Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Lawmakers press Obama on China auto parts (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) ? Midwestern U.S. lawmakers and union groups on Tuesday urged President Barack Obama to restrict imports of auto parts from China that they said benefited from massive illegal subsidies and threatened hundreds of thousands of American jobs.

"We need to stand up to the bully on the block," Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat, said, referring to Beijing. "The bully on the block continues to take our lunch money and we need to stop that," she said.

The push for the administration to bring a possible case at the World Trade Organization or begin a U.S. Commerce Department investigation that could lead to duties on Chinese-made auto parts came one week after Obama said he was creating a new Trade Enforcement Unit to crack down on unfair foreign trade practices in China and other countries around the world.

It could create further strains in the U.S.-China relationship as Obama is preparing to host Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping, who is expected to be China's next leader, a the White House on February 14.

"We must be aggressive on trade enforcement - especially as China ramps up subsidies in strategic industries like auto parts, said Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat.

"Today, we're providing the president with his first opportunity to deliver on the promise to guarantee a level playing field," said Scott Paul, president of the American Alliance for Manufacturing, whose members include the United Steelworkers union and steel companies.

A U.S. trade official stopped short of committing to action on the issue, but said the Obama "administration will not stand by when our competitors don't play by the rules."

"We will continue to identify and address unfair trade practices to ensure ... U.S. workers and companies can compete and succeed on a level playing field," the official said on condition of anonymity.

The groups released studies prepared by the labor-backed Economic Policy Institute and the Stewart and Stewart law firm that cataloged Chinese government subsidies and practices that they said violated WTO rules and threatened jobs at many small- and medium-sized U.S. auto parts manufacturers.

"If these policies are not stopped, by the end of the decade China could seize 50 percent or more of our auto parts market, costing hundreds of thousands of American jobs," said Terrence Stewart, Stewart and Stewart's managing partner, which specializes in cases against allegedly unfair imports.

Last year, the United States ran a deficit of nearly $10 billion in auto parts trade with China.

The EPI study estimated the Chinese auto parts industry has received $27.5 billion in government subsidies since 2001, helping to fuel U.S. auto parts imports from China.

Although U.S. auto companies have experienced a turnaround since the U.S. government prevented the industry from collapsing in 2009, the auto parts sector has regained only about 60,000 in the past two years and has lost more than 400,000 over the past eleven years, the EPI study said.

Large Chinese government subsidies were the second major cause of the lost jobs, behind competition from Mexico, said Bob King, president of the United Auto Workers union, said in a statement.

He also noted many Chinese auto workers "work for the same multinational corporations as we do" and urged "global corporations to refrain from a 'race to the bottom' to find workers that they can pay the least."

Beijing angered Washington in December with a decision to impose punitive duties of up to 22 percent on large cars and SUVs from the United States, a move that many saw as retaliation for earlier U.S. moves to restrict imports of Chinese goods ranging from tires to poultry.

The Obama administration is now considering whether to slap anti-dumping and countervailing duties on solar panels and wind energy towers from China in response to U.S. industry allegations of unfair trading practices.

(Reporting by Doug Palmer; Editing by Neil Stempleman and Paul Simao)

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/china/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20120131/pl_nm/us_usa_china_autos

harry caray northern lights maksim chmerkovskiy aurora borealis s.978 larry ellison go ask alice

?Israel firsters? (Balloon Juice)

Share With Friends: Share on FacebookTweet ThisPost to Google-BuzzSend on GmailPost to Linked-InSubscribe to This Feed | Rss To Twitter | Politics - Top Stories Stories, RSS Feeds and Widgets via Feedzilla.

Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/politics/top-stories/193566186?client_source=feed&format=rss

lori berenson lori berenson the incredibles jon bon jovi dead new jersey plane crash ohio state kobe bryant wife

Monday, January 30, 2012

George and John's Excellent Adventures in Quantum Entanglement [Video]

Simply put, bottomlessly deep: that is the definition of a great discovery in science. From the principle of relativity to evolution by natural selection, the concepts that govern our world are actually not that hard to state. What they mean and what they imply?well, that?s another matter. And so it is with quantum entanglement. One of the most important discoveries ever made, entanglement is fairly straightforward to describe, but has yet to be understood in any serious way. Physicists have barely even gotten over their amazement that the phenomenon even exists.

The two-part video that I put together with my colleagues John Matson and Mary Karmelek, working with Sci Am?s film guru Eric Olson, dramatizes entanglement. Part one presents it metaphorically; part two will show the real McCoy in a physics laboratory. The film follows in the footsteps of a steady progression of simplified versions of the original scientific arguments that has taken place over the past several decades. Not only has the theory been streamlined, so has the experimental apparatus. It could now fit on a living-room end table and should soon become a standard exercise in college physics-for-poets classes.

The basic point of entanglement is that the behavior of objects at spatially separated locations is random yet coordinated. Two (or more) particles behave as a single indivisible system, no matter how far apart they are. Indeed, even to speak of ?particles? in the plural is a falsehood; we see them as individual parts, but they possess collective properties that cannot be partitioned. In the 1930s, Albert Einstein argued that for entangled particles to behave in such a coordinated way, either their behavior must be choreographed in advance or they must surreptitiously influence each other on the fly. This influence cannot pass through the intervening space?it would be, as Einstein put it, ?spooky action at a distance.? Three decades later, physicist John Bell devised an experiment that rules out the first possibility, leaving the spooky one as a creepy fact of nature.

The first two card tricks in the video show the basic thought-experiment that Einstein devised and published in a famous paper with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. The third trick shows Bell?s elaboration. His basic insight was that it?s easy enough to choreograph a simple pattern of behavior, but impossible to prearrange a sufficiently complicated one. By the way, you can use Bell?s approach if any of your friends ever claims to be psychic. Ask the right types of questions, and no one will be able to respond unless they really are psychic. Humans, of course, aren?t. But particles do have a telepathic power, albeit of a very limited sort.

Some technical details: For sake of getting across the idea, we neglect the role that probability plays in the actual experiment. If John and I were to exploit entanglement for real, we?d create a pair of entangled photons, he?d take one and I the other, and each of us would send his photon through a polarizing filter and see whether it emerges on the other side. The choice of ?left? or ?right? card in the video would correspond to the orientation of the polarizer. For John, ?left? would be 0 degrees; ?right,? 45 degrees. For me, ?left? would be 22.5 degrees; ?right,? ?22.5 degrees. Assuming no experimental imperfections, the probability that we?d both see the same outcome would be about 85 percent for all possible permutations of orientations, except when both of us select ?right,? in which case it would be about 15 percent. Cheaters trying to mimic entanglement could manage 75 percent at best.

I hasten to mention that?some physicists and philosophers of physics doubt whether spooky action really occurs?to them, particles are no more psychic than humans are. But even in that case, something else equally weird must be going on to give the illusion of spooky action, such as a profusion of parallel universes, messages reaching us from the future, or a radically holistic view of reality. There?s no way to avoid the weirdness altogether.?Researchers also debate whether entanglement conflicts?in spirit if not in letter?with Einstein?s special theory of relativity, as David Albert and Rivka Galchen discussed in our March 2009 cover story.

