Throwable Camera Would Help Scope Out Dangerous Situations

First responders may soon be adding small bouncing balls to their go-bags. Massachusetts-based Bounce Imaging has developed a series of small camera-equipped bouncing sensors that can be thrown into rooms to report back on what’s inside.

Each device has six cameras, an array of sensors, and infrared LEDs. Once thrown into a space, the ball rolls to a stop and creates a panorama of the space around it, which it beams back to a mobile device. The sensors collect data such as room temperature and oxygen levels.

Though the ball is still in the prototype stage, Bounce Imaging’s founders, both MIT alums, say that they expect it to have far-reaching applications for everything from search and rescue to military operations. They say that Massachusetts law enforcement will begin testing it out early next year.

They haven’t revealed how much the final version will cost, but they’re billing it as a relatively low-cost alternative to fiber-optic cameras and robots that soldiers and first responders use.

via Discovery News

Read More..

Final “Spartacus” Season to Enter the Arena January 25

LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) – Starz’s “Spartacus” series will engage in one last round of battle in January, the cable network said Tuesday.

“Spartacus: War of the Damned” will premiere January 25, 2013 at 9 p.m., marking the beginning of the end for the blood-and-sex soaked franchise, whose previous installments included “Spartacus: Vengeance” and “Spartacus: Blood and Sand.”

“Spartacus: War of the Damned” sees Liam McIntyre returning as the titular gladiator, and takes place following the defeat of Roman commander Gaius Claudius Glaber. Following successful battles against the Romans after the Battle of Vesuvius, the ranks of the rebellious slaves have swelled, with Rome trembling at Spartacus’ increased threat to the empire.

This season also sees the addition of new cast members Todd Lasance as Gaius Julius Caesar, Simon Merrells as Marcus Crassus and Anna Hutchison as Laeta.

TV News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Read More..

Doctor and Patient: Comparative Effectiveness Studies Lack Impact

“Comparative effectiveness” studies, which compare one treatment for a particular illness against another to determine which works better, have received a lot of attention and billions of dollars in federal support in the last few years. But when I mentioned comparative effectiveness research recently to a colleague who I know is particularly interested in treatments and the clinical trials behind them, he let out a loud snort and guffaw before I even finished saying the words.

“It’s a great idea, but it’s not real life,” he said, regaining his composure. “Or at least not the real life of a lot of doctors and patients.”

To explain, he described a newly published study on treating children who are thought to have swallowed a small foreign object, like a coin or a toy. He reeled off a long list of laboratory tests, scans, scopes and X-rays that the researchers recommended for such cases, adding, “Those experts assume that everyone lives near big medical centers like theirs, but not all of my patients do. And what are we going to do if the insurance company doesn’t approve of all the tests we order?”

It took only a cursory review of comparative effectiveness research over the last decade for me to realize that my colleague was right. Despite many useful and even potentially cost-saving findings, many of them failed to change doctors’ practice and patient care.

Now a group of researchers has offered a cogent analysis in the journal Health Affairs to explain this failure. And they have done so using methods about as different from comparative effectiveness as research can be.

The researchers talked to more than 50 doctors, patient advocates and other health care experts, each of whom had created, conducted or evaluated comparative effectiveness research or helped introduce the findings into clinical practice. During the interviews, they referred to trials of blood pressure medications, spine surgery, antipsychotic drugs, a heart rhythm device, heart catheterizations and bone marrow transplantation, and then asked why some of these studies seemed to inspire enduring changes while others did not.

A handful of factors came up again and again. Those interviewed frequently referred to the fact that many of these studies did not address the actual needs of practicing clinicians and patients. For instance, one study of medications for treating psychosis focused on the differences in efficacy among the drugs, but mental health care providers really wanted to know about differences in safety.

Sometimes, too, a study’s conclusions required such a significant shift in thinking that doctors and patients had difficulty adjusting to the change, like the recent recommendations against using measures of the prostate-specific antigen, or PSA, as a screening test for cancer. Other times, the findings were so nuanced or ambiguous, with such complicated restrictions on what worked best when, that they simply were not incorporated into professional guidelines or recommendations.

