Monday, May 6, 2013

Divide and define: Clues to understanding how stem cells produce different kinds of cells

Divide and define: Clues to understanding how stem cells produce different kinds of cells

Monday, May 6, 2013

The human body contains trillions of cells, all derived from a single cell, or zygote, made by the fusion of an egg and a sperm. That single cell contains all the genetic information needed to develop into a human, and passes identical copies of that information to each new cell as it divides into the many diverse types of cells that make up a complex organism like a human being.

If each cell is genetically identical, however, how does it grow to be a skin, blood, nerve, bone or other type of cell? How do stem cells read the same genetic code but divide into very different types?

Researchers at the University of Michigan have found the first direct evidence that cells can distinguish between seemingly identical copies of chromosomes during stem cell division, pointing to the possibility that distinct information on the chromosome copies might underlie the diversification of cell types.

Scientists in the lab of Life Sciences Institute researcher Yukiko Yamashita explained how stem cells can distinguish between two identical copies of chromosomes and distribute them to the daughter cells in a process called nonrandom chromosome segregation. They also described the genes responsible. Their work is scheduled to be published online May 5 in Nature.

"If we can figure out how and why cells are dividing this way, we might be able to get a glimpse of how we develop into a complete human, starting from a single cell," Yamashita said. "It is very basic science, but understanding fundamental biological processes always has wide-ranging implications that could be exploited in therapeutics and drug discovery."

During the cell division cycle, the mother cell duplicates its chromosomes, generating two identical sets. When the cell divides to become two cells, each cell inherits one set of chromosome copies. In many divisions, the daughter cells are identical to the mother?one skin cell becomes two, for instance.

But in a process called asymmetric division, a cell divides into two daughters that are not identical?a skin stem cell divides into another skin stem cell and a regular skin cell, for example. In that case, the genetic information within the chromosome copies remains the same, but the type of cell, or "cell fate," is different.

The Yamashita lab used stem cells from the testes of the fruit fly Drosophila to study the process of cell division.

"The Drosophila germ line stem cell can be identified at a single-cell resolution, so they are an ideal model," Yamashita said.

The stem cells cluster and are easy to identify; they divide to produce another germ line stem cell and a differentiating cell called a gonialblast, which goes on to eventually become a sperm cell.

The researchers marked the copies of each chromosome in the Drosophila stem cells as they divided. Using this method, they tracked the tendency of the X and the Y chromosome copies to move to the daughter germ line stem cell or to the gonialblast. They were able to demonstrate that copies of X and Y chromosomes (but not other chromosomes) are distinguished and delivered to the daughter cells with a striking bias.

This is the first direct evidence that cells indeed have an ability to distinguish identical copies of chromosomes and separate them in a regulated manner. This ability has been suspected and hypothesized, but never proven.

"We do not know yet why copies of X and Y chromosomes segregate nonrandomly," Yamashita said. "We think maybe specific epigenetic information is transmitted to the germ line stem cell and to the gonialblast."

The findings suggest that the information on the X and Y chromosomes that makes this division possible is primed during gametogenesis?the process of creating ovum or sperm cells?in the parents.

Many other cells throughout the body are able to divide into two different types, especially during embryonic development. Yamashita's next steps are to explore whether the nonrandom chromosome segregation seen in Drosophila is a widespread phenomenon that is shared by mammals, including humans.

Yamashita is a faculty member of the Life Sciences Institute's Center for Stem Cell Biology, where her laboratory is located and all her research is conducted. She is also an assistant professor in the Department of Cell and Developmental Biology and the Cellular and Molecular Biology Program.

Swathi Yadlapalli of the Life Sciences Institute and U-M Medical School was also an author on the paper.

###

University of Michigan: http://www.umich.edu/

Thanks to University of Michigan for this article.

This press release was posted to serve as a topic for discussion. Please comment below. We try our best to only post press releases that are associated with peer reviewed scientific literature. Critical discussions of the research are appreciated. If you need help finding a link to the original article, please contact us on twitter or via e-mail.

This press release has been viewed 32 time(s).