Leaving aside what the entanglement means, so much remains to be learned about the phenomenon itself. A big question is why, even though entanglement is pervasive, we don?t notice it in our everyday lives. Quantum physicist Dagomir Kaszlikowski recently?offered a new approach to solving this problem.?The answer, ironically, may be that the very pervasiveness of entanglement camouflages it.

To help explain further what entanglement means, we?ve also asked quantum physicist Vlatko Vedral and physicist-historian David Kaiser to describe the long and winding road that quantum entanglement took to becoming accepted. In a sense, entanglement is so weird that we hope our video will not demystify it, but mystify it.

Source: http://rss.sciam.com/click.phdo?i=c4548f4ad6c19b1dc8197ea435023010

darrell hammond boxer rebellion boxer rebellion stanford football lsu football schedule lsu football schedule terrapin

What You Missed While Not Watching The Last Florida GOP Debate (Time.com)

0 minutes. "Only one thing is certain," CNN's opening montage declares. "Expect the unexpected." That hits the spot. We need false hope at a time like this. It's the 19th Republican debate. Everything that can happen probably already has. The screen flickers with a Romney video clip from the campaign trail. "We're not choosing a talk show host," he says. This will need to be fact checked.

3 minutes. Wolf Blitzer. Facebook. Twitter. You know the drill.

4 minutes. Candidates on the catwalk. They walk out like they have done before. Nothing changes. They shake hands, then stand for the national anthem, sung by the local college's chamber singers, who have dressed for the occasion like puritan flight attendants. They sing well, which is totally unexpected. Santorum and Romney sing along. Gingrich, Paul, and Callista Gingrich, who is seen in a crowd shot, keep their mouths closed. Will have to keep an eye on them. You never know.

7 minutes. More Blitzer, who repeats the rules we have heard 18 times before. Then he asks the candidates to introduce themselves. (See more on the Florida debates.)

8 minutes. Santorum introduces himself by introducing his 93-year-old mother in the audience, who could easily pass for 81, and makes everyone feel good. She stands, Santorum smiles with pride and the crowd cheers wildly. "I'd better just stop right there," Santorum says. Yes, he should. He should also pick mom for vice president.

9 minutes. More of the expected. Gingrich says he is from neighboring Georgia. Romney says he has 16 grand-kids. Paul says he champions "a sound monetary system," which really has nothing to do with expensive acoustics, though don't tell his college-age voters. The dude is totally rad.

10 minutes. First question on immigration. This is totally unexpected. Immigration is usually asked at the end of the debate. Crazy. To allay this shock, the candidates give answers that are no different. Everyone on stage likes laws, wants to seal the borders, and embraces legal immigration. There are requisite mentions of American Express and MasterCard handling identification cards.

14 minutes. "I don't think anyone is interested in going around and rounding up people around the country and deporting 11 million Americans," says Romney. Oops. He recovers quickly: "Or, excuse me 11 million illegal immigrants into America." Paul follows up by saying he would end U.S. military involvement on the Afghan border to pay for more guards on the Mexican border.

16 minutes. Blitzer asks Gingrich why he called Romney the "most anti-immigrant candidate" in a recent ad. "Because, in the original conversations about deportation, the position I took, which he attacked pretty ferociously, was that grandmothers and grandfathers aren't going to be successfully deported," Gingrich says. This is a backhanded way of accusing Romney of wanting to deport Santorum's sweet mother, if she had no papers. (See more on the GOP debates.)

19 minutes. Romney, who has been giving Gingrich the evil eye, pounces. "That's simply unexcusable. That's inexcusable," Romney says, flip-flopping "un" for "in" in three words. "Mr. Speaker, I'm not anti-immigrant. My father was born in Mexico. My wife's father was born in Wales. They came to this country. The idea that I'm anti-immigrant is repulsive." It's the first time in 19 debates that someone has used the word "repulsive." Unexpected and about time. Romney goes on to say he is not going to round-up grandmothers. He is just going to deny them of employment, and hope they leave the country.

20 minutes. Gingrich says he would like Romney to "self-describe" himself, if he is not anti-immigrant for wanting to expel grandmothers. Romney, in full alpha dog mode, is off again. "There are grandmothers that live on the other side of the border that are waiting to come here legally. I want them to come here, too, not just those that are already here," Romney says. So he is not anti-grandma, he just favors some over others. More grandma back and forth follows.

21 minutes. Blitzer asks Romney about an ad he is running that says Gingrich called Spanish "the language of the ghetto." "I haven't seen the ad, so I'm sorry. I don't get to see all the TV ads," Romney replies. Later Romney adds about the ad, "I doubt that's my ad, but we'll take a look and find out." It is Romney's ad, a Spanish language radio spot. Gingrich said it, in a discussion about the importance of learning English, and later admitted that he chose his words poorly.

23 minutes. A question about the influence of China in Latin America. Paul calls for more free trade. Santorum warns of radical Islam in Venezuala and promises to be more involved as president in the continent. Paul and Santorum squabble about the proper reach of U.S. foreign policy.

29 minutes. During the squabble, Blitzer double checks the origin of the Romney ad. "It was one of your ads. It's running here in Florida on the radio. And at the end you say, 'I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this ad.' " Romney has no response. "Let me ask the speaker a question. Did you say what the ad says or not? I don't know," he says instead. "It's taken totally out of context," protests Gingrich. "Oh, OK, he said it," Romney concludes, misrepresenting what Gingrich just said to prove that he had not previously misrepresented something Gingrich once said.

30 minutes. Moving on to housing. How do you get Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae out of housing? Romney attacks Gingrich for once working as a political consultant for Freddie Mac. "We should have had a whistle-blower and not horn-tooter," says Romney. Romney never uses bad words. Maybe this is why "tooter" sounds so naughty.

31 minutes. Gingrich responds by attacking Romney for holding stock in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as well as investing in Goldman Sachs, "which is today foreclosing on Floridians." Romney shoots back that most of these investments were in mutual funds controlled by a blind trust. Back in 1994, Romney argued that blind trusts were not really blind, since politicians could still direct the investments. But never mind that now. Because Romney then says, "And Mr. Speaker, I know that sounds like an enormous revelation, but have you checked your own investments?" Apparently, Gingrich also owned stock in Fannie and Freddie. Gingrich says, "Right," thereby admitting his whole attack was a giant exercise in hypocrisy.

34 minutes. Gingrich finds his comeback. "To compare my investments with his is like comparing a tiny mouse with a giant elephant," Gingrich says. Never before has "elephant" been used as an insult in a Republican debate. Unexpected.

35 minutes. Paul is asked to comment. "That subject really doesn't interest me a whole lot," he says, to applause. Got to love that guy. He goes on to blame the housing bubble on the Federal Reserve.

36 minutes. Santorum chastises Blitzer for focusing on these issues. "Can we set aside that Newt was a member of Congress and used the skills that he developed as a member of Congress to go out and advise companies -- and that's not the worst thing in the world -- and that Mitt Romney is a wealthy guy because worked hard and he's going out and working hard?" he asks. Not likely. But the crowd applauds. (See more on the State of the Union Address.)

37 minutes. First commercial break. Blitzer promises to talk about space when we return.