But perhaps the most common reason for these studies’ failures came down to dollars. In the current health care system, clinicians are rewarded for doing and ordering more. Pharmaceutical and medical device firms reap fortunes from physicians’ orders, and a single change could cost them billions. Studies that endorse anything less than another expensive procedure or a newer and more expensive medication or the latest device are often destined for failure or a protracted struggle against drug and device companies that are willing to put up a costly fight.

“The incentives are all out of whack,” said Justin W. Timbie, the lead author and a health policy researcher at the RAND Corporation in Arlington, Va. “The current system favors treatments that are well paid, not necessarily those that are most effective.”

For example, one study found that generic diuretic pills that cost pennies a day worked better for patients with high blood pressure than newer drugs that could be as much as 20 times as expensive. Because hypertension affects tens of millions of Americans, this finding had the potential to save the health care system billions of dollars.

But the finding never really took hold; the percentage of patients taking the cheaper diuretics barely increased. Physicians had a difficult time changing their prescribing habits; limited funding prevented researchers from widely disseminating the results; and pharmaceutical companies waged an aggressive marketing campaign that included paying health care experts to speak about the study in a way that made their expensive drugs seem better.

Based on their findings from these interviews, Dr. Timbie and his fellow investigators offer several suggestions that may improve the impact of these studies. These include realigning financial incentives to support recommended changes in practice; incorporating a broad range of perspectives, like those of practicing doctors and patients, in the design, goals and interpretation of such studies; and, above all, proceeding with a clear strategy for all future comparative effectiveness research.

Despite the challenges, the researchers remain optimistic about the future. And for good reason. Their study was initiated by policy makers and financed by the federal office responsible for health care policy coordination and planning. And representatives from the new national organization, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, whose mission is to develop and oversee such studies, have reviewed and discussed the suggestions with Dr. Timbie and the other authors of the study.

“The track record to now has not been great, but for the first time, comparative effectiveness research is a priority for the country,” Dr. Timbie said. “The whole process of generating new evidence has a degree of governance that has never existed before.”

“It’s all about impact now,” he added.

Read More..

News Analysis: For Obama, Housing Policy Presents Second-Term Headaches

A second-term president may be just the person to tackle America’s housing problems.

When President Obama first came into office, home prices were crashing, foreclosures were soaring and the previous Bush administration had just initiated the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed entities that agree to repay mortgages if the original borrower defaults.

With the market in shambles in 2009, the Obama administration pursued a tentative housing policy, for the most part avoiding big moves that might have further weakened the housing market or banks. Eventually, there were some bolder initiatives, like the national mortgage settlement with big banks as well as the Treasury Department’s aid programs for homeowners.

But as President Obama’s first administration comes to an end, the government is still deeply embedded in the mortgage market. In the third quarter, various government entities backstopped 92 percent of all new residential mortgages, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, a publication that focuses on the home loan industry.

Mr. Obama’s economic team has consistently said it wants the housing market to work without significant government support. But it has taken few actual steps to advance that idea.

“I think Obama is absolutely committed to reducing the government’s role,” said Thomas Lawler, a former chief economist at Fannie Mae and founder of Lawler Economic and Housing Consulting, an industry analysis firm. “But no one’s yet found a format to do that.”

Housing policy is hard to tackle because so many people have benefited from the status quo. The entire real estate system — the banks, the agents, the home buyers — all depend on a market that provides fixed-rate, 30-year mortgages that can be easily refinanced when interest rates drop. That sort of loan is rare outside of the United States. And any effort to overhaul housing and the mortgage market could eventually reduce the amount of such mortgages in the country, angering many and creating a political firestorm.

In other words, the best person to fundamentally change how housing works may be a president who won’t be running for office again.

Most immediately, the housing market has to be strong enough to deal with a government pullback. Some analysts think it’s ready. “I think the housing recovery is far enough along that they can start winding down Fannie and Freddie,” said Phillip L. Swagel at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, who served as assistant secretary for economic policy under Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.

The administration can take smaller steps first. Mr. Lawler, the housing economist, thinks the government could start to reduce the maximum amount that it will guarantee for Fannie and Freddie loans. In some areas, like parts of the Northeast and California, it is as high as $625,000. Before the financial crisis, it was essentially capped at $417,000.

The big question is whether the private sector — banks and investors that buy bonds backed with mortgages — will pick up the slack when the government eases out of the market. If they don’t, the supply of mortgages could fall and house prices could weaken.

