ever."
# 1997. Clinton's second inaugural inspired just as much hero-worship. Howard Rosenberg reviewed Clinton's speech for the Los Angeles Times: "His sturdy jaw precedes him. He smiles from sea to shining sea. Is this President a candidate for Mt. Rushmore or what?...In fact, when it comes to influencing the public, a single medley of expressions from Clinton may be worth much more, to much of America, than every ugly accusation Paula Jones can muster."
# 2001. After the long recount, reporters applied an asterisk to Bush's first inaugural. NBC's Maria Shriver emphasized "millions of people who felt disenfranchised by this election, who don't feel that he's their President yet." On ABC, George Stephanopoulos warned Bush to avoid conservative policies: "With a 50-50 Senate and a tiny margin in the House, and a majority in the country who actually voted against President Bush, he'll be able to fulfill that central promise of unifying the country only if he's willing to compromise."
# 2005. Bush's second inaugural was met with far more hostility, with reporters attacking the $40 million price tag as obscene. "In a time of war and natural disaster, is it time for a lavish celebration?" ABC's Terry Moran doubted. The AP's Will Lester calculated that the money spent on Bush's inaugural could vaccinate "22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami....Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?" (Obama's inaugural will cost $45 million.)
The day before Bush's swearing-in, ABC's Web site pleaded for tips of "any military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 20." Sure enough, then-ABC anchor Peter Jennings got his wish to report how "just about the time the president was speaking, there was a funeral for a young Marine reservist: 21-year-old Matthew Holloway was killed in Iraq last week by a roadside bomb." Don't look for the networks to use such tactics to sour Obama's celebration.
h/t: No media mudballs this time, by Paul MirengoffPowerLine Blog, January 16, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Monday, January 12, 2009
RealClimate: Communicating the Science of Climate Change
Communicating the Science of Climate Change, by Mike Donald
Real Climate, January 12, 2009 @ 9:14 AM
It is perhaps self-evident that those of us here at RealClimate have a keen interest in the topic of science communication. A number of us have written books aimed at communicating the science to the lay public, and have participated in forums devoted to the topic of science communication (see e.g. here, here, and here). We have often written here about the challenges of communicating science to the public in the modern media environment (see e.g. here, here, and here).
It is naturally our pleasure, in this vein, to bring to the attention of our readers a masterful new book on this topic by veteran environmental journalist and journalism educator Bud Ward. The book, entitled Communicating on Climate Change: An Essential Resource for Journalists, Scientists, and Educators, details the lessons learned in a series of Metcalf Institute workshops held over the past few years, funded by the National Science Foundation, and co-organized by Ward and AMS senior science and communications fellow Tony Socci. These workshops have collectively brought together numerous leading members of the environmental journalism and climate science communities in an effort to develop recommendations that might help bridge the cultural divide between these two communities that sometimes impedes accurate and effective science communication.
I had the privilege of participating in a couple of the workshops, including the inaugural workshop in Rhode Island in November 2003. The discussions emerging from these workshops were, at least in part, the inspiration behind "RealClimate". The workshops formed the foundation for this new book, which is an appropriate resource for scientists, journalists, editors, and others interested in science communication and popularization. In addition to instructive chapters such as "Science for Journalism", "Journalism for Scientists" and "What Institutions Can Do", the book is interspersed with a number of insightful essays by leading scientists (e.g. "Mediarology–The Role of Climate Scientists in Debunking Climate Change Myths" by Stephen Schneider) and environmental journalists (e.g. "Hot Words" by Andy Revkin). We hope this book will serve as a standard reference for how to effectively communicate the science of climate change.
Real Climate, January 12, 2009 @ 9:14 AM
It is perhaps self-evident that those of us here at RealClimate have a keen interest in the topic of science communication. A number of us have written books aimed at communicating the science to the lay public, and have participated in forums devoted to the topic of science communication (see e.g. here, here, and here). We have often written here about the challenges of communicating science to the public in the modern media environment (see e.g. here, here, and here).
It is naturally our pleasure, in this vein, to bring to the attention of our readers a masterful new book on this topic by veteran environmental journalist and journalism educator Bud Ward. The book, entitled Communicating on Climate Change: An Essential Resource for Journalists, Scientists, and Educators, details the lessons learned in a series of Metcalf Institute workshops held over the past few years, funded by the National Science Foundation, and co-organized by Ward and AMS senior science and communications fellow Tony Socci. These workshops have collectively brought together numerous leading members of the environmental journalism and climate science communities in an effort to develop recommendations that might help bridge the cultural divide between these two communities that sometimes impedes accurate and effective science communication.
I had the privilege of participating in a couple of the workshops, including the inaugural workshop in Rhode Island in November 2003. The discussions emerging from these workshops were, at least in part, the inspiration behind "RealClimate". The workshops formed the foundation for this new book, which is an appropriate resource for scientists, journalists, editors, and others interested in science communication and popularization. In addition to instructive chapters such as "Science for Journalism", "Journalism for Scientists" and "What Institutions Can Do", the book is interspersed with a number of insightful essays by leading scientists (e.g. "Mediarology–The Role of Climate Scientists in Debunking Climate Change Myths" by Stephen Schneider) and environmental journalists (e.g. "Hot Words" by Andy Revkin). We hope this book will serve as a standard reference for how to effectively communicate the science of climate change.