40 minutes. We are back to talk about tax returns. Is Gingrich satisfied with the Romney releases? "Wolf, you and I have a great relationship, it goes back a long way. I'm with him," Gingrich says of Santorum. "This is a nonsense question." Blitzer points out that Gingrich recently said of Romney, "He lives in a world of Swiss bank and Cayman Island bank accounts."

41 minutes. Just as Gingrich seems to be succeeding in getting the question dropped, Romney jumps in. "Wouldn't it be nice if people didn't make accusations somewhere else that they weren't willing to defend here?" he says. So Gingrich pivots from bickering with Blitzer, and attacks Romney. "I don't know of any American president who has had a Swiss bank account," he says. "I'd be glad for you to explain that sort of thing."

43 minutes. Romney blames the blind trust. Then he finds words to defend his wealth that have been missing for the last three debates. "I'm proud of being successful. I'm proud of being in the free enterprise system that creates jobs for other people. I'm not going to run from that," Romney says. "I'm proud of the taxes I pay. My taxes, plus my charitable contributions, this year, 2011, will be about 40 percent." The two men go back and forth a bit more.

45 minutes. Some talk about tax rates. Gingrich tries to explain why he both talks about Romney's tax rates in a derogatory way and wants to reduce his taxes to zero, by eliminating the capital gains tax. Gingrich says he wants everyone to pay what Romney now pays in taxes, even if it means reducing Romney's taxes further. "My goal is to shrink the government to fit the revenue, not to raise the revenue to catch up with the government," he says. Santorum chimes in to say he doesn't want taxes quite as low as Gingrich. Paul says he wants to get rid of the 16th Amendment, which gives Congress the power to collect taxes.

49 minutes. Blitzer asks Paul if he will release his health records. "Oh, obviously, because it's about one page," the 76-year-old says. "I'm willing to challenge any of these gentlemen up here to a 25- mile bike ride any time of the day in the heat of Texas." Everyone else on stage agrees to release their health records too.

50 minutes. Space cadet time. Romney is against a moon base, but for a vibrant space program, whatever that means. Gingrich is for a moon base, largely to beat the Chinese, but he says lots of the efforts to get there could be done with private enterprise. Santorum thinks a moon base is too expensive. "Well, I don't think we should go to the moon," says Paul. "I think we maybe should send some politicians up there." Paul is so cool. Maybe his sound monetary policy does have beats after all. (See photos of Obama's State of the Union Address)

56 minutes. Blitzer points out that Gingrich would allow a lunar colony with 13,000 Americans in it apply for statehood, which is probably a pander to the same stoner college vote that Paul has wrapped up. Romney, who is still in alpha dog mode, attacks again. "I spent 25 years in business," he says. "If I had a business executive come to me and say they wanted to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I'd say, You're fired.'" Romney tends to get in trouble when he talks about firing people. Yet he still does it. Then he accuses Gingrich of pandering to Floridians, like he did to South Carolinians, and to New Hampshirites.

59 minutes. Gingrich answers by pandering more. "The port of Jacksonville is going to have to be expanded because the Panama Canal is being widened, and I think that's useful thing for a president to know," he says. He also talks about the Everglades. Then he claims again to have created four consecutive balanced budgets, which is not true. (See last debate recap.)

60 minutes. Paul points out that the balanced budgets Gingrich claims still included deficits, if one accounts for the money that was taken out of Social Security. "I agree with Ron," Gingrich responds, once again undermining his own talking point. "I actually agree with you, and I propose that we take Social Security off budget."

62 minutes. Question from the audience by an unemployed woman without health insurance. She asks what the candidates would do for her. Paul says he would get government out of health insurance. Gingrich says he would repeal ObamaCare and get the economy going again, and create a new health reform that gives her a tax break to buy health insurance.

64 minutes. Romney basically agrees, and then attacks President Obama. This is the first time he has attacked Obama in a sustained way. Last debate this moment came at 71 minutes. In the previous dozen or so debates, he always attacked Obama with just about every answer.

66 minutes. Santorum goes after Gingrich and Romney for supporting ObamaCare-like health reforms in the past. The substance has been well tread in prior debates. But what is notable is that in the tit for tat that follows, Santorum kind of gets under Romney's skin in a way that Gingrich has so far failed to do. "I make enough mistakes in what I say, not for you to add more mistakes to what I say," Romney says at one point. It's meant as a joke. But no one laughs.

72 minutes. As Santorum continues to tear into Romney for the horror of what he did in Massachusetts in 2004, it is worth remembering that Santorum endorsed Romney for president in 2008.

75 minutes. "Congressman Paul, who is right?" asks Blitzer. "I think they're all wrong," Paul says.

76 minutes. The candidates are asked to name Hispanic leaders they could see in their cabinet. They all do. Except Paul. "I don't have one particular name that I'm going to bring up," he says.

78 minutes. Commercial break.

82 minutes. We're back. Candidates are asked to say why their wives are great. Paul says he has been married 54 years, and his wife wrote "a very famous cookbook, 'The Ron Paul Cookbook.'" Romney says his wife has overcome breast cancer and Multiple Sclerosis, and wants to make sure young women don't get pregnant before marriage. Gingrich says his wife plays the French horn, and writes patriotic books. Santorum says his wife has written a couple of books, one about their child who died at birth, and another about training kids to have good manners.

88 minutes. Romney and Gingrich are asked to bicker over who is closer to Reagan. Romney admits that it took him a long time to come around to the Reagan view. "I became more conservative," he says. Gingrich says Nancy Reagan told him the Reagan torch had been passed to him. Then he attacks Romney. "In '92 he was donating to the Democrats for Congress and voted for Paul Tsongas in the Democratic primary," Gingrich says. "In '94 running against Teddy Kennedy, he said flatly, I don't want to go back to the Reagan-Bush era, I was an independent."

91 minutes. "I've never voted for a Democrat when there was a Republican on the ballot," says Romney, which is a pretty misleading thing to say. There was also a Republican primary in 1992. Romney could have chosen to vote in it.

92 minutes. Questions about Cuba. Santorum is against the Obama policy of liberalizing relations. He warns of "Jihadist's who want to set up missile sites" in Cuba or Venezuela. Paul shoots back that he doesn't think the American people "see a Jihadist under the bed every night." If he had any chance of winning, Paul would be seen as the winner of this debate.

95 minutes. Romney attacks Obama's Cuba policy. So does Gingrich.

98 minutes. A self-described Palestinian in the audience, as part of a question about Middle East Peace, says, "I'm here to tell you we do exist." Romney responds by saying, "It's the Palestinians who don't want a two-state solution." This is not true. The Palestinians have gone to the United Nations demanding just such a thing, though they differ with Israel about borders and conditions. Gingrich repeats his previous claim about Palestinian invention. "It was technically an invention of the late 1970s, and it was clearly so. Prior to that, they were Arabs. Many of them were either Syrian, Lebanese, or Egyptian, or Jordanian," he says. By that standard, Americans are an invented people too. But no one points this out.

102 minutes. Question about Puerto Rican statehood. Santorum panders a lot, praising Puerto Rico and its leaders. But then declines to take a position on statehood.