Banks say their appetite depends on how new rules for mortgages turn out. In setting such regulations, some tough choices have to be made.

The new rules will effectively map the riskiness of various types of mortgages. In determining that, regulators will look at the features of the loans and the borrowers’ income. Banks say they are unlikely to hold loans deemed risky, and their lobbyists are pressing for legal protection on the safer ones, called qualified mortgages.

The temptation will be to make the definition of what constitutes a qualified mortgage as broad as possible, to ensure that the banks lend to a wide range of borrowers. But regulators concerned with the health of the banks won’t want a system that incentivizes institutions to make potentially risky loans.

One set of qualified mortgage regulations, being written by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, could be completed as early as January. Other regulators, like the Federal Reserve, are expected to take longer in finishing their mortgage rules.

Resolving the conflict between mortgage availability and bank strength may depend on the person who replaces Timothy F. Geithner as Treasury secretary. Mr. Geithner is stepping down at the end of Mr. Obama’s first term.

The Obama administration faces other daunting decisions.

One is how to deal with the considerable number of troubled mortgages still in the financial system. Banks might be reluctant to make new loans until they have a better idea of the losses on the old loans. “If you don’t ever deal with these problems, you may never get to where you want to go,” said Mr. Lawler, the housing economist.

To help tackle that issue, the new administration might decide to make its mortgage relief programs more aggressive. It might even aim for more loan modifications, writing down the value of the mortgages to make them easier to pay. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, the regulator that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has effectively blocked such write-downs on the vast amount of loans those entities have guaranteed.

A new Obama administration may move to change the agency’s stance on write-downs, perhaps by replacing its acting director, Edward DeMarco. If that happened, it would be a sign that the White House had a taste for more radical housing actions. The agency declined to comment.

Then there’s what to do with the Federal Housing Administration, another government entity that has backstopped a huge amount of mortgages since the financial crisis. The housing administration was set up to focus on lower-income borrowers, and it backs loans that have very low down payments. Its share of the market has grown since the crisis. The F.H.A. accounted for 13 percent of the market in the third quarter, according to Inside Mortgage Finance.

The new administration has to decide whether it wants the F.H.A. to continue doing as much business. The risk is that a big pullback by the F.H.A. could reduce the availability of mortgages to lower-income borrowers. Banks almost certainly won’t want to write loans with minuscule down payments since they are considered riskier.

Ultimately, housing policy comes down to one question: Which borrowers should get the most subsidies?

Right now, the government largess encompasses a wide swath of borrowers. But most analysts believe government support should be focused on lower-income borrowers.

“We will know that the Obama administration is serious about housing finance reform when it comes up with a proposal for affordable housing,” said Mr. Swagel, the University of Maryland professor.

Read More..

Stocks close down 2.4%, facing 'same old issues' post-election

A trader on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange looks at a newspaper reporting President Obama's reelection. (Henny Ray Abrams / Associated Press / November 7, 2012)

By Andrew Tangel

November 7, 2012, 1:18 p.m.

Stocks closed down 2.4% Wednesday, a sharp slide in the first trading session after  President Obama's reelection. 

Wall Street again focused on two looming crises -- the "fiscal cliff" and European debt crisis. “We're back to our same old issues," said Andy Brooks, head of U.S. equity trading at T. Rowe Price.

The Dow Jones industrial average lost 313 points, finishing at around 12,933.

The broader Standard & Poor's 500 index ended the day down 34 points, or 2.4%, closing at 1,395. The Nasdaq fell 75 points, or 2.5%, to 2,937.

Obama's reelection renewed worries that the Democratic president and Republican House would remain deadlocked -- particularly on the automatic spending cuts and tax hikes looming at year's end, known as the fiscal cliff.

“The market's now facing the reality that that president has won another term, and the first term produced very little in terms of tangible efforts and legislation and commitment to address some of our longstanding fiscal challenges,” Brooks said. “The market is becoming increasingly frustrated with Washington's inability to find compromise and produce anything."

ALSO:

Elizabeth Warren wins Senate race closely followed by Wall Street

Read More..