Source: http://www.labspaces.net/128137/Divide_and_define__Clues_to_understanding_how_stem_cells_produce_different_kinds_of_cells

colcannon dystonia tourettes rosie o donnell soda bread recipe vanderbilt evan mathis

Monday, April 29, 2013

Obama to nominate Anthony Foxx as transportation secretary (reuters)

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

Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/politics/top-stories/302200358?client_source=feed&format=rss

sag aftra merger dj am bully bohemian rhapsody bohemian rhapsody spike lee carson daly

Logitech Ultimate Ears Vocal Reference Monitors


First things first: This review is for a pair of $999 (direct) custom-molded earphones aimed squarely at musicians. Unlike most custom pairs in this pricing stratosphere, the Logitech Ultimate Ears Vocal Reference Monitors, as the name suggest, are designed with vocalists in mind. The lowest and highest frequencies are decreased drastically, so that the focus is squarely on the mid-range frequencies that vocals inhabit. As you'd expect from a high-end earphone pair that's custom-molded to your ear canals, there's no distortion to speak of, but it bears repeating: The UE Vocal Reference Monitors are a fantastic musical tool, but not designed for typical music listening.

Design
Visually, there are only so many directions you can go with custom in-canal earphones. When they're in your ears, the outside, flat panel will make it look as if your ears have been filled with a plastic substance. The earpieces themselves are offered in a wide variety of transparent and solid colors. It's also possible to customize your earpieces with artwork, for a higher price.

As for fit, if you've never worn a pair of custom-molded earphones, you're in for a treat. Not only do they fit comfortably and securely for hours on end, they also block out ambient noise more effectively than even active noise canceling headphones can.

A triple-braided, removable audio cable connects to each earpiece, terminating in a 3.5mm connection. There are no inline remotes or microphones to speak of?these earphones are intended for onstage and in-studio use. A gold, screw-on ?-inch adapter ships with the Vocal Reference Monitors,?as well as an earwax cleaning tool and a very sturdy hard case with your name engraved on it.Logitech Ultimate Ears Vocal Reference Monitors

The fit of the earpieces will have everything to do with the audiologist you choose. The impression process is safe, quick, painless (though it can be uncomfortable for some), and, typically, the audiologist will then send your impressions to Logitech. Turnaround time will vary, but my earphones took about three weeks to arrive after my appointment. The cost for these appointments will also vary, especially if you have medical insurance that might cover your visit, but expect to add on roughly $50 to the price of the earphones.

Performance
Discussing the earphones from an audio standpoint is tricky. Someone who typically likes rich or heavy low-end will hate them, but that's not the point. The earphones act almost like a filter for singers, turning down lower and higher frequencies that can cause listening fatigue over time and compete with the midrange frequencies the vocalist needs to concentrate on.

From a performance standpoint, the Vocal Reference Monitors do not distort on tracks with seriously deep bass, even at maximum, painfully loud volumes. So, these earphones will always deliver clean audio, but remarking upon their sound signature, beyond saying that they're quite light on bass or sparkling, bright highs, is kind of pointless.

Instead of discussing our typical testing suite, I decided to test the earphones in my home recording studio, laying down some vocals over instrumental tracks I had been recording. Lucky for you, you don't have to hear the tracks or my vocals, but I tested using some studio-level gear (a Lomo 19A-9 microphone into an Ampex 351 mic pre, with some very minimal compression via a Shadow Hills Optograph and into Pro Tools, for the recording-gear geeks who want to know the signal chain). So, hopefully, this can at least be seen as comparable with a studio or live set-up, though the gear is far less similar to typical live gear, and it's safe to say my signal chain is not transparent. But that's not the point?the point is: Did the tuning of the Vocal Reference Monitors make it easier for me to lay down vocals?

One of the more difficult aspects of recording or performing vocals while wearing in-canal monitors is not being able to hear your actual voice much, if at all?you hear only what's coming through the earpiece itself, really, and it can be disconcerting at first. It's common to see a vocalist in studio, singing with one headphone ear cup off?many vocalists prefer to hear a blend of the mix and their actual voice occurring in a real acoustic space.?

This fact, combined with the very premise of the Vocal Reference Monitors?that they rid the vocalist of unnecessary frequencies?had me approaching testing with a healthy amount of skepticism. A common studio adage is that most musicians want to hear more of themselves in their monitors; the best musicians ask to hear more of the other musicians. Granted, vocals are different because the sound is literally coming from within, but I wasn't sure, prior to testing, if I agreed with the concept that hearing less of the bass and higher frequencies would necessarily help a vocalist perform better.