"Fiel a los últimos ocho años, Paulson no da explicaciones sobre su estrategia, no responde las preguntas y no lleva siquiera claras las cuentas"
Sent to Gabriel Herrero's blog in the federally owned Spanish radio and TV company, RTVE, as comment to this post:
Respecto a "Fiel a los últimos ocho años, Paulson no da explicaciones sobre su estrategia, no responde las preguntas y no lleva siquiera claras las cuentas", indudablemente siempre se puede hacer mejor. Sin embargo, los comités del Congreso, celosos de sus poderes y preocupados sinceramente por sus deberes con los ciudadanos, pueden ser y son con frequencia un poquito dramáticos con sus explicaciones y sus informes. Vean discursos, minutas de reuniones, informes periódicos o irregulares, etc., enviados por el departamento [de Mr Paulson] al Congreso:
1 Explicaciones de Treasury Dept. en forma de press releases & statements (formato de fecha: mes/dÃa/año):
01/06/2009 Treasury Releases Congressional Report on EESA
01/02/2009 Treasury Releases Guidelines for Targeted Investment Program
01/02/2009 Treasury Releases Emergency Economic Stabilization Report
12/31/2008 Treasury Releases Responses to Congressional Oversight Panel
12/29/2008 Treasury Announces TARP Investment in GMAC
12/23/2008 Treasury Provides TARP Funds to Local Banks
12/19/2008 Secretary Paulson’s Statement on Stabilizing the Auto Industry
12/19/2008 Treasury Term Sheets for Automotive Plan
12/17/2008 Treasury Hires Legal Firm Under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
12/10/2008 Interim Asst Sec Kashkari Testimony Before House Financial Services Committee
12/08/2008 Interim Asst Sec Kashkari Update on the TARP Program
12/05/2008 Interim Asst Sec Kashkari Remarks on Financial Markets and TARP Update
12/04/2008 Kashkari Testimony Before Senate Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee
12/01/2008 Paulson Remarks on the U.S. Economy and Financial System
11/25/2008 Secretary Paulson Remarks on Consumer ABS Lending Facility
11/25/2008 Treasury Provides TARP Funds to Federal Reserve Consumer ABS Lending Facility
11/23/2008 Joint Statement by Treasury, Fed and the FDIC on Citigroup
11/19/2008/ Interim Assistant Secretary Kashkari Remarks on Implementation of the EESA
11/18/2008 Paulson Testimony before the House Committee on Financial Services
11/17/2008 Treasury Releases Capital Purchase Program Term Sheet for Privately Held Financial Institutions
11/14/2008 Interim Asst Sec Kashkari Testimony Before House Committee on Oversight and Govt. Reform
11/12/2008 Paulson Remarks on Financial Rescue Package and Economic Update
11/10/2008 Interim Asst Sec Kashkari Remarks at SIFMA Summit on the TARP 11/10/2008 Treasury to Invest in AIG Restructuring 11/07/2008 Treasury Announces Solicitation for Financial Agents
11/03/2008 Treasury Hires Legal Firms Under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act 10/28/2008 Acting Under Sec Ryan Remarks at the SIFMA Annual Meeting
10/23/2008 Interim Asst Sec Kashkari Testimony Before Senate Banking Committee
10/22/2008 Treasury Names Interim Chief Investment Officer for TARP 10/21/2008 Treasury Hires Accounting Firms Under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
10/20/2008 Paulson Statement on Capital Purchase Program10/20/2008 Treasury Issues Guidance on Capital Purchase Program
10/16/2008 Treasury Hires Legal Adviser Under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act10/14/2008 U.S. Government Actions to Strengthen Market Stability 10/14/2008 Treasury Announces Executive Compensation Rules Under the EESA
10/14/2008 Treasury Announces TARP Capital Purchase Program Description
10/14/2008 Joint Statement by Treasury, Federal Reserve and FDIC
10/14/2008 Paulson Statement on Actions to Protect the U.S. Economy
10/14/2008 Treasury Hires Custodian Under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
10/13/2008 Treasury Hires Investment Adviser Under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
10/13/2008 Interim Asst Sec Kashkari Remarks on Implementation of Economic Stabilization Act
10/06/2008 Treasury Announces Solicitations for Financial Agents
10/06/2008 Kashkari Appointed Interim Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability 10/06/2008 Procurement Authorities and Procedures
10/06/2008 Statement by the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets
10/03/2008 Paulson Statement on Bill Passage
09/29/2008 Paulson Statement on Emergency Economic Stabilization Act Vote
09/28/2008 Paulson Statement on Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
09/24/2008 Paulson Testimony before the House
09/23/2008 Paulson Testimony before the Senate
09/22/2008 G7 Statement on Global Financial Market Turmoil
09/19/2008 Statement on Comprehensive Approach to Market Developments
2 Informes enviados al Congreso sobre transacciones del programa conocido como TARP (mes/dÃa/año, PDFs):
01/06/2009
01/05/2009
12/31/2008
12/29/2008
12/23/2008
12/16/2008
12/09/2008
11/26/2008
11/25/2008
11/17/2008
10/29/2008
3 Los llamados tranche reports (mes/dÃa/año, PDFs):
1/8/2009 Tranche Report
12/02/2008 Tranche Report
11/21/2008 Tranche Report
11/03/3008 Tranche Report
4 Explicaciones sobre los programas generados a partir de la legislación EESA (PDFs):
. Capital Purchase Program
. Systemically Significant Failing Institutions Program
. Automotive Industry Financing Program
. Targeted Investment Program
5 Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 102 of the EES Act: Dec 31, 2008, PDF
6 Reports to Congress Pursuant to Section 105 of the EES Act, PDFs:
Jan 06, 2009Dec 05, 2008
7 Interim Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability Neel Kashkari Remarks at Brookings Institution, Jan 08, 2009:http://bipartisanalliance.blogspot.com/2009/01/interim-assistant-secretary-for.html
8 Remarks by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. on The Role of the GSEs in Supporting the Housing Recovery before the Economic Club of Washington, Treasury Dept, January 7, 2009:http://bipartisanalliance.blogspot.com/2009/01/sec-paulson-on-role-of-gses-in.html
9 Minutas de reuniones: Financial Stability Oversight Board (mes/dÃa/año):
10/07/2008
10/13/2008
10/22/2008
11/09/2008
12/10/2008
Todos estos documentos se pueden pedir al servicio de prensa de la embajada más cercana. Si quieren nos los pueden pedir a nosotros.