4 More Drones! Robot Attacks Are on Deck for Obama's Next Term

When Barack Obama took office, drone strikes were a once-in-a-while thing, with an attack every week or two. Now, they’re the centerpiece of a global U.S. counterterrorism campaign. Obama institutionalized the strikes to the point where he could hand off to the next president an efficient bureaucratic process for delivering death-by-robot practically on autopilot. Only now he’s the next president. Welcome to Obama’s second-term agenda for dealing with the world. As the Ramones sang: second verse, same as the first.

Early in the first term, then-CIA director Leon Panetta observed that drones were the “only game in town” for attacking al-Qaida in Pakistan. By that he meant invading a country for the third time in a decade was a nonstarter, and the flesh-and-blood spies needed to do a traditional intelligence operation weren’t available in sufficient numbers. So the Obama administration all but crafted its counterterrorism strategy around the drones, turning their surveillance and lethal operations into a bureaucratic apparatus led by White House aides with minimal outside oversight. The CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command, elite forces that rarely operate visibly, have the lead for implementing the robot-based agenda — and augmenting it with commando raids. Backstopping them are new tools to invade and disrupt enemy data networks.

The strikes have spread from Pakistan to Yemen to Somalia. And now that Obama’s been reelected, expect them to spread to Mali, another country most Americans neither know nor understand. The northern part of the North African country has fallen into militant hands. U.S.-aligned forces are currently plotting to take it back. The coming arrival of Army Gen. David Rodriguez, the former day-to-day commander of the Afghanistan war, as leader of U.S. forces in Africa is a signal that Obama wants someone experienced at managing protracted wars on a continent where large troop footprints aren’t available. Instead, Rodriguez will have to track, check and erode the spread of al-Qaida in northern and eastern Africa using drones and commando forces, available from his expanding bases in places like Djibouti. If all of this seems routine, that’s the point.

The Obama administration is doing something similar with cyber weaponry. It’s trying to make them a normal part of everyday conflict. Gone are the days when senior officers equivocated in public about their ability to disrupt enemy data networks. Now the Air Force talks openly about spending $10 million on new tools “to destroy, deny, degrade, disrupt, deceive, corrupt, or usurp the adversaries [sic] ability to use the cyberspace domain for his advantage.” The Pentagon’s futurists at Darpa have launched a new “Plan X” to routinize the corruption of enemy networks and the exfiltration of data within normal military operations. Routinization may actually be the wrong word: Darpa wants military malware that works like “the auto-pilot function in modern aircraft.” The Stuxnet worm that messed with Iran’s centrifuges was only the beginning.

All this might seem aggressive for a president who liked to say on the campaign trail that “the tide of war is receding.” But the tide of war never actually goes out. And the wicked-hard problems facing Obama’s national security team may only be getting under way.

First, Obama’s got to help Congress avert 9.4 percent annual, automatic cuts to practically every Defense Department program for the next 10 years, as both he and his defense secretary, Leon Panetta, are on record opposing them.

Next comes Iran. Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu has suggested that he will feel the need to strike Iran by next summer. Obama has a stronger hand with Netanyahu now that he doesn’t have to worry about reelection, but he’s still committed himself rhetorically to preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon. Even if Obama can avert a war, his clear preference, Iran will continue to consume a tremendous amount of the White House and the Pentagon’s attention. The alternative to a massive bombing campaign might not be so benign, either: the point of Stuxnet was to make the Iranians distrust the industrial controls on their nuclear program’s centrifuges.

Then comes Afghanistan, a war that Obama does not discuss candidly. He’s fond of saying, as he did in one of his final ads, that he plans on “ending the war in Afghanistan, so we can do some nation-building here at home.” His real policy is way more complex than that. Yes, Obama is committed to withdrawing most troops and ending a formal U.S. combat role by 2014. Obama plans to keep a residual troop presence in the country, even after the 2014 “withdrawal,” and negotiations with the Afghans about what shape that presence will take — and for what purpose — are supposed to begin shortly. Among the things Obama is likely to seek: Afghanistan’s permission to keep its air bases as launchpads for drone strikes into Pakistan. The charitable interpretation is to say Obama is caveating his out-of-Afghanistan pledge. The uncharitable interpretation is that he’s misleading the country on it.

The Obama administration is still grappling with the implications of its sprawling, robot-led war. Some of its top officials are just starting to question how long the strikes have to persist. But they haven’t addressed concerns about the precedent the U.S. is setting by sending robots to violate the sovereignty of nations, which are unavoidable as drone technology advances and proliferates. Micah Zenko, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations, sees a reckoning with the robots on the horizon.

