Oh, Hey, Looks Like We Just Discovered a Vaccine for Ebola
Here's how you start your Friday with a spring in your step: a new "highly effective" vaccine against the Ebola virus. A newly developed vaccine against the deadly Ebola virus is "highly effective" and could help prevent its spread in the current and future outbreaks, the World Health Organization said Friday. Trials of the VSV-EBOV vaccine began in March in Guinea -- one of three West African nations at the center of the outbreak -- and have shown such promise that this week it was decided to extend immediate vaccination to "all people at risk," a WHO news release said. "This is an extremely promising development," said Dr. Margaret Chan, the body's director general. As Howard Jones sang, "And do you feel scared, I do . . . But I won't stop and falter . . . Things can only get better!"
Defense Secretary: Actually, Troops at Recruitment Centers Can Be Armed Finally, a bit of common sense: Following the recent fatal shooting of four Marines and a sailor in Tennessee, Defense Secretary Ash Carter is ordering the military services to consider new policies that would enhance security for troops at home, including potentially arming more personnel. In a memo released Thursday, Carter urged top military officials to "develop action plans to improve the security and force protection of DoD personnel." His memo noted that current Defense Department policy authorizes the arming of additional "qualified DoD personnel (not regularly engaged in law enforcement activities) based on the threat and the immediate need to protect DoD assets and lives." A reminder of the threat: An Army intelligence bulletin is warning U.S. military personnel to be vigilant after Islamic State militants called on supporters to scour social media for addresses of their family members -- and to "show up [at their homes] and slaughter them." The assessment, obtained by Fox News, came from the Army Threat Integration Center which issues early warnings of criminal and terrorist threats to Army posts worldwide . . . "This document is a reminder to stay vigilant," the Army said. "It provides renewed emphasis on force protection measures to ensure the safety and security of our DOD components, defense critical infrastructure, personnel and communities." Back to the new memo: Carter also urged military officials to "consider any additional protection measures including changes to policy and procedures that protect our force against the evolving threat," according to the memo. Another key aspect of the "action plans" should be identifying ways to "improve off-installation site security, including practical physical security upgrades and procedural improvements." The memo calls for new alarm systems. That might help a bit, but it won't be particularly effective at stopping a shooter or attacker. As encouraging as this sounds, here's the caveat: A Pentagon spokesman said Carter is not rushing to increase the number of armed personnel, particularly outside installations. "We recognize that there are situations where this is not going to be the best option, to have people walking around armed. And certainly that is something that the services will be very aware of when they are looking at this," said Navy Capt. Jeff Davis. "Looking at arming personnel doesn't mean that is what the services will decide," Davis said Thursday after releasing Carter's memo. If Trump Wants to Be Taken Seriously, That Means Dissecting His Ideas When you write about Donald Trump, you get some reactions, like . . . Why are you writing about Trump? Well, he is the frontrunner, right? Why are you writing a hit piece? The piece consists mostly of quotes of Trump. It's not particularly flattering to Trump, but don't think it's unfair to quote his views and policy suggestions over the years and then try to make the case that Trump goes where the winds, his gut, and his ego lead him. Who dropped this opposition research on him? Google and Lexis-Nexis, mostly. Why are you dismissing him? Because "I would take the oil" sounds really appealing and tough in the abstract but is just about impossible to legally implement in reality. The Geneva Conventions include an explicit ban on seizing property from an adversary. Are we just deciding we don't want to honor that anymore? Do these oil fields become formal, permanent U.S. territory? How many square miles are we seizing? Once the U.S. military is in control of those areas, who works on those derricks and refineries? Do U.S. oil companies go in and operate them, and if so, does the U.S. government pay them, or is their payment from the sales of the oil they produce? How long do you think the Iraqi or Libyan people would be acquiescent to this arrangement? How do you think our allies would respond? How do you think, say, Russia or China would respond once we assert that seizing another country's territory and property is justified in these circumstances? Do we want to keep Iraqi and Libyan oil fields in U.S. government possession forever, or do we sell it off someday? We have argued, correctly, that Obama rose to power by promising the world: Your health-insurance premiums will go down by $2,500! If you like your plan, you can keep your plan! Preventative care will save money for everyone! We'll double funding for cancer research! We'll double the Peace Corps! We'll double funding for afterschool programs! We'll have human missions to the moon by 2020! No tax increases at all for anyone making less than $250,000! The common thread is, something for nothing. As Stephen Miller observed, "The promises Trump is making about walls, China, Iran and Mexico are at their core no different than the type of free-[stuff] promises Barack Obama makes to his base." Why didn't you quote him in context? Just about every quote has a link to the original interview, video, etc. Why aren't you writing about what he said about immigration? I did. As important as the issue of immigration is, there are other important issues in this race. Why aren't you writing about Hillary? Dude, check my archive. I write about Hillary a ton. Who Took Down Malaysia Airlines Flight 370? I realize the latest cable-news coverage might make viewers feel like CNN is in summer reruns, but this seems like a big deal: Officials are expressing growing confidence that the piece of wreckage found on the shores of a remote Indian Ocean island this week is part of missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Martin Dolan, the head of the Australian agency coordinating the underwater search for the plane, told CNN on Friday that he is "increasingly confident, but not yet certain" that the debris is from MH370. Authorities are "highly confident" that the object found Wednesday by people cleaning a beach on the French island of Reunion is from a Boeing 777, Dolan said, and "the only 777 aircraft that we're aware of in the Indian Ocean that could have led to this part floating is MH370." Reminder: This plane was almost certainly taken down deliberately. In fact, our government came to that conclusion a while ago but didn't want to tell anyone. A preliminary assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies, produced in the wake of the MH370 disaster, suggested it was likely someone in the cockpit deliberately caused the aircraft's movements to go off course before the Malaysian airliner disappeared. Two U.S. officials briefed on the matter said the assessment, which was not intended for public release, was prepared months ago and was solely based on available satellite and other evidence, and not based on more detailed findings by investigators. Another government official said the assessment is the most current view of U.S. officials based on what is known so far about the plane's fate. If it's terrorists, no group has taken credit for it yet. The usual theory would be a suicidal pilot, but there's not yet any real evidence of that: A report earlier this year from Malaysian investigators found no indications of unusual behavior among the pilots and cabin crew of Flight 370 before it took off and vanished in the early hours of March 8, 2014. "There were no behavioral signs of social isolation, change in habits or interest, self-neglect, drug or alcohol abuse of the captain, first officer and the cabin crew," the report said. ADDENDA: This week's pop-culture podcast: A quick review of the most recent NR cruise and a discussion of how cruise-going compares to other vacation options; the fact that passions aren't waning about the controversy of deflate-gate and whether women should be coaching in the NFL; how and why Amy Schumer became such a big star, and some great news about our producer, Dave Perkins. | 
Comments
Post a Comment