text:
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell intends to reduce his salary to $1 per year if the league's labor skirmish erupts into a work stoppage this year.
Goodell announced the move in a letter to owners obtained by NFL.com in which he unveiled a series of rollbacks in compensation for NFL officials.
Chief NFL negotiator Jeff Pash also will slash his compensation to $1, and Goodell will hold back bonuses for league officials until April.
At that time, portions of bonuses will be held in reserve (10% for VPs, 25% for senior VPs, and 35% for executive VPs), and those balances won't be paid until a new collective bargaining agreement is reached.
The current CBA ends in early March, and the league may enter a work stoppage if no new deal is reached. Goodell has said he doesn't want that to happen.
But with the time dwindling on the current deal and progress between the NFL and NFLPA slow to develop, the prospect of a work stoppage is increasing.
Goodell and NFLPA leader DeMaurice Smith met last week.
But the sides have engaged in a battle of rhetoric in recent weeks. Most recently, Goodell refuted Smith's message to players that they were "at war" with the league over their collective financial future.
In 2009, Goodell earned $2.9 million in base salary with a total compensation package of $9.76 million, the NFL revealed to SportsBusiness Journal last year. A year earlier, he froze his salary.
Nate Davis is a reporter, blogger and editor who's been at USA TODAY since 2000. He has covered the NFL since 2005. No, he did not play quarterback for Ball State. Davis' succession of our esteemed colleague Sean Leahy at The Huddle is considered a Brady-for-Bledsoe swap by most "insiders."More about Nate


text:
Triple Eccentric Butterfly Valves
Value Valve's VF-87 (150#) and VF-88 (300#) Series Triple Offset, High Temperature Butterfly Valves are used in the most demanding services. Featuring a TRUE Metal Seat that is excellent for Abrasive Services to 600C or 1100F, our Metal Inclined Cone Seat Design is not susceptible to seat "Wash Out" common in laminated seat designs. For this reason our Class V shutoff (Equal to Gate Valve Class .000005% of Cv) is consistent throughout the life of the valve.
For those applications where bubble tight shutoff is a requirement, Value Valve now offers a Graphite Laminated Triple Eccentric seat, featuring all the benefits of the Triple Offset design, with the shutoff characteristics of a soft seated High Performance butterfly valve.
Value Valve Butterfly Valves

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Contact Us
Thank you for your interest in Discover Bank located in
Greenwood, Delaware. Whether you do your banking in our lobby,
drive thru, on the phone or now on the Internet, you'll
experience warm and friendly service.
Questions about our websiteIf you have comments
or questions about our site, contact our 24/7 Banking Center
Customer Care at 1‑877‑409‑0274.
Visit UsDiscover Bank502 East Market
StreetGreenwood, DE 199501-888-765-6654


text:
By Kelly Whiteside, USA TODAY
HOOVER, Ala. The lobby of the hotel where Southeastern Conference media days are held was awash in crimson as Alabama fans holding cameras, pens, mini-helmets and footballs waited for his arrival. When Alabama coach Nick Saban appeared shortly after 8 a.m., his entourage escorted him up an escalator to an interview room as a trail of television cameras followed his every stride.
It seems every move Saban has made since he was hired in January has been accompanied by either a pep rally or a media circus. His return to the SEC event after two years as coach at the Miami Dolphins was more of the same.
FOLLOW THE TIDE: Alabama football team page
"Wherever he goes, everybody's in a frenzy I guess," says cornerback Simeon Castille, who called his coach a "rock star," because of all the attention he receives. "I think it's awesome. I'm glad he's here. The fans are glad."
A record crowd of 92,138 filled Bryant-Denny Stadium for the team's spring game. At Bama Fever, a store just outside the hotel lobby, the hot-selling T-shirts were Saban-related. "Member of Sabanation" read the front of one with "Let's take back the state and then the nation" on the back. Another had a picture of St. Nick in a Santa outfit holding a bag with a national championship in it. The straw hats Saban wears during practices sold out shortly after they arrived, and the last copy of Saban's book was purchased on Wednesday. The motivational book was published after Saban won a national championship with LSU in 2003, then reprinted this year with a picture of Saban on the cover wearing crimson instead of purple and gold.
On Thursday, there were 600 reporters fixated on Saban's return, making Florida coach Urban Meyer's news conference later in the day seem like an afterthought. So much for the defending national champions.
Saban was asked about the topics that have raised a ruckus during the last seven months. After first denying interest in the Alabama job while he was the coach of the Dolphins, Saban was roundly criticized after he changed his mind. "Maybe we could have handled it a better way," he said.
Saban also said he would still be the coach of the Dolphins if Alabama hadn't called. "We felt this is one of the better jobs in the country," he said. "When we assessed it after the season, we thought we'd love to get back into college football. That's why we're here."
Of course, some LSU fans aren't thrilled with his return to college football. (Alabama hosts LSU on Nov. 3.) Saban emphasized his respect and admiration for LSU, but acknowledged the criticism.
"I think we're very aware of the backlash, live it every day," said Saban. "It was not our intention to create any of this by leaving there. It was not a personal thing to us. It was strictly a professional decision."