“There is a recognition within the administration that the current trajectory of drone strikes is unsustainable,” Zenko says. “They are opposed in countries where strikes occur and globally, and that opposition could lead to losing host-nation support for current or future drone bases or over-flight rights.” In other words, tomorrow’s America diplomats may find that drones overshadow the routine geopolitical agenda they seek to advance. The trouble is, the administration’s early search for less-lethal policies to supplement or supplant the drones isn’t promising.

Obama’s broader foreign policy agenda keeps getting derailed. He barely talks about his expansive goal of eliminating global nuclear weapons anymore. Any route to an Israeli-Palestinian peace runs through Netanyahu, who only wants to talk about Iran. The much-heralded “pivot” of the U.S. defense posture toward Asia, a relatively modest goal, keeps getting deferred by the crises of the moment: the Navy’s newest and more advanced ships are going to confront Iran, not to preserve the freedom of the Pacific shipping lanes. A former Obama Pentagon official, Rosa Brooks, recently lamented the Obama team’s chronic inability to shape global events.

Civil libertarians rightly point to Obama’s reversals on expanding warrantless surveillance; the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects; military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay; prosecuting whistleblowers; and embracing an expensive definition of the war on terrorism’s executive powers. But there’s little evidence that Obama will change course. In an insightful blog post, the Brookings Institution’s Benjamin Wittes writes that Obama’s civil-liberties and national security record is best explained by a policy “consensus” in D.C., running through George W. Bush’s second term and Obama’s first, that basically agrees on a definition of executive power that civil libertarians dislike. It’s uncomfortable with torture, but basically comfortable with expansive domestic spying and detention powers.

As Obama’s second term dawns, it’s time to put away ideological illusions about his approach to foreign affairs. Liberals keep waiting for an agenda that’s less killer-robot-y. Conservatives are unable to see him as anything but a peacenik: “We’ll get to see what jimmy carter’s 2nd term would have looked like,” tweeted Jim Carafano, a defense analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

But the evidence is staring everyone in the face. Obama has elevated a practice of stealthy robotic warfare to the tactic of choice for U.S. security priorities, and built around it a system that operates it practically on bureaucratic inertia. Obama has a powerful incentive of all to continue his trajectory: with the one major exception of the Benghazi consulate disaster, Obama’s handling of global affairs has been notably free of high-profile screwups. That’s the sort of thing that propels a foreign policy agenda — to borrow a term — forward.

Read More..

Phase 4 Films Acquires “Precious” Producer’s Directorial Debut “Long Time Gone”

NEW YORK (TheWrap.com) – Phase 4 Films has acquired U.S. and Canadian rights to Sarah Siegel-Magness‘ “Long Time Gone,” a drama starring Virginia Madsen, Amanda Crew and Zach Gilford.

Connecticut resident who has a nervous breakdown after discovering her husband is having an affair. Her son tries to comfort her with the help of his older brother (Gilford) and live-in girlfriend (Crew).

Anthony LaPaglia and Eva Longoria also star in the directorial debut of Siegel-Magness, who produced “Precious.”

“We are thrilled to be working with Sarah on her directorial debut after her past success as a producer,” Phase 4 president and CEO Ben Meyerowitz said in a statement. “We cannot wait until audiences see the great performances by Virginia Madsen and the rest of the wonderful cast involved.”

Phase 4 will release the film day-and-date in theaters and across all VOD and digital platforms Spring 2013.

“I am thrilled to have Phase 4 release my directorial debut. From the very start, they understood and appreciated our film and their enthusiasm has us very excited to move forward in the next chapter of our film’s journey,” Siegel-Magness said in a statement. “Their understanding of the ever changing landscape of the marketplace has us feeling confident that our film is in the right hands.”

Movies News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Read More..

A Collective Effort to Save Decades of Research at N.Y.U.

The calls started coming in late on Tuesday and early Wednesday: offers of dry ice, freezer space, coolers. By the end of Thursday there were dozens more: A researcher at Weill Cornell Medical College would clear 1,000 tanks to save threatened zebra fish; another, at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, promised to replace some genetically altered mice that were lost; and a doctor at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia even offered take over entire experiments, to keep them going.