Para estar al tanto de los nuevos documentos que se produzcan, pueden suscribirse a un servicio de envÃo por e-mail del propio Treasury Dept.: https://service.govdelivery.com/service/subscribe.html?code=USTREAS_145
Atentamente,
Jorge Mata
Bipartisan Alliance
Respecto a "Fiel a los últimos ocho años, Paulson no da explicaciones sobre su estrategia, no responde las preguntas y no lleva siquiera claras las cuentas", indudablemente siempre se puede hacer mejor. Sin embargo, los comités del Congreso, celosos de sus poderes y preocupados sinceramente por sus deberes con los ciudadanos, pueden ser y son con frequencia un poquito dramáticos con sus explicaciones y sus informes. Vean discursos, minutas de reuniones, informes periódicos o irregulares, etc., enviados por el departamento [de Mr Paulson] al Congreso:
1 Explicaciones de Treasury Dept. en forma de press releases & statements (formato de fecha: mes/dÃa/año):
01/06/2009 Treasury Releases Congressional Report on EESA
01/02/2009 Treasury Releases Guidelines for Targeted Investment Program
01/02/2009 Treasury Releases Emergency Economic Stabilization Report
12/31/2008 Treasury Releases Responses to Congressional Oversight Panel
12/29/2008 Treasury Announces TARP Investment in GMAC
12/23/2008 Treasury Provides TARP Funds to Local Banks
12/19/2008 Secretary Paulson’s Statement on Stabilizing the Auto Industry
12/19/2008 Treasury Term Sheets for Automotive Plan
12/17/2008 Treasury Hires Legal Firm Under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
12/10/2008 Interim Asst Sec Kashkari Testimony Before House Financial Services Committee
12/08/2008 Interim Asst Sec Kashkari Update on the TARP Program
12/05/2008 Interim Asst Sec Kashkari Remarks on Financial Markets and TARP Update
12/04/2008 Kashkari Testimony Before Senate Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee
12/01/2008 Paulson Remarks on the U.S. Economy and Financial System
11/25/2008 Secretary Paulson Remarks on Consumer ABS Lending Facility
11/25/2008 Treasury Provides TARP Funds to Federal Reserve Consumer ABS Lending Facility
11/23/2008 Joint Statement by Treasury, Fed and the FDIC on Citigroup
11/19/2008/ Interim Assistant Secretary Kashkari Remarks on Implementation of the EESA
11/18/2008 Paulson Testimony before the House Committee on Financial Services
11/17/2008 Treasury Releases Capital Purchase Program Term Sheet for Privately Held Financial Institutions
11/14/2008 Interim Asst Sec Kashkari Testimony Before House Committee on Oversight and Govt. Reform
11/12/2008 Paulson Remarks on Financial Rescue Package and Economic Update
11/10/2008 Interim Asst Sec Kashkari Remarks at SIFMA Summit on the TARP 11/10/2008 Treasury to Invest in AIG Restructuring 11/07/2008 Treasury Announces Solicitation for Financial Agents
11/03/2008 Treasury Hires Legal Firms Under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act 10/28/2008 Acting Under Sec Ryan Remarks at the SIFMA Annual Meeting
10/23/2008 Interim Asst Sec Kashkari Testimony Before Senate Banking Committee
10/22/2008 Treasury Names Interim Chief Investment Officer for TARP 10/21/2008 Treasury Hires Accounting Firms Under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
10/20/2008 Paulson Statement on Capital Purchase Program10/20/2008 Treasury Issues Guidance on Capital Purchase Program
10/16/2008 Treasury Hires Legal Adviser Under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act10/14/2008 U.S. Government Actions to Strengthen Market Stability 10/14/2008 Treasury Announces Executive Compensation Rules Under the EESA
10/14/2008 Treasury Announces TARP Capital Purchase Program Description
10/14/2008 Joint Statement by Treasury, Federal Reserve and FDIC
10/14/2008 Paulson Statement on Actions to Protect the U.S. Economy
10/14/2008 Treasury Hires Custodian Under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
10/13/2008 Treasury Hires Investment Adviser Under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
10/13/2008 Interim Asst Sec Kashkari Remarks on Implementation of Economic Stabilization Act
10/06/2008 Treasury Announces Solicitations for Financial Agents
10/06/2008 Kashkari Appointed Interim Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability 10/06/2008 Procurement Authorities and Procedures
10/06/2008 Statement by the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets
10/03/2008 Paulson Statement on Bill Passage
09/29/2008 Paulson Statement on Emergency Economic Stabilization Act Vote
09/28/2008 Paulson Statement on Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
09/24/2008 Paulson Testimony before the House
09/23/2008 Paulson Testimony before the Senate
09/22/2008 G7 Statement on Global Financial Market Turmoil
09/19/2008 Statement on Comprehensive Approach to Market Developments
2 Informes enviados al Congreso sobre transacciones del programa conocido como TARP (mes/dÃa/año, PDFs):
01/06/2009
01/05/2009
12/31/2008
12/29/2008
12/23/2008
12/16/2008
12/09/2008
11/26/2008
11/25/2008
11/17/2008
10/29/2008
3 Los llamados tranche reports (mes/dÃa/año, PDFs):
1/8/2009 Tranche Report
12/02/2008 Tranche Report
11/21/2008 Tranche Report
11/03/3008 Tranche Report
4 Explicaciones sobre los programas generados a partir de la legislación EESA (PDFs):
. Capital Purchase Program
. Systemically Significant Failing Institutions Program
. Automotive Industry Financing Program
. Targeted Investment Program
5 Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 102 of the EES Act: Dec 31, 2008, PDF
6 Reports to Congress Pursuant to Section 105 of the EES Act, PDFs:
Jan 06, 2009Dec 05, 2008
7 Interim Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability Neel Kashkari Remarks at Brookings Institution, Jan 08, 2009:http://bipartisanalliance.blogspot.com/2009/01/interim-assistant-secretary-for.html
8 Remarks by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. on The Role of the GSEs in Supporting the Housing Recovery before the Economic Club of Washington, Treasury Dept, January 7, 2009:http://bipartisanalliance.blogspot.com/2009/01/sec-paulson-on-role-of-gses-in.html
9 Minutas de reuniones: Financial Stability Oversight Board (mes/dÃa/año):
10/07/2008
10/13/2008
10/22/2008
11/09/2008
12/10/2008
Todos estos documentos se pueden pedir al servicio de prensa de la embajada más cercana. Si quieren nos los pueden pedir a nosotros.