He said he and his family realized how much they loved college football after their experience in the NFL. "We learned about ourselves, made a mistake in terms of what we did, in terms of where we feel we should be, and you can't go back."
Then there was the issue of Saban's $4 million-a-year contract, highest in the country, which caused some college administrators to express concern about how escalating salaries will affect the sport.
"Well, I actually took a pay cut. Do you put that part in there?" Saban cracked. He explained how when he started coaching he loaded trucks at Roadway Express at night and drove a Coca-Cola truck in the summer so his wife, Terry, could complete her college degree.
"I burned up a clutch in that truck every summer. The mechanic said, 'This is not a foot rest.' I worked for $8,000 a year for a long time. Went about coaching and recruiting the same way I do now. I love teaching. I love being with the players. It's not about money for me. All right? I really enjoy it."
Guidelines: You share in the USA TODAY community, so please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Use the "Report Abuse" button to make a difference. Read more.


text:
Healthcare organizations nationwide are moving quickly to implement electronic medical records (EMR) and other advanced information technologies to improve the quality, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of patient care.
That's why Dell*, RedHat*, Intel, VMware* and Epic* (DRIVE) have come together to provide a Center of Excellence to support Epic customers throughout the planning process - from consulting to implementation, service desk support, hardware support and more.
At HIMSS13, you are invited to learn more about what the DRIVE program involves and how Dell, RedHat, Intel, VMware and Epic can provide you with the expertise required to make the transition to Epic on Linux more efficient. Come join us for lunch on Monday, March 4, at 11:30 a.m. in the Intel hospitality suite (Riverside #215).


text:
Oskar Hansen
More Than Paris - Poem by Oskar Hansen
France is more than Paris
This dark, unfriendly French provincial town, only,
a pizza parlour open run by a gloomy, unshaven
person who looked like a reluctant refugee from
Kosovo I wouldn't like to stay down-wind from.
Everything made of plastic tables, chairs that once
had been white, under the counter rested pieces
of pizzas that was going cold, I had two pieces one
with salami, the other with tuna, washed down with
soft drinks. Finished the meal, the man looked at me
as saying: " What are you still doing here? I left.
Turned, looked into dirty windows, and thought" If this
is hell I better start saying my prayer now.
Comments about More Than Paris by Oskar Hansen
Seema Chowdhury (10/14/2009 6:43:00 AM)
very interesting experience you had, I believe.
take care an thanks for sharing it with all.
see some of my new poems too if time permits
1. dwell in my soul pg1
2. watch the magic happen pg3 (Report) Reply
Read this poem in other languages
This poem has not been translated into any other language yet.
I would like to translate this poem »
Oskar Hansen's Other Poems
Famous Poems
Phenomenal Woman
Maya Angelou
Still I Rise
Maya Angelou
The Road Not Taken
Robert Frost
If You Forget Me
Pablo Neruda
Langston Hughes
Annabel Lee
Edgar Allan Poe
Caged Bird
Maya Angelou
Rudyard Kipling
Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening
Robert Frost
A Dream Within A Dream
Edgar Allan Poe


text:
United States Naval Sea Cadets - Atterbury
About Us
Advanced Training
National Unit Support
Contact Us
Website Designed
Create a Website
List Your Business
United States Naval Sea Cadets Corps - About Us
What is the Sea Cadets?
The Naval Sea Cadet Corps (NSCC) is for American youth ages 13-17 who have a desire to learn about the Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and Merchant Marine. Sea Cadets are authorized by the Secretary of the Navy to wear Navy uniforms appropriately marked with the Sea Cadet Corps insignia. The objectives of the Sea Cadet program are to introduce youth to naval life, to develop in them a sense of pride, patriotism, courage, and self-reliance, and to maintain an environment free of drugs and gangs.
Unit Training
Cadets meet or "drill" at Camp Atterbury monthly through out the year. We meet from 8am to 5pm on Saturday and Sunday. The schedule is set a year in advance to give plenty of ability to coordinate schedules. Our unit is structured along military lines and is headed by a Commanding Officer.
Our Battalion is aligned with Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 26, Detachment 3 of the US Navy Seabees. Our alignment
has one main purpose, and that is to foster team work, camaraderie and an understanding of the military command structure.
Cadets are instructed by Active Duty, Reserve, National Guard, Sea Cadet Officers and senior cadets through classroom and applied instruction in subjects such as basic seamanship, military drill, and leadership. In addition, since we are located on one of the premier training facilities within the military command, we offer our cadets many of the same courses as offered to our soldiers and sailors deploying around the world.
In addition to our on base training, we will often participate in community events such as parades and fairs, and participate in community service such as working with our Veteran's Organizations to assist in whatever manner we can.
Training and Advancement
Sea Cadet training consists of Navy Non-Resident Training Courses (NRTC), training evolutions (away from local units), shipboard training, and training arranged locally by units.