As hurricane-driven waters surged into New York University research buildings in Kips Bay, on the East Side of Manhattan, investigators in New York and around the world jumped on the phone to offer assistance — executing a reverse Noah’s ark operation, to rescue lab animals and other assets from a flooding vessel.

“I’ve had 43 people who have offered to help so far, and some of them are direct competitors,” said Gordon Fishell, associate director of the N.Y.U. Neuroscience Institute, who lost more than 5,000 genetically altered mice when storm waters surged the night of Oct. 30, cutting off power. “It’s just been unbelievable,” he said. “It really buoys my spirits and my lab’s.”

Staff members at N.Y.U. worked around the clock to preserve research materials, running in and out of darkened buildings without elevator service, hauling dry ice and other supplies up anywhere from 2 to more than 15 floors.

The university’s medical center also got instant help, from almost every major research institution in the area.

The response reflects large shifts in the way that science is conducted over the past generation or so. Individual labs always compete to be first, but researchers increasingly share materials that are enormously expensive and time-consuming to reproduce. The loss of a single cell line or genetically altered animal can slow progress for years in some areas of biomedical research.

“We are totally dependent on each other in the life sciences now, for a very large number of cell lines and extracts, research animals and unique chemical tools and antibodies that might not have backup copies anywhere in the world, or in very few places,” said Dr. Steven Hyman, director of the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard. “Losing any of these tools tears a significant hole in the entire field.”

Danny Reinberg, a professor of biochemistry at N.Y.U.’s medical school, has studied genetics for 30 years, accumulating valuable mice strains and stocks of extracts from cell nuclei that would be extremely difficult to replace. The extracts must be stored at minus 112 degrees Fahrenheit.

Dr. Reinberg said he lost all of his mice: nine strains, including more than 1,000 animals that died in the storm surge. But he managed to save all of the cell extracts by moving some containers into freezers at N.Y.U. labs that weren’t affected and others to the Rockefeller, Columbia and Cornell medical centers, each of which cleared space, he said.

“We were able to save many things; it was just phenomenal to get that kind of help,” said Dr. Reinberg, whose house in New Jersey has had no power.

“Later in the week, at a Starbucks, I could finally download all my e-mail, and there were messages from people at the University of Pennsylvania and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, asking how they could help us re-establish the mouse lines we lost,” he said.

Some scientists have become interdependent because their students, who develop a specialty in specific tissues or animals, often move among labs. Research projects sometimes draw on experiments or analyses the students worked on at more than one place.

One researcher working in Dr. Fishell’s lab was formerly a student of Dr. Stewart Anderson of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who sent Dr. Fishell a text message on Wednesday to offer help. “I told him that even if it costs money, we’re happy to keep experiments rolling, if we’re able to,” Dr. Anderson said.

By late Thursday, freezer space in minus-112-degree units was extremely tight in the city. So was dry ice.

Susan Zolla-Pazner, director of AIDS research at the Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, had lost power in her 18th-floor lab in the department’s building at 23rd Street and First Avenue. She finally hired a company to haul her 20 freezers-full of specimens, for safekeeping.

“We spent all of Tuesday and Wednesday hauling 1,300 pounds of dry ice up to the 18th floor, using the stairs, to stabilize the freezers first,” said Dr. Zolla-Pazner, who is also a professor of pathology at N.Y.U. School of Medicine. “And the dry ice people would only take cash. I have about 25 to 30 people working for me, and everyone was out there on 23rd Street, reaching into their pockets to get what we needed. It was a herculean and heroic effort on the part of everyone here, and that is the story that needs to be told.”

Read More..

Investors on Wall St. React Nervously

Henny Ray Abrams/Associated Press

A trader on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Wednesday. A day after the election, the outlook of continued divided government in Washington and little prospect for compromise unnerved traders.

A one-two punch of worries about the post-election picture in the United States and economic weakness in Europe sent stocks reeling Wednesday, with major indices falling more than 2 percent. Some industry sectors, like finance and managed care, fell substantially more than that over fears they would be hurt by tougher regulations and other adverse policies in President Obama’s second term.

The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index recorded its worst performance since June, falling 33.86 to 1,394.53, while the Dow Jones industrial average fell 312.95 to 12,932.73. It was the Dow’s first close below the psychologically important 13,000 level since August.