In practice, I can say the Vocal Reference Monitors perform as advertised?I felt that my vocals were almost boosted in the mix, although this was not the case. Instead, many of the frequencies they normally compete with were simply not as loud, and thus my vocals, while recording, seemed louder to me. Admittedly, my first reaction was to turn my vocal fader down, so that I felt that the vocals blended a bit more with the overall mix. This was mainly to help my own performance (trust me, I need tons of help).

The pleasant surprise upon turning the fader down? I could still hear my vocals crisply and clearly within the mix?the volume had been lowered, but they still stood out and were intelligible and clear. The lower-mids, and lows, and well as high frequencies, that might have begun to push them down in the mix at that level were not really part of the equation. Basically, no matter whether I had the vocal fader high in the mix, or relatively even with the rest of the tracks, I could always hear my part, and the vocals always sounded crisp.

Again, the earphones were used in a studio, not during a live performance onstage, so the testing does have its limitations. But the earphones block out so much outside noise, it seems likely that what you hear through them will not be competing much with any PA systems, even?they're as effective as earplugs, if not more so. The mic and mic pre I used are not likely to be found in any live setting, but the point is the Vocal Reference Monitor helped the vocals stand out against a busy mix by lowering the frequency ranges that tend to make them more difficult to hear. It's hard to see how this would not translate to better clarity in a live scenario as well.

Some vocalists may still prefer to have the full mix in their ears when performing, or having the engineer customize their mix by carving out the ranges that bug them, but the UE Vocal Reference Monitors do a solid job of bringing vocal clarity to the forefront on its own. Personal monitoring preference in both live and studio scenarios will dictate whether this is a necessary tool or not, but these custom monitors inarguably perform a task that many vocalists will find useful.

Comparing the Vocal Reference Monitors with regular stereo earphones seems a bit pointless, given their unique purpose, although we have reviewed other custom in-ear pairs in the past. Some favorites include the $1,150 JH Audio JH16 Pro, brought to you by Jerry Harvey, the founder of Ultimate Ears before it was sold to Logitech, and the $1,350 Logitech UE 18 Pro, another solid option with a far beefier sound signature than the Vocal Reference Monitor. If these are way out of your range, and you're looking for a simple, effective pair of home studio headphones, the circumaural (over-ear) Sennheiser HD 280 Pro may not be a custom-molded in-canal earphone pair, but it's comfortable, accurate, and powerful?three necessary characteristics for studio gear.

For the $1,000 (and audiologist visit), the Logitech Ultimate Ears Vocal Reference Monitors will prove an effective tool for vocalists who often struggle to hear their own performance in monitors over booming bass or crashing cymbals. If this sounds like you, the UE Vocal Reference Monitor may just be the solution you're looking for.

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ziffdavis/pcmag/~3/s_ErDcsalHk/0,2817,2417720,00.asp

Andy Dick Tim Hardaway Anne Smedinghoff jana kramer carrie underwood garth brooks miranda lambert

Algerian president in France for medical tests after minor stroke

By Lamine Chikhi

ALGIERS (Reuters) - Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika has been transferred to France for further medical tests after suffering a minor stroke on Saturday, Algeria's official news agency said.

The APS agency said late on Saturday that Bouteflika, 76, was in Paris at the recommendation of his doctors.

He was hospitalized after a minor stroke, according to an earlier state press agency report that quoted the prime minister as saying his condition was "not serious."

The health of Bouteflika is a central factor in the stability of the oil-exporting country of 37 million people that is emerging from a long conflict against Islamist insurgents.

APS said Bouteflika had an "ischemic transitory attack," or mini-stroke, at 12:30 p.m. (1130 GMT) on Saturday.

"A few hours ago, the president felt unwell and he has been hospitalized but his condition is not serious at all," Prime Minister Abdelmalek Sellal was quoted as saying.

Elected in 1999, Bouteflika is a member of a generation of leaders who have ruled Algeria since winning independence from France in a 1954-62 war.

They also defeated Islamist insurgents in the 1990s and saw off the challenge of Arab Spring protests two years ago, with Bouteflika's government defusing unrest through pay rises and free loans for young people.