105 minutes. Question about how religious views would affect presidency. Paul says all that matters to him in the job is the Constitution. Gingrich says he would pray for guidance and stop the war against Christianity that is being waged by the "secular elite." Santorum says he understands that rights come from God, not government.

110 minutes. One more break.

113 minutes. Last question. Why are you the person most likely to beat Obama? Paul suggests that he can pick up support from Obama's base, by coming at the president from the left on foreign policy and civil liberties. Romney recites his stump speech. Critical time, social welfare state, etc. Gingrich does a riff about Saul Alinsky, food stamps and appeasement. Santorum says he can win blue-collar Reagan Democrats like Reagan did.

120 minutes. We are done. Pretty much as expected. Now Florida must vote. The outcome will no doubt help to determine how many more debates must be endured.

PHOTOS: TIME's Pictures of the Week

PHOTOS: Cartoons of the Week

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/gop/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/time/20120128/us_time/httpswamplandtimecom20120127whatyoumissedwhilenotwatchingthelastfloridagopdebatexidrssfullnationyahoo

detroit weather imessage imessage sukkot sukkot aziz ansari aziz ansari

Sunday, January 29, 2012

What You Missed While Not Watching The Last Florida GOP Debate (Time.com)

0 minutes. "Only one thing is certain," CNN's opening montage declares. "Expect the unexpected." That hits the spot. We need false hope at a time like this. It's the 19th Republican debate. Everything that can happen probably already has. The screen flickers with a Romney video clip from the campaign trail. "We're not choosing a talk show host," he says. This will need to be fact checked.

3 minutes. Wolf Blitzer. Facebook. Twitter. You know the drill.

4 minutes. Candidates on the catwalk. They walk out like they have done before. Nothing changes. They shake hands, then stand for the national anthem, sung by the local college's chamber singers, who have dressed for the occasion like puritan flight attendants. They sing well, which is totally unexpected. Santorum and Romney sing along. Gingrich, Paul, and Callista Gingrich, who is seen in a crowd shot, keep their mouths closed. Will have to keep an eye on them. You never know.

7 minutes. More Blitzer, who repeats the rules we have heard 18 times before. Then he asks the candidates to introduce themselves. (See more on the Florida debates.)

8 minutes. Santorum introduces himself by introducing his 93-year-old mother in the audience, who could easily pass for 81, and makes everyone feel good. She stands, Santorum smiles with pride and the crowd cheers wildly. "I'd better just stop right there," Santorum says. Yes, he should. He should also pick mom for vice president.

9 minutes. More of the expected. Gingrich says he is from neighboring Georgia. Romney says he has 16 grand-kids. Paul says he champions "a sound monetary system," which really has nothing to do with expensive acoustics, though don't tell his college-age voters. The dude is totally rad.

10 minutes. First question on immigration. This is totally unexpected. Immigration is usually asked at the end of the debate. Crazy. To allay this shock, the candidates give answers that are no different. Everyone on stage likes laws, wants to seal the borders, and embraces legal immigration. There are requisite mentions of American Express and MasterCard handling identification cards.

14 minutes. "I don't think anyone is interested in going around and rounding up people around the country and deporting 11 million Americans," says Romney. Oops. He recovers quickly: "Or, excuse me 11 million illegal immigrants into America." Paul follows up by saying he would end U.S. military involvement on the Afghan border to pay for more guards on the Mexican border.

16 minutes. Blitzer asks Gingrich why he called Romney the "most anti-immigrant candidate" in a recent ad. "Because, in the original conversations about deportation, the position I took, which he attacked pretty ferociously, was that grandmothers and grandfathers aren't going to be successfully deported," Gingrich says. This is a backhanded way of accusing Romney of wanting to deport Santorum's sweet mother, if she had no papers. (See more on the GOP debates.)

19 minutes. Romney, who has been giving Gingrich the evil eye, pounces. "That's simply unexcusable. That's inexcusable," Romney says, flip-flopping "un" for "in" in three words. "Mr. Speaker, I'm not anti-immigrant. My father was born in Mexico. My wife's father was born in Wales. They came to this country. The idea that I'm anti-immigrant is repulsive." It's the first time in 19 debates that someone has used the word "repulsive." Unexpected and about time. Romney goes on to say he is not going to round-up grandmothers. He is just going to deny them of employment, and hope they leave the country.

20 minutes. Gingrich says he would like Romney to "self-describe" himself, if he is not anti-immigrant for wanting to expel grandmothers. Romney, in full alpha dog mode, is off again. "There are grandmothers that live on the other side of the border that are waiting to come here legally. I want them to come here, too, not just those that are already here," Romney says. So he is not anti-grandma, he just favors some over others. More grandma back and forth follows.

21 minutes. Blitzer asks Romney about an ad he is running that says Gingrich called Spanish "the language of the ghetto." "I haven't seen the ad, so I'm sorry. I don't get to see all the TV ads," Romney replies. Later Romney adds about the ad, "I doubt that's my ad, but we'll take a look and find out." It is Romney's ad, a Spanish language radio spot. Gingrich said it, in a discussion about the importance of learning English, and later admitted that he chose his words poorly.

23 minutes. A question about the influence of China in Latin America. Paul calls for more free trade. Santorum warns of radical Islam in Venezuala and promises to be more involved as president in the continent. Paul and Santorum squabble about the proper reach of U.S. foreign policy.

29 minutes. During the squabble, Blitzer double checks the origin of the Romney ad. "It was one of your ads. It's running here in Florida on the radio. And at the end you say, 'I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this ad.' " Romney has no response. "Let me ask the speaker a question. Did you say what the ad says or not? I don't know," he says instead. "It's taken totally out of context," protests Gingrich. "Oh, OK, he said it," Romney concludes, misrepresenting what Gingrich just said to prove that he had not previously misrepresented something Gingrich once said.

30 minutes. Moving on to housing. How do you get Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae out of housing? Romney attacks Gingrich for once working as a political consultant for Freddie Mac. "We should have had a whistle-blower and not horn-tooter," says Romney. Romney never uses bad words. Maybe this is why "tooter" sounds so naughty.

31 minutes. Gingrich responds by attacking Romney for holding stock in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as well as investing in Goldman Sachs, "which is today foreclosing on Floridians." Romney shoots back that most of these investments were in mutual funds controlled by a blind trust. Back in 1994, Romney argued that blind trusts were not really blind, since politicians could still direct the investments. But never mind that now. Because Romney then says, "And Mr. Speaker, I know that sounds like an enormous revelation, but have you checked your own investments?" Apparently, Gingrich also owned stock in Fannie and Freddie. Gingrich says, "Right," thereby admitting his whole attack was a giant exercise in hypocrisy.

34 minutes. Gingrich finds his comeback. "To compare my investments with his is like comparing a tiny mouse with a giant elephant," Gingrich says. Never before has "elephant" been used as an insult in a Republican debate. Unexpected.

35 minutes. Paul is asked to comment. "That subject really doesn't interest me a whole lot," he says, to applause. Got to love that guy. He goes on to blame the housing bubble on the Federal Reserve.