Para estar al tanto de los nuevos documentos que se produzcan, pueden suscribirse a un servicio de envÃo por e-mail del propio Treasury Dept.: https://service.govdelivery.com/service/subscribe.html?code=USTREAS_145
Atentamente,
Jorge Mata
Bipartisan Alliance
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Media Botches Story on Obama’s NASA Plans
Media Botches Story on Obama’s NASA Plans, by Rand Simberg
Panic over "tearing down" barriers between military and civilian space programs is much ado about nothing.
Pajamas Media, January 6, 2009
Excerpts:
[...]
The same thing happens in the news business, particularly when the reporters aren’t very familiar with the field on which they’re reporting — and particularly when they think they are more familiar than they actually are. We had a good example of this over the holidays, when Bloomberg news came out with a “[1] scoop.” The Obama transition team was considering recommending a merger of NASA and the Air Force, to address the threat of the Yellow Peril — Chinese beating us to the moon. Shortly afterward, it was breathlessly picked up by [2] Fox News, [3] DBTechno, and [4] the Register in the UK, probably among others.
The story was nonsensical on several levels, right from the very first paragraph:
While there may be “long-standing barriers” between civilian and military space programs — this is, in fact, why Dwight Eisenhower originally established a purely civilian space agency half a century ago — there is nothing in the article to indicate that they are going to be “torn down.” The only evidence that they come up with is that one of the options being considered for future human spaceflight is the so-called Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), specifically Boeing’s Delta IV and Lockheed Martin’s Atlas V:
The only problem with this is that — unless they are talking about some other vehicles, and if so, it’s hard to imagine what they are — the EELVs aren’t “military rockets.” Their development was subsidized with Air Force funds, but they were developed with Boeing and Lockheed Martin’s money as well, and they are commercial rockets, available to the military, commercial users, and NASA. There is no need to “tear down a barrier” for NASA to use them, as evidenced by the fact that NASA is already using them. For example, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter was blasted to orbit and off to Mars with an Atlas V/Centaur [5] over three years ago.
There is NASA resistance to using EELVs, but not because they are “military rockets.” It’s because they are seen as a threat to the agency’s — or more specifically, administrator Mike Griffin’s — desire to develop a new NASA-only vehicle, called Ares 1, and perhaps later, the larger version of it, Ares 5. If the EELVs become viewed as viable launchers for the human missions, the case for the Ares, already weak — particularly considering its [6] extensive development teething problems — becomes much weaker, perhaps to the point at which the program dies. (It should be noted that five years ago, prior to becoming NASA administrator, Dr. Griffin, who is [7] apparently desperately attempting to hang on to his job, had [8] no problems with using EELVs for crewed spaceflight.)
As for the “China space race” part, it makes little sense, either. This part is true, as far as it goes:
Yes, the Pentagon is legitimately concerned about the Chinese space threat, particularly since they have demonstrated the ability to destroy a low-earth-orbit satellite a couple of years ago, making a [9] terrible mess up there in the process. But this part of the story is a complete non sequitur:
Despite what some of the (non-transition) sources quoted say, there is little relationship between a human moon landing and space warfare in near-earth orbit. Guidance systems for the latter are easily developed in the absence of orbital rendezvous and docking, which have different requirements. And despite [10] myths promulgated by science fiction about being bombarded from the moon, it is really not a militarily useful high ground against the earth.
Yes, it will save costs if NASA can use existing, or modified existing, vehicles, but this wouldn’t involve any “tearing down of walls,” and it should be done regardless of what the Chinese are doing, simply to make the program more affordable and sustainable.
How did this confusing and misleading story happen? In an email from someone familiar with the transition team’s activities, it seems pretty simple:
Which demonstrates the old adage about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Unfortunately, to paraphrase Mark Twain, a confusing story can find its way halfway around the world — and perhaps to the moon — before the reality can get its boots on. Particularly at Internet speed.