Bouteflika has served three terms as president and is thought unlikely to seek a fourth at an election due in 2014. Leaked U.S. diplomatic cables said in 2011 that Bouteflika had been suffering from cancer, but that it was in remission.

It is unknown who might take over Africa's biggest country by land area, an OPEC oil producer that supplies a fifth of Europe's gas imports and cooperates with the West in combating Islamist militancy.

More than 70 percent of Algerians are under 30. About 21 percent of young people are unemployed, the International Monetary Fund says, and many are impatient with the gerontocracy ruling a country where jobs, wages and housing are urgent concerns.

(Reporting by Lamine Chikhi; Editing by Peter Cooney)

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/algerian-president-france-medical-tests-034747376.html

harper lee mega millions numbers the fray seahawks new uniforms 2012 tornadoes in dallas anchorman 2 kentucky basketball

Terrorism in America: Is US missing a chance to learn from failed plots?

Including failed terror plots in US terrorism databases would make the US terror-threat picture more complete and provide important information for law enforcement, researchers suggest.

By Mark Clayton,?Staff writer / April 27, 2013

Failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad enters guilty pleas in a court appearance in New York in 2010. Shahzad pleaded guilty to 10 charges, including attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and attempted terrorism transcending national borders.

Jane Rosenburg/REUTERS

Enlarge

The terrorism threat facing the United States may be vastly understated, as well as inaccurately characterized, because so many ?failed? terror plots are excluded from the nation?s terror attack databases, new terrorism research suggests.

Skip to next paragraph

' + google_ads[0].line2 + '
' + google_ads[0].line3 + '

'; } else if (google_ads.length > 1) { ad_unit += ''; } } document.getElementById("ad_unit").innerHTML += ad_unit; google_adnum += google_ads.length; return; } var google_adnum = 0; google_ad_client = "pub-6743622525202572"; google_ad_output = 'js'; google_max_num_ads = '1'; google_feedback = "on"; google_ad_type = "text"; google_adtest = "on"; google_image_size = '230x105'; google_skip = '0'; // -->

Despite a sharp decline in terrorist attacks since the 1970s, there still were 207 terrorist attacks recorded inside the United States in the decade after 9/11 ? about 20 per year on average, according to the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) maintained at the University of Maryland, widely regarded as the nation?s most complete tally.

But what if those totals were, say, 50 percent higher? A researcher at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, Calif., recently tallied 109 failed terrorist plots between 2001 and 2012, only a few of which were included in the GTD?s national terror ?attack? totals.

Yet those failed plots are perhaps just as important in their own way as plots that became actual attacks, some terrorism researchers say. Placing failed plots alongside successful attacks would make the US terror-threat picture more complete, highlight trends in terrorist targeting and methods, and possibly reveal a different ? or even bigger ? threat, they say.

?One finding from my research is that the terror threat within the US is higher than most Americans realize,? says Erik Dahl, an assistant professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, whose research has identified 227 failed domestic and international terror plots of all kinds (Islamic jihadist, right-wing extremist and others) against the US dating back to 1987 ? the vast majority excluded from national ?attack? tallies.

In his post-9/11 analysis, Dr. Dahl found that of the 109 failed attacks, 76 were inspired by radical Islamist beliefs. But the fact that the rest of the terror flops ? 30 percent ? were not inspired by radical Islam ?might surprise some people and shows the importance of the domestic extremist threat, including right-wing militias, anti-government groups,? Dahl says.

Understanding exactly why terror plots fizzled before they could be carried out ? and how far they proceeded before being stopped ? is vital if lawmakers and investigators are to accurately calibrate the scope of the threat, the law enforcement techniques that work best, and terrorist groups? adaptation and targeting patterns, he says.

Yet at present, only successful ?attacks? or attack attempts that at least make it ?out the door? are included in the GTD, according to criteria on its website. Cases where terrorists dropped their plot, or where law enforcement made arrests long before any action could be taken, are usually not included.

Source: http://rss.csmonitor.com/~r/feeds/csm/~3/qb9-IBlofMQ/Terrorism-in-America-Is-US-missing-a-chance-to-learn-from-failed-plots

heart attack grill las vegas the heart attack grill joe kennedy iii joseph kennedy iii ghost hunters lightsquared david lee

Sunday, April 28, 2013

APNewsBreak: Russia caught bomb suspect on wiretap

(AP) ? Russian authorities secretly recorded a telephone conversation in 2011 in which one of the Boston bombing suspects vaguely discussed jihad with his mother, officials said Saturday, days after the U.S. government finally received details about the call.