36 minutes. Santorum chastises Blitzer for focusing on these issues. "Can we set aside that Newt was a member of Congress and used the skills that he developed as a member of Congress to go out and advise companies -- and that's not the worst thing in the world -- and that Mitt Romney is a wealthy guy because worked hard and he's going out and working hard?" he asks. Not likely. But the crowd applauds. (See more on the State of the Union Address.)

37 minutes. First commercial break. Blitzer promises to talk about space when we return.

40 minutes. We are back to talk about tax returns. Is Gingrich satisfied with the Romney releases? "Wolf, you and I have a great relationship, it goes back a long way. I'm with him," Gingrich says of Santorum. "This is a nonsense question." Blitzer points out that Gingrich recently said of Romney, "He lives in a world of Swiss bank and Cayman Island bank accounts."

41 minutes. Just as Gingrich seems to be succeeding in getting the question dropped, Romney jumps in. "Wouldn't it be nice if people didn't make accusations somewhere else that they weren't willing to defend here?" he says. So Gingrich pivots from bickering with Blitzer, and attacks Romney. "I don't know of any American president who has had a Swiss bank account," he says. "I'd be glad for you to explain that sort of thing."

43 minutes. Romney blames the blind trust. Then he finds words to defend his wealth that have been missing for the last three debates. "I'm proud of being successful. I'm proud of being in the free enterprise system that creates jobs for other people. I'm not going to run from that," Romney says. "I'm proud of the taxes I pay. My taxes, plus my charitable contributions, this year, 2011, will be about 40 percent." The two men go back and forth a bit more.

45 minutes. Some talk about tax rates. Gingrich tries to explain why he both talks about Romney's tax rates in a derogatory way and wants to reduce his taxes to zero, by eliminating the capital gains tax. Gingrich says he wants everyone to pay what Romney now pays in taxes, even if it means reducing Romney's taxes further. "My goal is to shrink the government to fit the revenue, not to raise the revenue to catch up with the government," he says. Santorum chimes in to say he doesn't want taxes quite as low as Gingrich. Paul says he wants to get rid of the 16th Amendment, which gives Congress the power to collect taxes.

49 minutes. Blitzer asks Paul if he will release his health records. "Oh, obviously, because it's about one page," the 76-year-old says. "I'm willing to challenge any of these gentlemen up here to a 25- mile bike ride any time of the day in the heat of Texas." Everyone else on stage agrees to release their health records too.

50 minutes. Space cadet time. Romney is against a moon base, but for a vibrant space program, whatever that means. Gingrich is for a moon base, largely to beat the Chinese, but he says lots of the efforts to get there could be done with private enterprise. Santorum thinks a moon base is too expensive. "Well, I don't think we should go to the moon," says Paul. "I think we maybe should send some politicians up there." Paul is so cool. Maybe his sound monetary policy does have beats after all. (See photos of Obama's State of the Union Address)

56 minutes. Blitzer points out that Gingrich would allow a lunar colony with 13,000 Americans in it apply for statehood, which is probably a pander to the same stoner college vote that Paul has wrapped up. Romney, who is still in alpha dog mode, attacks again. "I spent 25 years in business," he says. "If I had a business executive come to me and say they wanted to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I'd say, You're fired.'" Romney tends to get in trouble when he talks about firing people. Yet he still does it. Then he accuses Gingrich of pandering to Floridians, like he did to South Carolinians, and to New Hampshirites.

59 minutes. Gingrich answers by pandering more. "The port of Jacksonville is going to have to be expanded because the Panama Canal is being widened, and I think that's useful thing for a president to know," he says. He also talks about the Everglades. Then he claims again to have created four consecutive balanced budgets, which is not true. (See last debate recap.)

60 minutes. Paul points out that the balanced budgets Gingrich claims still included deficits, if one accounts for the money that was taken out of Social Security. "I agree with Ron," Gingrich responds, once again undermining his own talking point. "I actually agree with you, and I propose that we take Social Security off budget."

62 minutes. Question from the audience by an unemployed woman without health insurance. She asks what the candidates would do for her. Paul says he would get government out of health insurance. Gingrich says he would repeal ObamaCare and get the economy going again, and create a new health reform that gives her a tax break to buy health insurance.

64 minutes. Romney basically agrees, and then attacks President Obama. This is the first time he has attacked Obama in a sustained way. Last debate this moment came at 71 minutes. In the previous dozen or so debates, he always attacked Obama with just about every answer.

66 minutes. Santorum goes after Gingrich and Romney for supporting ObamaCare-like health reforms in the past. The substance has been well tread in prior debates. But what is notable is that in the tit for tat that follows, Santorum kind of gets under Romney's skin in a way that Gingrich has so far failed to do. "I make enough mistakes in what I say, not for you to add more mistakes to what I say," Romney says at one point. It's meant as a joke. But no one laughs.

72 minutes. As Santorum continues to tear into Romney for the horror of what he did in Massachusetts in 2004, it is worth remembering that Santorum endorsed Romney for president in 2008.

75 minutes. "Congressman Paul, who is right?" asks Blitzer. "I think they're all wrong," Paul says.

76 minutes. The candidates are asked to name Hispanic leaders they could see in their cabinet. They all do. Except Paul. "I don't have one particular name that I'm going to bring up," he says.

78 minutes. Commercial break.

82 minutes. We're back. Candidates are asked to say why their wives are great. Paul says he has been married 54 years, and his wife wrote "a very famous cookbook, 'The Ron Paul Cookbook.'" Romney says his wife has overcome breast cancer and Multiple Sclerosis, and wants to make sure young women don't get pregnant before marriage. Gingrich says his wife plays the French horn, and writes patriotic books. Santorum says his wife has written a couple of books, one about their child who died at birth, and another about training kids to have good manners.

88 minutes. Romney and Gingrich are asked to bicker over who is closer to Reagan. Romney admits that it took him a long time to come around to the Reagan view. "I became more conservative," he says. Gingrich says Nancy Reagan told him the Reagan torch had been passed to him. Then he attacks Romney. "In '92 he was donating to the Democrats for Congress and voted for Paul Tsongas in the Democratic primary," Gingrich says. "In '94 running against Teddy Kennedy, he said flatly, I don't want to go back to the Reagan-Bush era, I was an independent."

91 minutes. "I've never voted for a Democrat when there was a Republican on the ballot," says Romney, which is a pretty misleading thing to say. There was also a Republican primary in 1992. Romney could have chosen to vote in it.

92 minutes. Questions about Cuba. Santorum is against the Obama policy of liberalizing relations. He warns of "Jihadist's who want to set up missile sites" in Cuba or Venezuela. Paul shoots back that he doesn't think the American people "see a Jihadist under the bed every night." If he had any chance of winning, Paul would be seen as the winner of this debate.

95 minutes. Romney attacks Obama's Cuba policy. So does Gingrich.

98 minutes. A self-described Palestinian in the audience, as part of a question about Middle East Peace, says, "I'm here to tell you we do exist." Romney responds by saying, "It's the Palestinians who don't want a two-state solution." This is not true. The Palestinians have gone to the United Nations demanding just such a thing, though they differ with Israel about borders and conditions. Gingrich repeats his previous claim about Palestinian invention. "It was technically an invention of the late 1970s, and it was clearly so. Prior to that, they were Arabs. Many of them were either Syrian, Lebanese, or Egyptian, or Jordanian," he says. By that standard, Americans are an invented people too. But no one points this out.