[References in the original link above]
Panic over "tearing down" barriers between military and civilian space programs is much ado about nothing.
Pajamas Media, January 6, 2009
Excerpts:
[...]
The same thing happens in the news business, particularly when the reporters aren’t very familiar with the field on which they’re reporting — and particularly when they think they are more familiar than they actually are. We had a good example of this over the holidays, when Bloomberg news came out with a “[1] scoop.” The Obama transition team was considering recommending a merger of NASA and the Air Force, to address the threat of the Yellow Peril — Chinese beating us to the moon. Shortly afterward, it was breathlessly picked up by [2] Fox News, [3] DBTechno, and [4] the Register in the UK, probably among others.
The story was nonsensical on several levels, right from the very first paragraph:
President-elect Barack Obama will probably tear down long-standing barriers
between the U.S.’s civilian and military space programs to speed up a mission to
the moon amid the prospect of a new space race with China.
While there may be “long-standing barriers” between civilian and military space programs — this is, in fact, why Dwight Eisenhower originally established a purely civilian space agency half a century ago — there is nothing in the article to indicate that they are going to be “torn down.” The only evidence that they come up with is that one of the options being considered for future human spaceflight is the so-called Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), specifically Boeing’s Delta IV and Lockheed Martin’s Atlas V:
Obama’s transition team is considering a collaboration between the Defense
Department and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration because
military rockets may be cheaper and ready sooner than the space agency’s planned
launch vehicle, which isn’t slated to fly until 2015, according to people who’ve
discussed the idea with the Obama team.
The only problem with this is that — unless they are talking about some other vehicles, and if so, it’s hard to imagine what they are — the EELVs aren’t “military rockets.” Their development was subsidized with Air Force funds, but they were developed with Boeing and Lockheed Martin’s money as well, and they are commercial rockets, available to the military, commercial users, and NASA. There is no need to “tear down a barrier” for NASA to use them, as evidenced by the fact that NASA is already using them. For example, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter was blasted to orbit and off to Mars with an Atlas V/Centaur [5] over three years ago.
There is NASA resistance to using EELVs, but not because they are “military rockets.” It’s because they are seen as a threat to the agency’s — or more specifically, administrator Mike Griffin’s — desire to develop a new NASA-only vehicle, called Ares 1, and perhaps later, the larger version of it, Ares 5. If the EELVs become viewed as viable launchers for the human missions, the case for the Ares, already weak — particularly considering its [6] extensive development teething problems — becomes much weaker, perhaps to the point at which the program dies. (It should be noted that five years ago, prior to becoming NASA administrator, Dr. Griffin, who is [7] apparently desperately attempting to hang on to his job, had [8] no problems with using EELVs for crewed spaceflight.)
As for the “China space race” part, it makes little sense, either. This part is true, as far as it goes:
The potential change comes as Pentagon concerns are rising over China’s space
ambitions because of what is perceived as an eventual threat to U.S. defense
satellites, the lofty battlefield eyes of the military.
Yes, the Pentagon is legitimately concerned about the Chinese space threat, particularly since they have demonstrated the ability to destroy a low-earth-orbit satellite a couple of years ago, making a [9] terrible mess up there in the process. But this part of the story is a complete non sequitur:
China, which destroyed one of its aging satellites in a surprise missile test in
2007, is making strides in its spaceflight program. The military-run effort
carried out a first spacewalk in September and aims to land a robotic rover on
the moon in 2012, with a human mission several years later.
Despite what some of the (non-transition) sources quoted say, there is little relationship between a human moon landing and space warfare in near-earth orbit. Guidance systems for the latter are easily developed in the absence of orbital rendezvous and docking, which have different requirements. And despite [10] myths promulgated by science fiction about being bombarded from the moon, it is really not a militarily useful high ground against the earth.
Yes, it will save costs if NASA can use existing, or modified existing, vehicles, but this wouldn’t involve any “tearing down of walls,” and it should be done regardless of what the Chinese are doing, simply to make the program more affordable and sustainable.
How did this confusing and misleading story happen? In an email from someone familiar with the transition team’s activities, it seems pretty simple:
This story is very strange. We asked questions about EELVs; about how the DOD
and NASA cooperate; and what has been discussed with China. They were unrelated
questions. It seems as though the reporter tied them together for his odd
conclusion.
Which demonstrates the old adage about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Unfortunately, to paraphrase Mark Twain, a confusing story can find its way halfway around the world — and perhaps to the moon — before the reality can get its boots on. Particularly at Internet speed.
[References in the original link above]
Monday, January 5, 2009
Environmental reporters ought to be more responsible too
Environmental reporters ought to be more responsible too. By "eric"
Real Climate, Jan 03, 2009
At RealClimate, we have more than once been accused of being imbalanced — criticizing those who would deny the basic science of climate change, while leaving inflammatory statements by what might be called the "environmentalist side" without comment. It's not an entirely a fair criticism, because there is a world of difference between the willful obfuscation of science and the naive exaggeration of it. There are however plenty of silly, and sometimes outrageous, claims made - see e.g. the Telegraph on Jan. 3rd — and we probably ought to do a better job of calling these out, particularly when they show up in prominent places. So to inaugurate the New Year, I humbly offer a rant about a minor but illustrative example that I happened to notice because there was a link to it on Nature Reports Climate Change.