All new cadets enter the program at the rate of Seaman Recruit. In order for cadets to move up through the ranks they must complete the following: the NRTC Correspondence Course for that rate, one training evolution, and depending on the rate, the Navy's Military Leadership exam for that rate. NRTC's cover basic military and naval subjects such as naval history, seamanship, leadership, and ship/aircraft familiarization. The cadet rate structure parallels that of the Navy and Coast Guard's enlisted rate structure, with Chief Petty Officer being the highest rate a cadet can achieve.
Training takes place mostly during summer months and occasionally during winter and spring break periods and are generally one to two week evolutions. The first training evolution for all cadets is NSCC Recruit Training, better known as boot camp. It is a scaled down version of the Navy's boot camp. For approximately two-weeks cadets are instructed by active and reserve military personnel and Sea Cadet officers in military drill and discipline, physical fitness, seamanship, shipboard safety, first aid, naval history, and leadership. Our local unit sends the majority of our cadets to Great Lakes Naval Training Center for Recruit Training. Great Lakes is in Chicago.
After cadets have successfully completed boot camp, they can then participate in advanced training. Sea Cadet advanced training currently consists of the following (for the trainings we host at Camp Atterbury, see the Summer Training Tab above):
- Air Traffic Control
- Flight School
- Culinary Arts
- Medical (General, Field, Surgical & Dental Tech)
- Firefighting
- Field Operations (Small Squad Tactics)
- Photo Journalism
- Ceremonial Guard
- Submariner
- Marksmanship
- Maritime Interdiction Operations (Coast Guard)
- Construction (Basic & Advanced)
- Mine Warfare Operations
- Music
- Sea Air Land (SEAL) Team
- Explosive Ordinance Disposal
- Amphibious Operations
- Petty Officer Leadership Adademy (POLA)
- Master-At-Arms (Military Police)
- Judge Advocate General (JAG - Law)
- Sailing
- SCUBA Certification
- Urban Counter-Insurgency (U-COIN)
This trainings give cadets the opportunity to live aboard Navy & Cost Guard Ships or other Military Bases for Two Weeks.
Sea Cadet training is held throughout the continental United States, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Guam on military installations and aboard Navy and Coast Guard Ships.
Depending on the rate achieved in the Naval Sea Cadets, former cadets may be eligible to enlist in the armed forces at an advanced pay grade. Being a member honorably discharged from the Corps is looked upon favorably by selection boards for military academies and ROTC programs. Also those cadets who are accepted to a four-year university may be eligible for scholarships.
The Naval Sea Cadet Corps provides its cadets the opportunity to develop their leadership skills, build their character and become productive citizens.
In order to join the Naval Sea Cadet Corps applicants must meet the following criteria:
Be between the ages of 13 and 17.
Must be a US Citizen.
Be a full time student and maintain satisfactory grades (2.00 "C" grade point average).
Be free of felony convictions.
A medical examination similar to a high school sports physical is required for all cadet applicants to the Naval Sea Cadet Corps (NSCC) or Navy League Cadet Corps (NLCC). No one will be denied admission to the NSCC/NLCC due to a medical disability. Where a medical condition precludes full, unlimited participation, a Request for Accommodation (NSCADM 015) may be presented by the parent or guardian for review so the cadet may participate in NSCC activities to the maximum extent possible.
Adult applicants must be in good health commensurate with their age group and be free from any ailment or condition that would prevent them from satisfactorily performing their primary duty of supervising youth. NOTE: Adults not physically qualified to perform all duties may still participate with a waiver from NHQ considering the parameters of their expected contribution to the NSCC program.
If you would like additional information, including how to join as an adult, please download the Program Overview to the right, or contact us directly. We look forward to having you onboard
Download a Program Overview


text:
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this won't take too long. Let me say, first of all, I thank the Senator for bringing this up. Let me underscore: This is one of the sort of let's see if we can find a problem, and if we can find a problem, make it into a bigger problem, and then amend the treaty because amending the treaty itself--this amendment seeks to amend the treaty, so here we go right back down the road of the old ``let's open up the negotiations again'' argument. We have been through it so many times here. It has appropriately been rejected by colleagues.
I think the last vote was something like 66 to 30 on whether we will amend the treaty. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to raise it, but let me speak to the substance.
Going back in history on the START treaty, which is why this is a complete red herring--if you go back in the history of the START treaty, you will recall that the Soviet Union deployed 10 warheads, 10 MIRV warheads on an SS-24 intercontinental ballistic missile, and Russia deployed some 36 of those SS-24 rail-based launchers the Senator is referring to at the height of their deployment. But to comply with START I and with START II, which interestingly, we worked together on in terms of START II even though the Russians never ratified it--and the reason they didn't ratify it is because we took unilateral action and withdrew from the ABM treaty, and they were mad about it. That is why what we do matters in this relationship. We ratified the START II treaty; they didn't. So the things we choose to do have an effect.
The fact is, thanks to our colleague to my right, the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, and Senator Nunn, who had the vision to put together the threat reduction program, that program set out to destroy Russia's SS-24 ICBMs and rail-based launchers.
This is important for all those people who have come to the floor and argued repeatedly that Russia has acted in bad faith in all of these efforts. Take note that Russia continued those cooperative efforts and continued to destroy those rail-based launchers even though they had not signed on to START II. Guess what. The last Russian SS-24 launcher was eliminated in 2007.