In another conversation, the mother of now-dead bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev was recorded talking to someone in southern Russia who is under FBI investigation in an unrelated case, officials said.

The conversations are significant because, had they been revealed earlier, they might have been enough evidence for the FBI to initiate a more thorough investigation of the Tsarnaev family.

As it was, Russian authorities told the FBI only that they had concerns that Tamerlan and his mother were religious extremists. With no additional information, the FBI conducted a limited inquiry and closed the case in June 2011.

Two years later, authorities say Tamerlan and his brother, Dzhohkar, detonated two homemade bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three and injuring more than 260. Tamerlan was killed in a police shootout and Dzhohkar is under arrest.

In the past week, Russian authorities turned over to the United States information it had on Tamerlan and his mother, Zubeidat Tsarnaeva. The Tsarnaevs are ethnic Chechens who emigrated from southern Russia to the Boston area over the past 11 years.

Even had the FBI received the information from the Russian wiretaps earlier, it's not clear that the government could have prevented the attack.

In early 2011, the Russian FSB internal security service intercepted a conversation between Tamerlan and his mother vaguely discussing jihad, according to U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation with reporters.

The two discussed the possibility of Tamerlan going to Palestine, but he told his mother he didn't speak the language there, according to the officials, who reviewed the information Russia shared with the U.S.

In a second call, Zubeidat Tsarnaeva spoke with a man in the Caucasus region of Russia who was under FBI investigation. Jacqueline Maguire, a spokeswoman for the FBI's Washington Field Office, where that investigation was based, declined to comment.

There was no information in the conversation that suggested a plot inside the United States, officials said.

It was not immediately clear why Russian authorities didn't share more information at the time. It is not unusual for countries, including the U.S., to be cagey with foreign authorities about what intelligence is being collected.

Nobody was available to discuss the matter early Sunday at FSB offices in Moscow.

Jim Treacy, the FBI's legal attache in Moscow between 2007 and 2009, said the Russians long asked for U.S. assistance regarding Chechen activity in the United States that might be related to terrorism.

"On any given day, you can get some very good cooperation," Treacy said. "The next you might find yourself totally shut out."

Zubeidat Tsarnaeva has denied that she or her sons were involved in terrorism. She has said she believed her sons have been framed by U.S. authorities.

But Ruslan Tsarni, an uncle of the Tsarnaev brothers and Zubeidat's former brother-in-law, said Saturday he believes the mother had a "big-time influence" as her older son increasingly embraced his Muslim faith and decided to quit boxing and school.

After receiving the narrow tip from Russia in March 2011, the FBI opened a preliminary investigation into Tamerlan and his mother. But the scope was extremely limited under the FBI's internal procedures.

After a few months, they found no evidence Tamerlan or his mother were involved in terrorism.

The FBI asked Russia for more information. After hearing nothing, it closed the case in June 2011.

In the fall of 2011, the FSB contacted the CIA with the same information. Again the FBI asked Russia for more details and never heard back.

At that time, however, the CIA asked that Tamerlan's and his mother's name be entered into a massive U.S. terrorism database.

The CIA declined to comment Saturday.

Authorities have said they've seen no connection between the brothers and a foreign terrorist group. Dzhohkar told FBI interrogators that he and his brother were angry over wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the deaths of Muslim civilians there.

Family members have said Tamerlan was religiously apathetic until 2008 or 2009, when he met a conservative Muslim convert known only to the family as Misha. Misha, they said, steered Tamerlan toward a stricter version of Islam.

Two U.S. officials say investigators believe they have identified Misha. While it was not clear whether the FBI had spoken to him, the officials said they have not found a connection between Misha and the Boston attack or terrorism in general.

___

Associated Press writer Adam Goldman in Washington and Michael Kunzelman in Boston contributed to this report.