The subject of the linked article, in the British online newspaper The Independent, is the decline of various bird and butterfly species in England. The article, entitled Changing climate devastates UK species, reports that "insects in particular, and creatures that feed on insects…were sharply reduced in numbers" due to a "cold late spring, a wet summer, with few sunny days, and the long dry autumn…." Now I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the claim that 2008 was a hard year for UK insects and insectivores. But this is weather we're talking about, not climate. And while it is true that at least one prominent study shows that there has been an overall increase in rainfall in the latitude band that includes the UK, and that climate models reproduce this trend (see e.g. the Zhang et al. article in Nature, in 2007), one cannot, as we are fond of pointing out, attribute a single, or even several individual extreme weather events to "climate change".
Indeed, Peter Stott, a co-author on the Zhang et al. study noted, in reference to 2007 (the wettest summer on record in the UK) that "This latest study cannot make the link between climate change and what we have experienced so far this summer." Moreover, most projections actually suggest drier summers in the UK in the future, though with increased convection (so less total precipitation, but bigger rainstorms).
Another thing that bugs me about the Independent article is the suggestion that climate is becoming "more unpredictable". I suspect what is meant here is that we used to know what a mean season and normal variations were, and now we don't. That's valid, since the baseline climate is changing. But saying it this way — that "climate is becoming more unpredictable" is misleading. In fact, climate may, if anything, become more predictable as anthropogenic forcing becomes even more dominant (as greenhouse gas concentrations increase), relative to natural forcing and variability. And what is definitely not the case — but might be inferred from the article — is that weather is becoming more unpredictable. Weather prediction is based on observations just a few days in advance — climate and climate trends have nothing to do with it.
The point here is not that we shouldn't be concerned about the fate of insects and birds in the UK (that would be the kind of conclusion that only the most willfully ignorant would draw.) They have been in decline for a long time (mostly due to land use change and pesticides) and there is little doubt that climate change will continue to add insult to injury. But it is simply wrong to confuse a year or even two years of unfavorable weather with a change in climate, and it is irresponsible to headline an article that is really about weather with the provocative juxtaposition of "climate" and "devastates". Doing so gives the average reader the sense that their personal observations about "weird weather patterns" or fewer sightings of Parus caeruleus represent definitive manifestations of climate change. The fact is, climate changes are — so far — small enough in most places, relative to the natural variability, that one's personal experience is a very poor guide to what is happening over the long term (observations of sea ice changes by those that live in the high Arctic notwithstanding).
Real Climate, Jan 03, 2009
At RealClimate, we have more than once been accused of being imbalanced — criticizing those who would deny the basic science of climate change, while leaving inflammatory statements by what might be called the "environmentalist side" without comment. It's not an entirely a fair criticism, because there is a world of difference between the willful obfuscation of science and the naive exaggeration of it. There are however plenty of silly, and sometimes outrageous, claims made - see e.g. the Telegraph on Jan. 3rd — and we probably ought to do a better job of calling these out, particularly when they show up in prominent places. So to inaugurate the New Year, I humbly offer a rant about a minor but illustrative example that I happened to notice because there was a link to it on Nature Reports Climate Change.
The subject of the linked article, in the British online newspaper The Independent, is the decline of various bird and butterfly species in England. The article, entitled Changing climate devastates UK species, reports that "insects in particular, and creatures that feed on insects…were sharply reduced in numbers" due to a "cold late spring, a wet summer, with few sunny days, and the long dry autumn…." Now I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the claim that 2008 was a hard year for UK insects and insectivores. But this is weather we're talking about, not climate. And while it is true that at least one prominent study shows that there has been an overall increase in rainfall in the latitude band that includes the UK, and that climate models reproduce this trend (see e.g. the Zhang et al. article in Nature, in 2007), one cannot, as we are fond of pointing out, attribute a single, or even several individual extreme weather events to "climate change".
Indeed, Peter Stott, a co-author on the Zhang et al. study noted, in reference to 2007 (the wettest summer on record in the UK) that "This latest study cannot make the link between climate change and what we have experienced so far this summer." Moreover, most projections actually suggest drier summers in the UK in the future, though with increased convection (so less total precipitation, but bigger rainstorms).
Another thing that bugs me about the Independent article is the suggestion that climate is becoming "more unpredictable". I suspect what is meant here is that we used to know what a mean season and normal variations were, and now we don't. That's valid, since the baseline climate is changing. But saying it this way — that "climate is becoming more unpredictable" is misleading. In fact, climate may, if anything, become more predictable as anthropogenic forcing becomes even more dominant (as greenhouse gas concentrations increase), relative to natural forcing and variability. And what is definitely not the case — but might be inferred from the article — is that weather is becoming more unpredictable. Weather prediction is based on observations just a few days in advance — climate and climate trends have nothing to do with it.
The point here is not that we shouldn't be concerned about the fate of insects and birds in the UK (that would be the kind of conclusion that only the most willfully ignorant would draw.) They have been in decline for a long time (mostly due to land use change and pesticides) and there is little doubt that climate change will continue to add insult to injury. But it is simply wrong to confuse a year or even two years of unfavorable weather with a change in climate, and it is irresponsible to headline an article that is really about weather with the provocative juxtaposition of "climate" and "devastates". Doing so gives the average reader the sense that their personal observations about "weird weather patterns" or fewer sightings of Parus caeruleus represent definitive manifestations of climate change. The fact is, climate changes are — so far — small enough in most places, relative to the natural variability, that one's personal experience is a very poor guide to what is happening over the long term (observations of sea ice changes by those that live in the high Arctic notwithstanding).