102 minutes. Question about Puerto Rican statehood. Santorum panders a lot, praising Puerto Rico and its leaders. But then declines to take a position on statehood.

105 minutes. Question about how religious views would affect presidency. Paul says all that matters to him in the job is the Constitution. Gingrich says he would pray for guidance and stop the war against Christianity that is being waged by the "secular elite." Santorum says he understands that rights come from God, not government.

110 minutes. One more break.

113 minutes. Last question. Why are you the person most likely to beat Obama? Paul suggests that he can pick up support from Obama's base, by coming at the president from the left on foreign policy and civil liberties. Romney recites his stump speech. Critical time, social welfare state, etc. Gingrich does a riff about Saul Alinsky, food stamps and appeasement. Santorum says he can win blue-collar Reagan Democrats like Reagan did.

120 minutes. We are done. Pretty much as expected. Now Florida must vote. The outcome will no doubt help to determine how many more debates must be endured.

PHOTOS: TIME's Pictures of the Week

PHOTOS: Cartoons of the Week

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/gop/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/time/20120128/us_time/httpswamplandtimecom20120127whatyoumissedwhilenotwatchingthelastfloridagopdebatexidrssfullnationyahoo

grammys 2011 mike leach mike leach billy graham scion fr s elf on a shelf elf on a shelf

Company turns to bribery for 5 star Amazon reviews

In a world where word of mouth and the judgment of the hive mind is worth more than any ad or the ruminations of many professional reviewers, companies will do just about anything to ensure a strong rating on outlets like Amazon. It's clear that dummy accounts simply aren't the way to go, but what about bribing your existing customers? Apparently VIP Deals thought that route was perfectly acceptable and offered rebates to people who rated their products on Amazon. Now, the offer letter (which you can see at the more coverage link) doesn't explicitly ask for a five star review, but it is strongly suggested that the company expects one in exchange for receiving the product for free -- in this case, a leather Kindle Fire case. VIP's reviews and its products have all since been booted from Amazon, but it certainly raises plenty of questions about the ease with which some companies are able to game the system and how a reputable outlet can protect its customers from ratings scams. Hit up the source for the full story.

Company turns to bribery for 5 star Amazon reviews originally appeared on Engadget on Sat, 28 Jan 2012 14:03:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |  sourceNew York Times  | Email this | Comments

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/28/company-turns-to-bribery-for-5-star-amazon-reviews/

prince philip david wright sugar cookie recipe sugar cookie recipe robert deniro how the grinch stole christmas macaroni and cheese

Welch to GOP: Treat Paul with care (CNN)

Share With Friends: Share on FacebookTweet ThisPost to Google-BuzzSend on GmailPost to Linked-InSubscribe to This Feed | Rss To Twitter | Politics - Top Stories Stories, RSS and RSS Feed via Feedzilla.

Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/politics/top-stories/192284785?client_source=feed&format=rss

barkley beltran space ball jim mora the weeknd echoes of silence gio gonzalez san francisco fire

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Digital Textbooks Go Straight From Scientists to Students

Link Information - Click to View

Digital Textbooks Go Straight From Scientists to Students
Last January, electronic textbook publishers turned down David Johnston's big idea: to make the first interactive marine science textbook. Frustrated by the experience, Johnston set out to create open source software to publish the book himself.

Source: Wired
Posted on: Friday, Jan 27, 2012, 8:55am
Views: 22

Source: http://www.labspaces.net/117142/Digital_Textbooks_Go_Straight_From_Scientists_to_Students

joe mcginniss joan crawford joan crawford kat dennings listeriosis bonobos recent earthquakes

Free Android Wallpaper of the day - Over the Rockies

Free Android WallpaperHere's a nice one from reader ThreeofNine, who snagged this shot from an airplane while over the Rocky Mountains.



Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/androidcentral/~3/VTCBPO1ofis/story01.htm

danny woodhead aaron hernandez aaron hernandez portland news portland news tibetan mastiff manny pacquiao

Friday, January 27, 2012

Fear shrouds election race in Manipur, India's dark jewel (Reuters)

IMPHAL, India (Reuters) ? Thrown face down in an open drain by a grenade blast, Maisnam Ratan's bloodied corpse was the latest reminder of the lingering insurgency in India's isolated, far-eastern state of Manipur, which elects a state legislature Saturday.

Manipur, which neighbors Myanmar, is called the Jewel of India for its paddy fields, lakes and green hills. But it has been plagued for decades by a low-intensity war, blamed by authorities on rebels sheltering in Myanmar as well as a stream of drugs and guns seeping through the porous border.

At night, the run-down capital, Imphal, is often lit only by candles and burning garbage because of a chronic electricity shortage. Fearful of threats by rebels who see India as a colonial power, cinemas do not show Bollywood movies and cable television blocks out programs in Hindi, the country's most widely spoken language.

Ratan was visiting the house of a senior politician from the ruling Congress party Sunday when the blast went off. It was a relatively small explosion, but tore open his leg and ripped chunks from a wall where long ago somebody had neatly written: "We want peace and harmony."

Neither seems likely in the near future.

Manipur has the highest rates of HIV and drug addiction in the country and young people are migrating in droves.

India's policy-makers are loath to loosen the emergency shoot-to-kill powers imposed in 1958 in Manipur and other northeastern states for fear of giving oxygen to rebel movements in a region that also borders Bangladesh and China.

Perhaps for the same reason, and despite a drop-off in violence that has killed 3,000 in a decade, India has dallied on plans to turn Manipur into a serious trading corridor with Southeast Asia and Myanmar, which is shaking off decades of isolation and welcoming new investment.

Manipur has a direct road link through winding hills with the town of Tamu in Myanmar. It was along this road that Japanese forces attacked India in World War Two before being turned back in battles around Imphal.

The Myanmar army has recently launched offensives against Indian rebel camps on its territory, but several groups are still believed to shelter in the hilly terrain there.

FIRST CASUALTY

Ratan was the first casualty in the build-up to Manipur's state elections, a campaign that has been overshadowed by daily grenade blasts and gunfire as the coalition of rebels targets the ruling Congress party.

"This is not going to undermine the democratic process, peoples' hearts cannot be intimidated by these kind of acts," said visibly shaken Congress candidate Irengbam Hemochandra, minutes after the attack last week. It was his home that was targeted.

Despite the brave words, Manipur's election campaign has been subdued, with only a few, heavily guarded rallies. Police in military-style uniforms armed with automatic rifles line highways and man sandbag barricades outside candidates' homes.

Congress is expected to retain office, thanks to a tradition of Manipur being ruled by the same party that runs the central government, which has a strong hand due to the massive security presence.

One politician visiting from another state, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, said she was shocked by what she saw.

"It's like a battlefield, I don't like that," she told Reuters after meeting Irom Sharmila, a woman who has been on a hunger strike for more than ten years to demand an end to the emergency powers. Sharmila is in police custody and is force fed through a nasal tube.

Security forces prowl the streets of Imphal after nightfall, stopping and searching the few vehicles that venture into the gloom. But no trace has been found of two suspects seen slipping away after Sunday's blast.