Now START I had a specific sublimit on mobile missiles and on rail mobile missiles. So the START treaty's definition, as a result of those two sublimits, the START treaty's definition needed to cover both the rail mobile and the road mobile launchers that were deployed at the time of the treaty. They were both put under the same roof, and that roof was the START treaty's definition. Just like the Moscow Treaty, the New START treaty contains just a plane limit, an overall limit on ICBMs and ICBM launchers, SLBMs and SLBM launchers. We have the two categories and heavy bombers with no sublimits.
That means the characteristics of strategic offensive arms limited by the treaty, in particular the deployed and the nondeployed launchers of ICBMs and the deployed ICBMs and their warheads, those characteristics do not hinge on the treaty's definition of mobile launchers of ICBMs. We don't want them to because we want this big umbrella that covers all of it, which we have the ability to verify.
If we look at exactly what the treaty says, it says the following--and I don't know which lawyers are arguing about this, but the lawyers involved between the Russians and the United States and the lawyers involved on the negotiating team and the lawyers at the State Department are not arguing about this. They understand exactly what the treaty says.
Here is what it says. Article II, 1(a) of the treaty sets the limit of 700 deployed ICBMs, deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles and deployed heavy bombers. That is really simple. It is very straightforward--700 ICBMs, SLBMs, bombers. We have the flexibility to decide how many of each of those we want to have. We had a debate previously with our colleagues about how many we would have. But that is pretty straightforward. There is no ambiguity in that. Where is the ambiguity--700, all three, and we believe we can count all three. Paragraph 12 of part 1 of the protocol defines deployed ICBM as an ICBM that is contained in or on a deployed launcher of ICBMs. That is pretty obvious. A launcher is a launcher is a launcher.
Paragraph 13 of part 1 of the protocol defines deployed launcher of ICBMs as an ICBM launcher that contains an ICBM and is not an ICBM test launcher, an ICBM training launcher or an ICBM launcher located at a space launch facility. Those are the only three exceptions. That is it. There is no ambiguity.
It seems to me pretty darn straightforward that a rail mobile ICBM, if either side decided to deploy it, obviously falls under the 700. It is so obvious that we should not have to risk renegotiating the entire treaty over something as obvious as that.
I might add, a nondeployed launcher of a rail mobile would fall under the 700 limit in terms of the launchers. I just ask my colleagues to look carefully at this. It would be highly improbable.
The Senator from Tennessee earlier today gave a terrific speech, Mr. Alexander. He said: What is all this fuss about? In the end, we are going to have thousands of these things that can destroy the whole planet anyway.
That came from a person who is pretty thoughtful on these issues, who understands that you have to put this in a context. We are not talking about the Cold War right now. We are not talking about the Soviet Union right now. We are talking about a country with which we have a very different relationship and where we have a whole set of combined interests, and you have to put this treaty into that context. It is highly unlikely that during the duration of this treaty with the Russian Federation, after years of working with the United States to destroy the weapons and work cooperatively under Senator Lugar and Senator Nunn's program, it is unbelievably hard to believe they are going to divert what we know to be their very limited resources and infrastructure from their planned deployment in order to do new mobile--we have a planned deployment of new mobile-based ICBM forces, and suddenly to have them go out and build and deploy rail mobile launchers, which we would observe unbelievably quickly under our national technical means.
The simple answer is that we know what they are going to do. We have a strong capacity to track what they are doing. We have every reason to believe the Russians agree with what I just said about the allocation of resources. The fact is, the resolution the Senate will vote on, in order to guarantee that we are certain about this, requires the President to communicate to the Russians in the formal instrument that ratifies the agreement, when we ratify it, assuming we do it, will ratify the understanding of the United States that the treaty would cover rail mobile launched ICBMs and their launchers, if Russia or the United States were crazy enough to try to build them. So for the life of me, I don't know what you can do more than that. But we certainly are not going to reopen the treaty for the basis of a nonambiguity like that.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, the answer to the question--why not clear it up--is because if you clear it up the way the Senator is trying to, you kill the treaty. Pretty simple.
The Senator keeps asking the question, Why can't we do this? We can't do it because it kills the treaty. It is pretty simple. And the Senator knows it kills the treaty.
Now, going beyond that, come back again just for an instant to the substance. First of all, the Russian general staff--I have been known, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, to make some comments which occasionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff do not agree with. My comments are not going to drive them to do what they do not agree with. Likewise, the chairman of their foreign relations committee whom he quotes was tweaking us in his comment. But the fact is, the general staff of Russia has made it abundantly clear they do not want to build these rail-based mobile. They have no intention of doing this. They have just been destroying them. They have been taking them down and destroying them in a completely verifiable manner, and the Senator from Arizona cannot contest that. He knows that is absolutely true.
So this is a completely artificial moment designed, as others have been, to try to derail--no pun intended--the treaty.
