Bio-medical giant Chiron has suffered another devastating attack. Last winter a hippie placed bombs at the Chiron headquarters but this latest blow comes from a staunch ally of America; The UK. British regulators have suspended the company?s Liverpool facility, which manufactures all of Chiron?s U.S. flu vaccine.

British regulators said, in effect, that the Chiron plant had failed an inspection of its general manufacturing procedures. The inspection was triggered last month by the company's disclosure in late August that up to 4 million doses of vaccine had been contaminated and had failed a sterility test.


Chiron makes roughly half of all the flu vaccines for America. The shortage is anticipated to cut Chiron's profits by half.

"This is a huge issue," says Geoffrey Porges, a biotechnology analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein. "It's going to be discussed in Congress; it's going to be discussed at the highest levels in the [Centers for Disease Control]. There's a real likelihood that we will see some fundamental changes in the vaccine market and in vaccine oversight."

This is anticipated to be a particularly deadly flu season, so the shortage is especially critical. Already public health officials are imploring healthy Americans to forgo a flu-shot this year.

This impending crisis has been one that drug companies and health care professionals have grappled with for a while. Flu shots are generally purchased by the government, making the cost low, and subsequently, lowering the incentive for drug companies to manufacture the vaccine. Some have proposed deregulating even more the flu vaccine market in order to encourage other companies to manufacture the vital medicine. Others have suggested alternative solutions to the shot. Regardless of future solutions, this winter will certainly be deadly to the weakest among us.

The news is devastating to Chiron's immediate financial future. Shares were down sharply:

Heavy trading on the news wiped out $1.4 billion in market capitalization from the company within hours. Analysts said the unexpected regulatory action was not only a blow to Chiron but also a public health disaster.

While audiences applaud a new movie about Ernesto Che Guevara at the Sundance Film Festival others are fighting another aspect of his legacy, the brutal regime engineered by him and overseen by Castro. Raúl Rivero, a new resident of Che’s “labor camps” (which are really a system used to imprison dissidents, gays, and AIDS victims) is at the center of a new movement to bring a ray of democratic reform to the island country. A poet, Rivero is serving a 20 year sentence for acting “against Cuban independence”, and offers a striking parallel to Che’s tragically-hip mass murder. Rivero’s arrest comes in lockstep with the Cuban crackdown on librarians who are working to have some modicum of freedom when it comes to selecting books.

What’s striking to some is that while the world seems outraged, Americans by and large seem unconcerned. Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa have written a piece that has found it way Le Monde and other major newspapers, yet it barely registers in the States. Nat Hentoff has blasted the American Library Association for turning a blind eye to the situation in Cuba. Amnesty International has condemned the actions of Cuba, and yet barely a ripple in American papers. Perhaps America’s fawning worship of Che is wholly incompatible with defending those who are imprisoned and killed by the system he’s created.

Turns out I'm a "stoned slacker". I wonder what that makes O’Reilly's views.

Does the media lean to the Left or to the Right? An interesting question in most times, a vital question today as America runs up to the most important election of modern times. While the pajama-clad revolutionaries trumpeted CBS’ folly as being indicative of a left-leaning bias, Ethan Rarick asks us to go back to the recent past for perspective.

Just four months ago, lest we forget, the New York Times issued its own mea culpa, acknowledging the repeated use of dubious information in its coverage of the run-up to the Iraq War and the Bush administration's repeated assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. In the case of one story, the Times flat-out said it was duped, although it used the more decorous phrase "taken in."

While the bias of “the media” is understandable only in the context of one’s own political perspective, it’s vital to question the motives of news organizations, especially as the ramifications grow.

Comparing CBS’ mea culpa with the NY Times’ Rarick writes,

The two media apologies have a lot in common. In both cases, the issues involved have major implications for the presidential campaign. In both cases, a well-known national news organization admitted sloppy reporting and acknowledged that critical information could not be verified. In both cases, reporters were overly credulous in dealing with sources who had a political interest at stake -- in the CBS case the former Guardsman who is a vehement Bush opponent, in the New York Times case the Bush administration officials defending the president's decision to attack Iraq. The critical difference between the two stories is that the Times' mistake was actually the far more serious of the two.

Left leaning or Right? Does it matter or not? If democracy requires an informed populace, whom can we believe? Who can we trust?

The only other officer from the swift boats incident speaks.

With intensive troop engagements in the Middle East the White House faces a conundrum, how can troop levels be maintained and still win the election?

The recent troop realignment plan potentially offers some deployment flexibility. Some Democrats have suggested a draft to keep troop levels at necessary levels, but it's the Bush administration's use of the "stop-loss" program that is generating controversy.