Close to 30,000 reinforcements have arrived from across India to beef up security at polling stations, doubling the size of the police force in a nerve-wracking operation for Manipur's new police chief Ratnakar Baral, in charge of their welfare.

"Send in local police first in civilian clothes to see that there is not any ambush and they get killed," the police chief ordered a subordinate by telephone from his office Tuesday. "They are new to Manipur's situation," he explained. "They need to be educated about it and move very carefully."

He has good reason to worry. In the last state election in 2007, 16 uniformed men were killed in a grenade and gunfire attack on their truck.

'DARK FUTURE'

Manipur's security woes, its potholed roads and irregular power supply do not encourage investment in the state, fuelling unemployment that is close to 25 percent.

Last year, protesters calling for more power for the Naga tribe blocked highways into the landlocked state for nearly three months, causing fuel and food scarcity and soaring prices.

"As an economist I see a very dark future. The central government has failed to invest in infrastructure," said N. Mohindro, an expert on trade in the state.

Although economic growth has been strong in recent years, the wealth is not felt on the streets and Manipur remains one of India's poorest states. Educated young people are leaving to study in India's main cities and abroad and are not returning.

"We understand. Why would they come back? There is no electricity, no restaurants, no picture houses even," said one businessman in the city, whose children are all living in India's tech capital, Bangalore. He is thinking of joining them.

Many of those that stay are drawn into drugs -- Manipur is a major transit route for Golden Triangle-produced heroin, smuggled from Myanmar on its way to international markets.

"My problem is my children and my wife. I don't know about Manipur's problems," said Thangchin Lian, 32, an alcoholic and sometimes heroin user from the Paite tribe who recently discovered he and his pregnant wife have HIV. Their two year-old boy is not infected.

Speaking in their neat wood and bamboo stilt house on the edge of Churanchandpur, an hour's drive from Imphal, pregnant Niangbai Lian said many of their friends were also infected but struck an optimistic note.

"I love Manipur," said Lian, who is taking anti-retrovirals for her illness and hopes to join the state's large police force after her baby is born.

"I was born here and there is hope for the young, as long as they struggle and work."

(Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan and Nick Macfie)

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/asia/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20120127/wl_nm/us_india_election_manipur

alistair overeem alistair overeem lesnar vs overeem ufc 141 appetizer recipes insight bowl deep impact

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Navigation Data Shows Costa Concordia May Have Had a Steering System Failure [Video]

This video shows the navigation path of Costa Concordia, the ship that ran aground in Italy. Lots of things went wrong after it hit the first rock, but her path reveals that they may have been a steering system failure before that. More »


Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/7Hjl_uVdiEw/navigation-data-shows-how-costa-concordia-meet-its-fate

nelson mandela champions online champions online mezzanine mezzanine jules verne jules verne

Dr. Brian Druker honored with Japan Prize

Dr. Brian Druker honored with Japan Prize [ Back to EurekAlert! ] Public release date: 25-Jan-2012
[ | E-mail | Share Share ]

Contact: Elisa Williams
willieli@ohsu.edu
503-494-8231
Oregon Health & Science University

By pioneering the development of targeted cancer drugs, Druker's work helped usher in the practice of personalized cancer medicine

PORTLAND, Ore. Oregon Health & Science University congratulates Brian J. Druker, M.D., who has been awarded the 2012 Japan Prize in Healthcare and Medical Technology for his pioneering role in targeted cancer drugs. The Japan Prize is considered one of the world's most prestigious awards in science and technology. Druker's research proved it was possible to shut down cells that enable cancer to grow without harming healthy ones a discovery that helped make once-fatal forms of the disease manageable.

"On behalf of all OHSU employees, I extend our congratulations to Brian," said OHSU President Joe Robertson, M.D., M.B.A. "Brian's brilliance, hard work and dedication have impacted millions of lives. Though he has already achieved great things, Brian has maintained his fierce determination to make cancer a disease we no longer have to fear. It is impossible to not be inspired by him and want to be a part of his important mission to end cancer as we know it."

Druker shares the Japan Prize in Healthcare and Medical Technology with Nicholas B. Lydon, Ph.D., who became a founder and director of Blueprint Medicines after a career at Novartis, and Janet D. Rowley, M.D., Blum-Riese Distinguished Service Professor of Medicine, Molecular Genetics & Cell Biology and Human Genetics at The University of Chicago. All three were involved in the scientific discoveries that led to the development of one of the first drugs to target cancer-specific molecules. In addition to the prize for Healthcare and Medical Technology, the Japan Prize Foundation also recognized Masato Sagawa, president of Intermetallics Co., with the award for Environment, Energy and Infrastructure for developing the world's highest performing permanent magnet and contributing to energy conservation.

"We're honored to give this year's awards to the four distinguished people," said Hiroyuki Yoshikawa, chairman of the Japan Prize Foundation. "They truly deserve the Japan Prize, which is given to scientists and researchers who made substantial contributions not only scientifically but also to promoting the advancement of science and technology for the peace and prosperity of mankind."

The Japan Prize Laureates will be formally honored at a Presentation Ceremony in Tokyo on April 25.

"I am honored to receive this distinguished award. It is most meaningful to me because the research it recognizes brings hope to cancer patients and their families," said Druker, director of the Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator and JELD-WEN Chair of Leukemia Research at OHSU. "My goal going forward is to advance science so that someday there will be a targeted therapy to shut down every form of cancer."

Druker began his cancer research career in the 1980s, studying why some formerly normal cells shift into overdrive producing tumors. In 1993, the year he joined OHSU, Druker began testing compounds that could target the molecules that drive chronic myloid leukemia (CML). He identified the compound that ultimately became Gleevec and then led the drug's clinical trials. During the trials, nearly all CML patients saw their white blood counts return to normal in a matter of weeks with little or no side effects. Patients in hospice facilities, who were expecting to die within days, recovered and began leading normal lives and are still alive today. The trials were so successful that they resulted in the fastest approval by the FDA in its history.

Since Gleevec was approved by the FDA in 2001 to treat CML, it has since been proven effective against multiple forms of cancer including pediatric CML and gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Gleevec's success has since led to the development of dozens of other FDA-approved targeted therapies and even more that are in clinical trials or about to be approved.

With his scientific and medical achievements, Druker has steadily built the OHSU Knight Cancer Institute into an international leader in delivering personalized cancer medicine. Public support through the National Institutes of Health and the Oregon Opportunity research investment has been joined with generous private donations including the transformative $100 million gift from Phil and Penny Knight, the $5 million gift from John Gray and the $2.5 million gift from the Boyle family. These investments have enabled Druker to recruit some of the world's top scientists to write the assembly manual for cancer. By figuring out how cancer cells function and why they grow out of control, researchers will have the knowledge they require to develop the drugs to stop it.

###

For photos of Brian Druker, M.D., visit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ohsunews/sets/72157629018500711/

For video of the OHSU Knight Cancer Institute, visit: http://vimeo.com/29744859

For video of Brian Druker, visit: http://vimeo.com/29898508

About Japan Prize Foundation

Since its inception in 1985, the Japan Prize Foundation has awarded the Japan Prize to 74 people from 13 countries. In addition to awarding the Japan Prize, which is endorsed by the Japanese government, the Foundation has been hosting "Easy-to-Understand Science and Technology" seminars and awarding research grants to help nurture young scientists and further promote the advancement of science and technology.