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2013-04-27-Boston%20Marathon-Russia/id-cfb418756c2f4c2e8ab1e77976b35674

Red Bull Stratos Redbull Stratos steve mcnair vice presidential debate Martha Raddatz Chris Lighty JJ Watt

Friday, April 26, 2013

Breakingviews: Debt debate in need of upgrade

(The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

By Edward Hadas

LONDON, April 24 (Reuters Breakingviews) - In retrospect, last week's debunking of one of the key conclusions of Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart about government debt looks inevitable. The whole story, from the initial lavish praise for the Harvard professors to the current harsh criticism, is a sad reminder of the power of ideology in the angry debate over economic policy.

In 2011, the two eminent professors claimed to show a tipping point for government borrowing. If the debt amounted to more than 90 percent of GDP, the GDP growth rate was typically much slower than in more fiscally prudent countries. When Thomas Herndon, a mere graduate student at the University of Massachusetts, redid the maths this year, he also found a correlation between higher government debt and slower growth. But there was nothing remotely like a tipping point.

The new paper was a blow to the politicians who relied on the Rogoff-Reinhart 90 percent line to support fiscal "austerity" (smaller government budget deficits). But they were always foolish to trust a study which drew a universal conclusion from a small sample of countries in vastly different situations.

Insofar as the Rogoff-Reinhart research had any value, it merely restated something that should have been obvious anyway: unsatisfactory economic performance and excessive government borrowing generally go together.

The connection is social, not financial. In societies that can get things done, respond well to challenges, compromise when necessary and do not spend more than is affordable, the government is likely to be fiscally competent and the economy is likely to be effective. Conversely, if the society is deeply divided, the economy is probably enfeebled and there is a high chance of a political deficit - to stay in power governments then need to spend more than they take in taxes.

The statistical analysis supports this correlation, but it's really common sense, like the relationship between obesity and bad eating habits. The social analysis should serve as a warning to the austerity crowd. A balanced government budget is not going to restore an ill economy to good health or unify a divided society. The political deficit and social divisions will just appear elsewhere, perhaps taking the form of greater political instability.

The austerity-promoters would also do well to admit that large quantities of government borrowing and spending can be helpful, for example during and after wars, natural catastrophes and recessions. And the choice to raise funds by borrowing rather than through increased taxes is at least as much political as economic.

After all, debt and taxes are interchangeable in terms of cash flow, as long as taxpayers hold all government debt. The two financing mechanisms can be integrated, so the higher taxes needed to pay for higher debt loads are exactly compensated by the interest income and principal repayments taxpayers receive from the government. Government borrowing does not necessarily "crowd out" other economic activity any more, or any less, than an equivalent quantity of tax revenue.

It's clear that Rogoff-Reinhart has methodological and theoretical problems, but their opponents, the advocates of "stimulus" (larger deficits), should be careful about gloating.

Pro-deficit economists cannot counter Rogoff-Reinhart with a persuasive historical study of their own, because peacetime deficits have almost never been as high a share of GDP as they are now. Deficit-doves often cite the U.S. Great Depression, but even if government spending reversed the 27 percent decline in GDP between 1929 and 1933, the precedent is not clearly relevant to the recent 4 percent decline.

The pro-deficit camp does have a plausible theory. Government deficit spending can make up for activity unnecessarily lost through an external shock, for example the 2008 financial crisis. But the stimulus crowd should admit the theory's limits. The more the government spends, the more likely it is to spend foolishly, especially when the government suffers from the sort of large political deficit common in easily shocked economies. Spending financed by borrowing, or by newly created money, is no less likely to be wasted than spending financed by taxes.

Why did the implausible 90 percent Rogoff-Reinhart debt threshold ever gain credence? And why do stimulus defenders ignore the dangers of ever larger governments? Because the austerity-stimulus debate is ultimately a battle in the ideological war over the proper role of government in society. Both sides fervently believe they are right: governments need to be restrained or governments need to be let loose. Both find supporting evidence everywhere and contrary evidence nowhere.

No facts will decide this argument, but the current mix of policies is particularly hard to interpret. For austerity fans, deficits are too high to count as truly austere; for their opponents they are too low to count as genuine stimulus. There will certainly be enough evidence to show that the other side's approach has failed. And it's a safe bet that the next Thomas Herndon will find easy pickings.

(Editing by David Evans and Sarah Bailey)

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/breakingviews-debt-debate-upgrade-164756899--business.html

santorum drops out bby zimmerman website miami marlins marlins marlins facebook buys instagram