Monday, December 22, 2008
WaPo Ombudsman: Too many Post staff members think alike; more diversity of opinion should be welcomed
Excerpts of Resolutions for a Better Post, by Deborah Howell, Washington Post Ombudsman
Sunday, December 21, 2008; Page B06
The Post is one of the best newspapers in the country -- so much better than the hollowed-out newspapers scattered across the landscape. As my term ends, I'd like to again point out ways that The Post can enhance its accessibility, credibility and appeal to readers in this time of economic stress.
[...]
Transparency
· The Post should post its admirable ethics and standards guidelines on washingtonpost.com for all to see. You can find parts of them on the Web site of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. The Post challenges the ethics of others; the paper's policies, which are reasonable and elegantly written, should be public and easy to find. I've fought for this internally, but it hasn't happened.
· The Post needs to be better about attributing information and identifying sources. Readers deserve to know where information comes from. Too often the attribution is to anonymous sources, to "sources close to" this official or to "intelligence sources say," or there is no attribution at all.
The Post stylebook says that the paper "is committed to disclosing to its readers the sources of the information in its stories to the maximum possible extent. We want to make our reporting as transparent to the readers as possible so they may know how and where we got our information."
That's a good policy, and it needs to be followed much more closely. The same for this one: "We must strive to tell our readers as much as we can about why our unnamed sources deserve our confidence. Our obligation is to serve readers, not sources. This means avoiding attributions to 'sources' or 'informed sources.' Instead we should try to give the reader something more, such as 'sources familiar with the thinking of defense lawyers in the case'. . . . When sources refuse to be identified, it is often helpful to show readers that we tried to identify them, and explain why we could not."
[...]
· The Post needs to do a more thorough job on corrections. Too often, it's a battle to get one written, and many aren't done; you can often see the evidence of this on the Free for All page on Saturday.
· In a time of staff contraction, The Post must maintain an adequate contingent of copy editors. Maintaining reporting power is important, but if facts aren't checked and there are a rash of misspellings and errors of grammar and math, credibility suffers.
[...]
Diversity
· Make a serious effort to cover political and social conservatives and their issues; the paper tends to shy away from those stories, leaving conservatives feeling excluded and alienated from the paper. I'd like those who have canceled their subscriptions to be readers again. Too many Post staff members think alike; more diversity of opinion should be welcomed.
· The Post's circulation area is incredibly racially diverse, packed with immigrants and people of every conceivable ethnic group. Its news and editorial pages need to reflect that more.
· The Post should pay more attention to female readers, as I said last week. One excellent example this year are the stories by Mary Jordan and Kevin Sullivan about the plight of women around the world, including Page 1 reports from Pakistan, Germany, Britain, Sierra Leone and Burkina Faso, and, on Dec. 13, the heartbreaking story about girls sent to deadening work in India's salt pans while their brothers are educated.
· The op-ed page still needs a healthy dose of gender, racial and ethnic diversity. There are too many older white men and not enough women and people of color. That said, I still love David S. Broder and David Ignatius.
Sunday, December 21, 2008; Page B06
The Post is one of the best newspapers in the country -- so much better than the hollowed-out newspapers scattered across the landscape. As my term ends, I'd like to again point out ways that The Post can enhance its accessibility, credibility and appeal to readers in this time of economic stress.
[...]
Transparency
· The Post should post its admirable ethics and standards guidelines on washingtonpost.com for all to see. You can find parts of them on the Web site of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. The Post challenges the ethics of others; the paper's policies, which are reasonable and elegantly written, should be public and easy to find. I've fought for this internally, but it hasn't happened.
· The Post needs to be better about attributing information and identifying sources. Readers deserve to know where information comes from. Too often the attribution is to anonymous sources, to "sources close to" this official or to "intelligence sources say," or there is no attribution at all.
The Post stylebook says that the paper "is committed to disclosing to its readers the sources of the information in its stories to the maximum possible extent. We want to make our reporting as transparent to the readers as possible so they may know how and where we got our information."
That's a good policy, and it needs to be followed much more closely. The same for this one: "We must strive to tell our readers as much as we can about why our unnamed sources deserve our confidence. Our obligation is to serve readers, not sources. This means avoiding attributions to 'sources' or 'informed sources.' Instead we should try to give the reader something more, such as 'sources familiar with the thinking of defense lawyers in the case'. . . . When sources refuse to be identified, it is often helpful to show readers that we tried to identify them, and explain why we could not."
[...]
· The Post needs to do a more thorough job on corrections. Too often, it's a battle to get one written, and many aren't done; you can often see the evidence of this on the Free for All page on Saturday.
· In a time of staff contraction, The Post must maintain an adequate contingent of copy editors. Maintaining reporting power is important, but if facts aren't checked and there are a rash of misspellings and errors of grammar and math, credibility suffers.
[...]
Diversity
· Make a serious effort to cover political and social conservatives and their issues; the paper tends to shy away from those stories, leaving conservatives feeling excluded and alienated from the paper. I'd like those who have canceled their subscriptions to be readers again. Too many Post staff members think alike; more diversity of opinion should be welcomed.
· The Post's circulation area is incredibly racially diverse, packed with immigrants and people of every conceivable ethnic group. Its news and editorial pages need to reflect that more.
· The Post should pay more attention to female readers, as I said last week. One excellent example this year are the stories by Mary Jordan and Kevin Sullivan about the plight of women around the world, including Page 1 reports from Pakistan, Germany, Britain, Sierra Leone and Burkina Faso, and, on Dec. 13, the heartbreaking story about girls sent to deadening work in India's salt pans while their brothers are educated.
· The op-ed page still needs a healthy dose of gender, racial and ethnic diversity. There are too many older white men and not enough women and people of color. That said, I still love David S. Broder and David Ignatius.