About the OHSU Knight Cancer Institute

With the latest treatments, technologies, hundreds of research studies and approximately 400 clinical trials, the OHSU Knight Cancer Institute is the only National Cancer Institute-designated Cancer Center between Sacramento and Seattle an honor earned only by the nation's top cancer centers. The honor is shared among the more than 650 doctors, nurses, scientists and staff who work together at the OHSU Knight Cancer Institute to reduce the impact of cancer.

About OHSU

Oregon Health & Science University is the state's only health and research university and its only academic health center. As Portland's largest employer, OHSU's size contributes to its ability to provide many services and community support activities not found anywhere else in the state. OHSU serves patients from every corner of the state and is a conduit for learning for more than 4,300 students and trainees. OHSU is the source of more than 200 community outreach programs that bring health and education services to each county in the state.



[ Back to EurekAlert! ] [ | E-mail | Share Share ]

?


AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.


Dr. Brian Druker honored with Japan Prize [ Back to EurekAlert! ] Public release date: 25-Jan-2012
[ | E-mail | Share Share ]

Contact: Elisa Williams
willieli@ohsu.edu
503-494-8231
Oregon Health & Science University

By pioneering the development of targeted cancer drugs, Druker's work helped usher in the practice of personalized cancer medicine

PORTLAND, Ore. Oregon Health & Science University congratulates Brian J. Druker, M.D., who has been awarded the 2012 Japan Prize in Healthcare and Medical Technology for his pioneering role in targeted cancer drugs. The Japan Prize is considered one of the world's most prestigious awards in science and technology. Druker's research proved it was possible to shut down cells that enable cancer to grow without harming healthy ones a discovery that helped make once-fatal forms of the disease manageable.

"On behalf of all OHSU employees, I extend our congratulations to Brian," said OHSU President Joe Robertson, M.D., M.B.A. "Brian's brilliance, hard work and dedication have impacted millions of lives. Though he has already achieved great things, Brian has maintained his fierce determination to make cancer a disease we no longer have to fear. It is impossible to not be inspired by him and want to be a part of his important mission to end cancer as we know it."

Druker shares the Japan Prize in Healthcare and Medical Technology with Nicholas B. Lydon, Ph.D., who became a founder and director of Blueprint Medicines after a career at Novartis, and Janet D. Rowley, M.D., Blum-Riese Distinguished Service Professor of Medicine, Molecular Genetics & Cell Biology and Human Genetics at The University of Chicago. All three were involved in the scientific discoveries that led to the development of one of the first drugs to target cancer-specific molecules. In addition to the prize for Healthcare and Medical Technology, the Japan Prize Foundation also recognized Masato Sagawa, president of Intermetallics Co., with the award for Environment, Energy and Infrastructure for developing the world's highest performing permanent magnet and contributing to energy conservation.

"We're honored to give this year's awards to the four distinguished people," said Hiroyuki Yoshikawa, chairman of the Japan Prize Foundation. "They truly deserve the Japan Prize, which is given to scientists and researchers who made substantial contributions not only scientifically but also to promoting the advancement of science and technology for the peace and prosperity of mankind."

The Japan Prize Laureates will be formally honored at a Presentation Ceremony in Tokyo on April 25.

"I am honored to receive this distinguished award. It is most meaningful to me because the research it recognizes brings hope to cancer patients and their families," said Druker, director of the Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator and JELD-WEN Chair of Leukemia Research at OHSU. "My goal going forward is to advance science so that someday there will be a targeted therapy to shut down every form of cancer."

Druker began his cancer research career in the 1980s, studying why some formerly normal cells shift into overdrive producing tumors. In 1993, the year he joined OHSU, Druker began testing compounds that could target the molecules that drive chronic myloid leukemia (CML). He identified the compound that ultimately became Gleevec and then led the drug's clinical trials. During the trials, nearly all CML patients saw their white blood counts return to normal in a matter of weeks with little or no side effects. Patients in hospice facilities, who were expecting to die within days, recovered and began leading normal lives and are still alive today. The trials were so successful that they resulted in the fastest approval by the FDA in its history.

Since Gleevec was approved by the FDA in 2001 to treat CML, it has since been proven effective against multiple forms of cancer including pediatric CML and gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Gleevec's success has since led to the development of dozens of other FDA-approved targeted therapies and even more that are in clinical trials or about to be approved.

With his scientific and medical achievements, Druker has steadily built the OHSU Knight Cancer Institute into an international leader in delivering personalized cancer medicine. Public support through the National Institutes of Health and the Oregon Opportunity research investment has been joined with generous private donations including the transformative $100 million gift from Phil and Penny Knight, the $5 million gift from John Gray and the $2.5 million gift from the Boyle family. These investments have enabled Druker to recruit some of the world's top scientists to write the assembly manual for cancer. By figuring out how cancer cells function and why they grow out of control, researchers will have the knowledge they require to develop the drugs to stop it.

###

For photos of Brian Druker, M.D., visit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ohsunews/sets/72157629018500711/

For video of the OHSU Knight Cancer Institute, visit: http://vimeo.com/29744859

For video of Brian Druker, visit: http://vimeo.com/29898508

About Japan Prize Foundation

Since its inception in 1985, the Japan Prize Foundation has awarded the Japan Prize to 74 people from 13 countries. In addition to awarding the Japan Prize, which is endorsed by the Japanese government, the Foundation has been hosting "Easy-to-Understand Science and Technology" seminars and awarding research grants to help nurture young scientists and further promote the advancement of science and technology.

About the OHSU Knight Cancer Institute

With the latest treatments, technologies, hundreds of research studies and approximately 400 clinical trials, the OHSU Knight Cancer Institute is the only National Cancer Institute-designated Cancer Center between Sacramento and Seattle an honor earned only by the nation's top cancer centers. The honor is shared among the more than 650 doctors, nurses, scientists and staff who work together at the OHSU Knight Cancer Institute to reduce the impact of cancer.

About OHSU

Oregon Health & Science University is the state's only health and research university and its only academic health center. As Portland's largest employer, OHSU's size contributes to its ability to provide many services and community support activities not found anywhere else in the state. OHSU serves patients from every corner of the state and is a conduit for learning for more than 4,300 students and trainees. OHSU is the source of more than 200 community outreach programs that bring health and education services to each county in the state.



[ Back to EurekAlert! ] [ | E-mail | Share Share ]

?


AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.


Source: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/ohs-dbd012512.php

condoleezza rice road house who do you think you are frank mccourt ricin in god we trust damian mcginty

Tips, Tricks (and a Few No-No?s!) for Treating Your Child?s Cold this Winter

Pediatrican and father of four boys, Dr. Zak Zarbock, shares his top tips and tricks to effectively treating your child's cold this winter.

Source: http://feeds.celebritybabies.com/~r/celebrity-babies/~3/qh6_Ga5m70s/

kody brown transylvania carrie ann inaba california earthquake california earthquake jenna lyons jenna lyons