Shares also came under pressure after Barclays sharply reduced its year-end target for the S.&P. 500 to 1,325 from 1,395 — 5 percent below where the broad-based index closed Wednesday.

“Within the equity market in the near term, we believe there will be nowhere to hide,” said Barry Knapp, chief United States equity strategist at Barclays. “In the near term, we generally suggest cutting risk.”

Many market strategists expect that the market will remain volatile between now and mid-January. If Congress and the president cannot come up with a plan to cut the deficit, hundreds of billions in Bush-era tax cuts are set to expire at the beginning of 2013 while automatic spending cuts will sharply cut the defense budget and other programs.

Known as the fiscal cliff, this simultaneous combination of sweeping reductions in government spending and tax increases could push the economy into recession in 2013, economists fear.

In the wake of President Obama’s re-election, companies in some sectors, like hospitals and technology, will see a short-term pop, said Tobias Levkovich, chief United States equity strategist with Citi. Other areas, like financial services as well as coal and mining, are likely to be hurt, Mr. Levkovich said.

Indeed, coal companies were among the worst hit Wednesday. The coal industry is particularly sensitive to new environmental regulations, while Mr. Obama has pushed in the past for more investments in renewables and alternative energy sources that could reduce coal demand in the long-term.

Shares of Alpha Natural Resources, a coal giant, were down 12.2 percent to $8.45, while Arch Coal was off 12.5 percent to $7.58.

But HCA Holdings, a hospital operator, jumped 9.4 percent, to $33.85 a share. As a result of Mr. Obama’s victory, Goldman Sachs said it upgraded its rating on HCA to buy from neutral, and raised its price target to $39 from $31. It also raised price targets for Tenet Healthcare and Community Health Systems, although both are still rated neutral.

Goldman downgraded shares of Humana, a leading managed care company, to sell, and its shares fell 7.9 percent to $70.16. Goldman warned that Humana and other managed care providers could be hurt as health care reform moves forward, especially new rules for health insurers that become effective in 2014.

Shares of Wall Street firms and big banks were also hard hit. While Mitt Romney favored substantially altering the Dodd-Frank financial regulations passed in the summer of 2010 and easing many regulations, President Obama has supported stricter rules for the financial services industry. In addition, one of the industry’s fiercest critics, Elizabeth Warren, was elected to the Senate from Massachusetts, unseating her Republican opponent, Scott Brown.

Bank of America fell 7.1 percent to $9.23 while Goldman Sachs dropped 6.6 percent to $117.98 and JPMorgan Chase sank 5.6 percent to $40.48.

Read More..

Death toll rises to three in Fresno chicken plant shooting

Two more people have died after a worker opened fire at a Fresno chicken plant Tuesday morning, authorities said, including the suspected gunman.

The Fresno County coroner's office said Tuesday afternoon that the death toll stood at three and included suspect Lawrence Jones, 42. Police described one of the victims as a 32-year-old man who was pronounced dead at the Valley Protein plant; no information was immediately available about the second victim.

Jones, a "discharged parolee" who had worked at the plant for about 14 months, clocked in to work shortly before 5 a.m. and at about 8:30 "pulled out a handgun and began opening fire" near a cold storage section of the building, Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer said.

Officers found Jones outside the building with an apparent gunshot wound to the head, Dyer said. They also found a 32-year-old woman who had been shot in the lower back.

Three men were found inside: the 32-year-old who was pronounced dead at the scene, a 34-year-old shot in the head and a 28-year-old shot in the neck. The victims were all taken to a local hospital, along with Jones.

Dyer said investigators still weren't sure what prompted Jones to open fire, but said a coworker told authorities Jones "did not appear himself when he came in to work." Hours later, Dyer said, he pulled out a gun and started shooting.
"I heard pops," said Yeprem Barbarian, who passed the plant during the shooting on his way to his tire shop. "I thought it was tires. Then I walked in, turned on the TV and saw the police cars and sirens showing up."

Officers were searching Jones' Fresno home to ensure there were no other victims, Dyer said.

No one answered a telephone number listed for the plant, also known as Apple Valley Farms Inc. All calls instead went to an answering machine.

"Unfortunately, due to an emergency we are closed for the day," the message said.

Read More..