That said, let me also point out that if you want to try to rein in this issue of rail-based, this amendment is not the way to do it because there are a whole series of protocols set up in the treaty for how you deal with road-based launchers, and you would need to begin to put in place a whole different set of protocols in order to deal with rail-based. So if, indeed, the Russians are, as I said, crazy enough, as they think it would be crazy--that is the way they define it now and we do too--to go back to something we have spent the last 15 years destroying, if that happens, we will know it. Moreover, if it happens, it is counted, as the Senator has agreed, under the article II limits for launchers. So this is a nonissue, with all due respect.
I know the Senator from Nevada wants to take 2 minutes to make a comment, and then I wish to make a unanimous consent request, if I could, after that.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I don't think we need to repeat. I appreciate the Senator from Nevada and I understand what he is saying. I completely agree with him about the advice and consent role of the Senate, but part of that role is to make a judgment about whether the consequences of some particular concern merit taking down the whole treaty and putting it back in the renegotiation process. It is not that we can't or shouldn't under the right circumstances; it is a question of balancing what are the right circumstances. We are arguing, I think appropriately, because the report of our committee says clearly that rail-mobile will be covered under article II and this is unnecessary. So weighing it that way, it doesn't make sense to do it.
Let me say to my colleagues that I think we want to move to the Risch amendment, and I think it is the hope of the majority leader to try to have two votes around the hour of 6 o'clock, if that is possible, and then to proceed to the Wicker amendment.
I yield the floor to the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I will be very quick. I don't think we need to spend a lot of time on this. First of all, we agree with the Senator from Idaho that under normal circumstances the equipment they have would be best returned to the United States, and there are many good-faith ways in which they might do that. But the fact is that the way this is phrased, it has just two enormous problems. First, it says prior to the entry into force of the treaty. So we are linking this ancillary issue to this entire treaty, which bears on a whole set of other national security considerations.
I want the four humvees back, and whatever the small arms are, which raises another issue, but I am not willing to see this entire treaty get caught up in that particular fracas. We have an unbelievable number of diplomatic channels and other ways of prosecuting that concept, and I pledge to the Senator that I am prepared, in the Foreign Relations Committee, to make certain we attempt to do that, as well as deal with the question of Russia's compliance with the peace agreement with respect to the cease-fire in Georgia and so forth. These are essential ingredients, and we will talk about that in a moment.
It also says they have to return all military equipment. It doesn't specify. This could become one of those things where we are saying, you have this, and they say, no, we don't. Are we talking about small arms? What about expended ammunition? Who knows what the circumstances are?
This is not the place or the time for us to get caught up in linking this treaty to this particular outcome. I really think that stands on its own.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the amendment offered by Senator Wicker is an amendment that is looking for an issue. There is no issue that is joined here with respect to the bilateral commission or what it might do with respect to the creation of rights. But if this amendment were to pass, there would be an issue, not only an issue with respect to Russian participation but actually an issue that could be harmful to the United States. This is a little bit technical and it is a tricky thing to follow in some ways, but let me lay this out.
Under the START treaty, the prior treaty under which we have lived since 1992, and now under the proposed New START treaty, the consultative commission that we create in the treaty will get together in order to work out the problems that may or may not arise and is allowed to agree upon ``such additional measures as may be necessary to improve the viability and the effectiveness of the treaty.'' If those additional measures they might approve at some point in time are changes to the protocol or to its annexes and if the changes don't affect substantive rights or obligations under the treaty, then it is entirely allowable for those changes to be adopted without referring them back to the Senate for any advice or ratification. The Senators' proposed amendment would make it U.S. policy all of a sudden that the phrase ``do not affect substantive rights or obligations'' means ``doesn't create new rights or obligations.'' So there is a distinction between affecting substantive rights and then having the operative language that kicks it into gear become the creation of rights or obligations. This proposal is unnecessary.
Why? We have operated without it for 15 years under the START treaty without a single problem. The New START treaty uses the exact same approach that has worked for 15 years. We have a lot of experience in determining what constitutes substantive rights or obligations.
More importantly, I mentioned a moment ago that this could be harmful to American interests. Here is how. It would actually require that agreements we want to move on and that act in our national security interest would be delayed and referred to the Senate, and we all know how long that could take, even if the new rights or obligations that they created were absolutely technical in nature. No matter how technical or trivial, they have to come to the Senate to become hostage to one Senator or another Senator's other agenda in terms of our ability to move, at least as structured here.
Under START, the compliance commission adopted provisions on how inspectors would use radiation detection equipment to determine that the objects on a missile that Russia declared not to be warheads were, in fact, nonnuclear and, therefore, not warheads. There was absolutely no need for the Senate to hold hearings, write reports, or have a floor debate on that provision, even though it created a new right for the inspecting side and a new obligation for the hosting side in an inspection. We don't want to take away our ability to be able to do that. This amendment would do that.
Similarly, the commission under START reached agreement from time to time on changes in the types of inspection and equipment that a country could use. Equipment changes over time, as we know. Technology advances, so the equipment changes. Giving U.S. inspectors the new right to use that equipment or the new obligation to let Russian inspectors use it hardly warrants referral to the Senate for its advice and consent.