Friday, December 19, 2008
"I know, I know there are reasons not to love this country, and to fear her"
Sent to Anna Bosch's blog in the federally owned Spanish radio and TV company, RTVE:
hola, cuatro apuntes acerca de lo que vemos en este blog:
1 A partir de la lectura de la presentación de Da. Anna Bosch (Perfil):
"…Ya, ya sé que hay razones para no querer a este paÃs, y para temerlo, pero entiendo que serÃa redundante enumerarlas porque, según todas las encuestas y sondeos, las tenéis muy, muy presentes. Citando un clásico de Hollywood, nobody's perfect."
Primera idea: no nos imaginamos un corresponsal de la emisora sostenida con dinero del contribuyente trabajando en, digamos, Corea del Norte, o Libia antes de renunciar a su programa nuclear militar, o Afghanistan con los taliban, y que se pudiera considerar neutral escribiendo algo como lo que acabamos de citar. ¿No serÃa mejor, por parecer neutral, evitar pronunciamientos asÃ?
2 Respecto a lo de "Con la inclusión de Sarah Palin en el ticket y las perspectivas de derrota la campaña de John McCain ha virado a la derecha, a la extrema derecha" ("Una de las dos Américas ha de helarte el corazón"), segunda idea: ¿no parece raro que alguien que trabaja para, entre otras cosas, dejar un registro al que acudan los historiadores en el futuro escriba lo de "extrema derecha"?
3 Respecto a "en algunos actos de Palin han abundados gritos o comentarios del público que asustan. Gritos de "que lo maten" "traidor" "terrorista" referidos a Barack Obama" ("Una de las dos Américas ha de helarte el corazón"), lo que recuerdamos de esas alegaciones es que:
Yo particularmente no he visto aún rectificación de Dana Milbank, Washington Post, pero, tercera idea, como tantas otras veces, sirva esto para que aprendamos más prudencia, más paciencia, y no citar como verdades históricas cosas que nos dicen nuestros amigos o colegas, 98% de los cuales piensan de polÃtica como nosotros mismos.
4 Cuarta idea: a lo mejor no es suficiente citar como medios que uno admira (por tanto, escucha/lee/vee más que los demás) los que aparecen en el perfil:
"El New York Times, el Washington Post, la NPR y la PBS…"
ya que no son medios bipartidistas ¿Puede ser que parte de la realidad se escape por no leer/ver/oÃr con igual frecuencia otros medios? La admiración sentida (después de Lauren Bacall, nada menos) ¿no es peligrosa para la objetividad?
Gracias por la oportunidad de expresar nuestras inquietudes,
Jorge Mata
Press Office
Bipartisan Alliance,
a Society for the Study and Defense of the US Constitution, where Republicans and Democrats meet.
hola, cuatro apuntes acerca de lo que vemos en este blog:
1 A partir de la lectura de la presentación de Da. Anna Bosch (Perfil):
"…Ya, ya sé que hay razones para no querer a este paÃs, y para temerlo, pero entiendo que serÃa redundante enumerarlas porque, según todas las encuestas y sondeos, las tenéis muy, muy presentes. Citando un clásico de Hollywood, nobody's perfect."
Primera idea: no nos imaginamos un corresponsal de la emisora sostenida con dinero del contribuyente trabajando en, digamos, Corea del Norte, o Libia antes de renunciar a su programa nuclear militar, o Afghanistan con los taliban, y que se pudiera considerar neutral escribiendo algo como lo que acabamos de citar. ¿No serÃa mejor, por parecer neutral, evitar pronunciamientos asÃ?
2 Respecto a lo de "Con la inclusión de Sarah Palin en el ticket y las perspectivas de derrota la campaña de John McCain ha virado a la derecha, a la extrema derecha" ("Una de las dos Américas ha de helarte el corazón"), segunda idea: ¿no parece raro que alguien que trabaja para, entre otras cosas, dejar un registro al que acudan los historiadores en el futuro escriba lo de "extrema derecha"?
3 Respecto a "en algunos actos de Palin han abundados gritos o comentarios del público que asustan. Gritos de "que lo maten" "traidor" "terrorista" referidos a Barack Obama" ("Una de las dos Américas ha de helarte el corazón"), lo que recuerdamos de esas alegaciones es que:
according to Secret Service spokesman Malcolm Wiley [...] "The Secret Service did not hear any threatening statements directed at targets under its protection and no threatening statements were reported to us by law enforcement or citizens at the event," Wiley told Radar. Also unclear: whether the remark was directed at Obama or Ayers if the words were actually "kill" and "him."
Yo particularmente no he visto aún rectificación de Dana Milbank, Washington Post, pero, tercera idea, como tantas otras veces, sirva esto para que aprendamos más prudencia, más paciencia, y no citar como verdades históricas cosas que nos dicen nuestros amigos o colegas, 98% de los cuales piensan de polÃtica como nosotros mismos.
4 Cuarta idea: a lo mejor no es suficiente citar como medios que uno admira (por tanto, escucha/lee/vee más que los demás) los que aparecen en el perfil:
"El New York Times, el Washington Post, la NPR y la PBS…"
ya que no son medios bipartidistas ¿Puede ser que parte de la realidad se escape por no leer/ver/oÃr con igual frecuencia otros medios? La admiración sentida (después de Lauren Bacall, nada menos) ¿no es peligrosa para la objetividad?
Gracias por la oportunidad de expresar nuestras inquietudes,
Jorge Mata
Press Office
Bipartisan Alliance,
a Society for the Study and Defense of the US Constitution, where Republicans and Democrats meet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