After the 9/11 attacks the Pentagon implemented a stop-loss program intended to keep seasoned soldiers in the military. It's based on an emergency provision that can enacted during extraordinary circumstances. Some consider this policy to be in actuality a back door draft. Now a soldier, known as John Doe, is suing Donald Rumsfeld claiming the program is illegal.

The lawsuit asserts the emergency policy instituted in the wake of the September 11 attacks was "invalid" because the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein has been removed from power and "Iraq cannot be considered to pose a threat of terrorist attack upon the United States."

Some believe the legal merits of the case are specious at best, but since this is an issue largely driven by politics, public opinion matters. The White House and America struggle to balance decreasing troop levels, increasing military engagements, and the sense of fairness that defines who we are.

Josh with a thorough, and provactive fisking of Doug Feith.

The CIA asked Bush to discontinue his blog. Frankly, it's about time.

One of the all time great television shows will be grappling with gay marriage next season, and already a controversy is erupting around what's promising to be a blockbuster episode. When Springfield approves gay marriage, one of the long-running characters from The Simpsons comes out of the closest. Speculation abounds as to who it will be.
While the early (and dare I say, dumb) money is on the all-too obvious  Waylon Smithers, (who after all would never endanger his proximity to his immortal beloved by proclaiming his gayness) other contenders has Simpsonphiles abuzz.

Will it be Selma or Patty Bouvier? One's unsuccessful marriages might cause her to give up men, while the other's noticeable lack of men makes her a candidate. Rev. Lovejoy is in the prime, gay-male demographic.  Surprisingly little is known about Kent Brockman's love life. Or perhaps Barney Gumble's excessive drinking is partially fueled by the inner turmoil that can afflict a gay man trying to pass in a straight world.  Or perhaps it's the show's hyper-violent Bert and Ernie, Itchy and Scratchy.

America demands answers. Who will smash their way out of the closet on the Simpsons?

Orrin Hatch once again proving he is the biggest foe to technological innovation in Congress, has sponsored the  Copyright Infringement Act of 2004 . The law, as written, is intended to make it illegal for companies to make and sell devices that could be used for copyright infringement.  (Essentially overruling the Sony Betamax ruling)

Hollywood will be allowed to dictate the limits of innovation. If that doesn't make you nervous, I don't know what will.

"To take revenge is often to sacrifice oneself"-Unknown

Roger Clemens and Mike Piazza have a history. Their past relationship can be best described as "strained". So the lead up to this year's All-Star game centered around how the former rivals would fare as battery mates. 35 pitches later baseball fans (and conspiracy theorists) have their answer. Clemens gave up 6 runs and two homers in the first inning leading some to believe that Piazza exacted his revenge by tipping The Rocket's pitches. Pitchers have been shelled before, but it was the manner in which Clemen's got hammered that has tongues wagging. All but one of the hits were fastballs that were pulled. (Including Manny's 0-2 inside fastball that was jacked so hard it led commentators to suggest "he knew it was coming").

But this week isn't all about revenge, it's about showcasing the stars of Major League Baseball. From the collection of all the living men who have hit 500 or more home runs, to Nick Lachey and Cecil Fielder taking the field together, this event was filled with unique moments. What was your favorite moment from the All-Star extravaganza?

Perry with some advice for Ditka, don't say you're going to outlaw abortion in your first interview.

Glenn with a great point about the gay marriage exercise in futility.

Blogs and the mainstream politicians. Still an uneasy alliance.

Josh with some interesting points about the latest Wilson/Plame developments.

Punitive liberalism explained at last.

Of the 100 largest economic entities, 51 are corporations. That's the good news. The bad news is that the first corporation doesn't show up until #23.

Shortly after 9/11, when the nation's airports were closed, it's long been rumored that three Saudi men were allowed to fly out of the country. For three years the White House has denied the flight ever occurred. It did.

For those of us who like to carry the greatest document ever in their pocket....

Throughout history, even the bitterest of enemies have commonly begun peace negotiations while the fighting still raged. And right now, smack in the middle of our self-styled war on terror, it may also make sense for us to start exploring possible paths to peace.

John Arquilla, a professor of defense analysis at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School,argues that negotiating with terrorists is the answer. Arquilla notes that every conflict since WWII the U.S. has engaged in has resulted in some negotiated compromise.

The biggest obstacle? Political will. Appearing weak before the America voters is an almost unthinkable position for politicians. But before the political ramifications are played at home it's worth entertaining the thought that a negotiated settlement offers another way. Is it capitulation that will only serve to bolster the courage of the "evil-doers"? Or is it a rational response to address an almost unfathomable conflict? Will a negotiated peace hold when almost all the actors on one side are a loosely connected group beholden neither to statehood nor the dictates of elections? What lessons have been learned from the success and failures of similar, previously negotiated settlements? Is it weakness or pragmatism to look for alternatives to absolute victory over terrorism?