In summary, this amendment is unneeded. We have done well without it. Not well--we have done spectacularly without it for 15 years. No problems whatsoever. On the other side, it is a dangerous amendment because it forces us to delay for months the implementation of technical agreements that our inspectors ought to be allowed to implement without delay.
I reserve the remainder of my time and ask unanimous consent that upon the use or yielding back of time specified below, the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the following amendments to the resolution of ratification: Wicker 4895, Kyl 4860, and Kyl 4893; further, that prior to the votes there be no second-degree amendment in order to any of the amendments and that there be 30 minutes of debate on each amendment equally divided between the sponsors of the amendment and myself and/or my designee or the designee of the sponsors; further, I ask unanimous consent that the time already consumed by Senator Wicker and myself be counted toward this agreement.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senator from Maryland is absolutely correct, and I appreciate him pointing that out. I think I have said many times in the course of this debate that it is imperative for us to deal with the issue of tactical nuclear weapons. In fact, the resolution of ratification has a section in it which specifically addresses this and urges the President to move to that.
I might add that the Senator from Florida, Mr. LeMieux--we are just finishing up an agreement on an amendment which will, in fact, add an additional component. It is an amendment we intend to accept, and it will add an additional emphasis on this question of tactical weapons.
But not only is there no benefit to delaying this treaty from going into effect--I mean, that is what the amendment of the Senator from Arizona will do. Until this new verification and limitation mechanism is put into effect--the fact is that most of our experts, from Secretary Gates through Admiral Mullen and others, have all said to us: If we don't get this treaty, we are not going to get to the tactical nuclear discussion with the Russians.
If we were the Russians and the U.S. Senate said: We are not going to do this until this, we would be looking at a long road where we have reopened all of the different relationships and we have discarded this one component of our nuclear deterrent that we find so critical, which is the submarine-launched missiles, the intercontinental ballistic missiles, and the heavy bombers. That is the heart of our nuclear deterrence. We want to know what they are doing and they want to know what we are doing, and that is how you provide the greatest stability.
In addition to that, Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton have both reinforced that many times, but here is the important thing to think about as we think about what the impact on this treaty would be. Nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles--or SLCMs, as we call them in the crazy vernacular of this place--these are tactical weapons, and although this amendment seems to suggest that Russian SLCMs could upset the strategic balance between the United States and Russia, the truth is, they cannot. They don't do what this amendment seems to suggest.
For many years, going back at least to the Reagan administration, we have considered these kinds of weapons to be nonstrategic weapons, tactical weapons. Even if they are long range, we consider them that. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen explained why in their answer to a specific question from the Senate. They said:
Russian nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles ..... could not threaten deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (which will comprise a significant fraction of U.S. strategic force under New START), and would pose a very limited threat to the hundreds of silo-based ICBMs that the United States will retain under New START.
In other words, Russian nuclear SLCMs can't take out our nuclear deterrent in a first strike. That means if Russia were to use nuclear SLCMs against us, we could still use most of our strategic nuclear weapons and deliver an absolutely devastating blow in return. No logic in the sort of give-and-take of war planning, as horrible and as incomprehensible as it is to most people with respect to nuclear weapons, but it has all been done, appropriately, because they do exist, and it is important to our security. But no warfighting under those situations is going to reduce our ability to not just defend ourselves but to annihilate anyone who would propose or think about doing that.
Ironically, it was the Soviets who once wanted to do what Senator Kyl is actually seeking to do. They wanted to categorize SLCMs as strategic weapons because we used to deploy a nuclear version of the Tomahawk on our attack submarines, and the Soviets worked very hard to get the original START treaty to cover SLCMs. Guess what. We didn't bite. We didn't do that. The first Bush administration explicitly rejected those Soviet efforts to add legally binding limits on sea-launched cruise missiles. They considered SLCMs tactical weapons, and they also thought that limits on nuclear sea-launched cruise missiles are inherently unverifiable. That is, in part, because we didn't want to give the Soviets that much access to our submarines in return for access to theirs, and we don't want to do it now with the Russians. Now, maybe people were wrong about that, but I just don't see the wisdom in putting the treaty we have agreed on on the shelf while we go out and try to experiment with a new approach that nobody has argued is imperative for the security of our country.
Back then, we did agree in politically binding declarations to a limit of 880 deployed long-range nuclear SLCMs and to declare at the beginning of the year how many SLCMs we intended to deploy for that year. Those political declarations stayed operative for many years, and, in fact, Secretary Gates stated for the record that as recently as December of 2008, Russia has declared that it planned to deploy zero nuclear SLCMs.
Shortly after START was signed in 1991, the United States and Russia each pledged as part of the Presidential nuclear initiative to cease deploying any nuclear SLCMs on surface ships or attack submarines. So while we have four former ballistic missile submarines converted to cruise missile submarines, we are no longer deploying our nuclear Tomahawk missiles on any U.S. submarines. The Presidential nuclear initiatives are still operative for us and for the Russians, and we think we are more secure that way.
So I see nothing to be gained from negotiating a new binding agreement in the context of holding up this treaty, of putting it on the shelf, and of going back in an effort to do that.
This amendment would delay the New START for months or years, throw an entire curveball back into what I talked about yesterday, which is that theory of negotiation that nothing is agreed upon until everything is agreed upon. And in this case, if we say: Oh, no, ain't agreed upon, sorry, we are coming back to say you have to agree with us on tacticals before any of this becomes law, we have opened the entire negotiation again. How reliable and what kind of partnership is that? I don't think that makes sense. I fail to see any point in going down that road.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment, and I reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has just under 8 minutes.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am a little bit flummoxed here because I thought in a conversation I had a couple of days ago with Senator Kerry that side agreements might be all right; that we didn't want to amend the preamble or didn't want to amend the treaty but that we could perhaps do some side agreements. So we structured this as a side agreement just exactly as was done in START I.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KYL. On the Senator's time, I would be happy to.
Mr. KERRY. I would be happy to urge, if he wants to change the amendment or if he wants to submit--it is too late now, but we could perhaps do a modification by unanimous consent to urge the President to enter into an agreement but not shelve the whole treaty until that happens. That is the difference. So I am not going back on the notion. It would be great to get a side agreement, but don't hold this agreement up in the effort to do it.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me first compliment my colleague from Arizona, who has been dogged, if nothing else, in his advocacy with respect to his points of view regarding this treaty. And while I and other Senators may disagree with a specific amendment he proposes because of its impact as well as, in some cases, because of something else, that doesn't mean the Senator isn't raising valid questions for future discussions and things on which we ought to be focused. I know he spends a lot of time with this. I think all of us have a lot of respect for the ways in which he has already impacted this treaty. I give him credit for that.
This particular amendment is a combination of about four different amendments that have come together. I understand why that happened. I am not complaining about that at all. It is just that there is a lot in it, and therefore there are different reasons one ought to oppose this amendment.
Let me say that, first of all, the New START, I think in most people's judgment, addresses the concerns that have been raised by the Senator from Arizona.
The purpose of warhead inspections is to count the number of warheads on the missile. Neither side is comfortable with the other actually seeing the warheads, looking into it and seeing it. We are not comfortable with them doing that to us, and they are not comfortable with us doing that to them. That is not so much about the counting of the warhead as it is often the issue of failsafe devices or counter-shoot-down devices and other kinds of things that might be in there that we don't necessarily have a right to see and they don't want us to see. So neither side is sort of looking at the actual warhead. The START treaty--the original START treaty, therefore, to deal with that issue, lets the inspected party cover the warheads on the front of the inspected missile, but it allows us to inspect any cover before it is used so that we know what it can and can't conceal. We know what that cover is permitting us to see.
What is more, paragraph 11 of section (2) in the treaty's annex on inspections says explicitly--this is in New START:
The covers shall not hamper inspectors.
We did not have that previously. That is new to this treaty.
As a result of what we have learned in START, we have learned how to look and how to ask for things more appropriately, and our negotiators worked that into this treaty so as to protect our interests.
In fact, the covers are not allowed to hamper the inspectors in ascertaining that the front section contains a number of reentry vehicles equal to the number of reentry vehicles that were declared for that deployed ICBM or deployed SLBM.
The virtue of the New START treaty is that these declarations and the specific alphanumeric numbers that are going to be attached to the launchers and these warheads allow us enormous certainty in the randomness of our choices of where we go. If the Russians are cheating or somebody is over for one reason or another, we have great capacity to decide where that might be, where we think the best target of opportunity is, and to lock that place down and go in and check it. There are enormous risks of being discovered as a consequence of the way we have set that up.
The treaty already forbids Russia from using covers that interfere with warhead counting. It would create a very dangerous precedent, in my judgment, to require that we negotiate now, before we put the treaty into effect, a side agreement on the very same thing. That might suggest that other New START provisions do not need to be obeyed because there is no side deal reinforcing them. What is the impact of the side deal? Does the side agreement, incidentally, have to be ratified by the Senate before it goes into effect? There are a lot of imponderables here.
With respect to the agreement on telemetry, the requirement for a legally binding agreement with Russia that both parties have to provide telemetry on all flight tests of ICBMs and SLBMs, which is what the Senator is seeking, would also delay the START treaty into force by the same months or years about which we talked.
That argument has been hammered around here the last 7 days adequately.
This delays the treaty. It does not act to increase the security of our country, and it already is in the resolution of ratification in the treaty.
Given what we already understand, we know that the Russians do not like trading in telemetry. I find it hard to believe, therefore, that if we make this treaty condition precedent on the agreement of a side agreement, which we know the Russians hate to do, that is a way of buying into gridlock, deadlock, nothing.
I do not think anybody would suggest--we have already been through this a little bit, incidentally. I and others strongly urged the President and his negotiators to seek as significant telemetry as possible. For a lot of reasons, it did not turn out that it was achievable from their side, but it also did not turn out it was desirable on our side altogether.
Russia is testing new systems such as the Belava SLBM, and the United States may test only existing types of missiles during the next decade. That is a reason why the Russians obviously resist this very significantly.
A lot of people have suggested that our military does not want to share the telemetry on all our flight tests of ICBMs and SLBMs. They are pretty happy the way the treaty is structured now, including the provisions for telemetry which allow us five telemetry exchanges. We have to agree on them, but they are allowed under the treaty. If that were not true, there is no way the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen would have sent the letter he sent to the entire Senate where he stated he wants this treaty ratified now, he wants it implemented now, and he believes, consistent with everything people said within our national security network, that this treaty is both verifiable and enhances our capacity to be able to count and know what the Russians are doing.
The requirement for Russian agreement not to deny telemetry on the new ballistic missile systems it develops during the duration of the treaty is redundant with the previous part about which we just talked.
Again, the amendment requires a side agreement with the Russians. It is the absolute equivalent of amending the treaty itself and, therefore, I would oppose that.
The New START's telemetry exchange regime involves negotiating the beginning of next year, assuming this goes into effect, which missile tests from the past year we are willing to share.
May I ask how much time I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 6 minutes.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to reserve time for the Senator from New Hampshire.
The New START regime requires us to negotiate at the beginning of next year what we are going to share. If we do not offer anything interesting, Russia is not going to offer anything. That is the nature of a negotiation. You have to give to get. This amendment would change that basic principle from a negotiated exchange to a literally ``give me something for next to nothing.'' It does not work. The Russians would have to give us the good stuff while we would give them telemetry from launches that were no different from 30 other tests over the last 20 years.
I have to tell you, that sort of agreement is not going to happen. It is in a fantasy land, and the President would never get that side deal with Russia. The New START treaty would never come into force.
I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. This is a constructive amendment. We all agree that we need to reduce tactical nuclear weapons. Everybody who testified to us reiterated the importance of that being the next step in terms of our relationship and increased stability. NATO allies also said it was essential to proceed to that. The Senator's amendment helps us to make it clear that is the direction in which we need to go. I thank him for his efforts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in, I think, 7 days, I have not made an objection to an amendment that we tried to take up. I am sensitive to that because we, obviously, want to provide as much opportunity to go into these issues as is possible. I say to my friend from South Dakota that I am happy to stay here with him and do as much as we could do to impress on anybody the importance of the issue he is raising. But if we stayed here and went through the process of a vote, which would conceivably take us a lot longer in terms of the other amendments we have to finish tomorrow morning, as well as keep the Senate in even later, only the votes--I think we had only one motion to table. Almost every vote has been straight up or down. The votes have been 60 to 30, or 60-something to 28, or something like that. I think the reason is that there is a fundamental flaw in the approach of this particular amendment and the others we have had because they seek to prevent the treaty from going into force.
The language says ``prior to the entry into force of the New START Treaty,'' the President has to do a series of things. Some of those may read in a fairly straightforward and literal way, but they are not necessarily what can be done immediately or are even subject to our control, in which case we wind up with a treaty that we have actually partially ratified because it cannot go into force, and it may never go into force, depending on what happens with some of those things that are out of our control.
There are a lot of reports requested on one thing or another. I think there is a more effective way to go at this, personally, that doesn't wind up with a negative impact on the treaty, where we are veering from our military and national intelligence leaders who would like to see this put into effect as rapidly as possible. The effect of this is not to let that happen as rapidly as possible.
The Senator is 100 percent correct about our concern about Iran. We need Russian cooperation in order to ever have a chance of enforcing the sanctions that have been put in place, as well as finding the other tiers of cooperation that are going to be critical as we go forward, absent Iranian shifts in policy. The fact is, what has happened through Russian cooperation right now is that the most significant sanctions we have been able to put in place to date have been put in place. They were largely achieved because of the relationship President Obama has achieved with President Medvedev and the reset button and the sense that we are coming together, not going apart.
It is easy for us in the Senate to stand here and say we have to require this, we have to require that. A lot of these things I have found increasingly--particularly in this time I have been chairman of this committee--a lot of the things we sometimes do with good intention in the Senate actually very significantly complicate the life and work of our diplomats who spend as much time trying to meet some kind of certification as they do doing the diplomacy they are meant to do.
I am happy to work with the Senator as chairman of this committee. We will have hearings early next year on this topic of Iran and where we stand with respect to that nuclear program. We will look at this issue of Russian cooperation, and we will look at it hopefully within the context of a START treaty that is going to be ratified by the Duma and implemented and that can only strengthen the resolve of both our countries to focus on the challenges of Iran.
I thank my colleague. I have been in that position before when we have not been able to get an amendment in.
I might add, the amendment was filed a day and a half after cloture was filed. I said to Jon Kyl very clearly that we were going to try to be as flexible as we could. That flexibility needed to be mostly focused on those amendments that directly affect the treaty or are to the treaty in its most direct sense. If we raised a point of order, this would be an amendment that would be found to be not germane because it is outside those direct treaty issues. With that in mind, I have taken the position I have taken. But I look forward to working with my colleague, if we can, as we go forward from here.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, Senator Reid asked me a few minutes ago if I would communicate where we are with respect to the START treaty, and I will do so.
As it stands now, we have two amendments that remain. One is an amendment by Senator Kyl on modernization, which I believe is the intention, though not yet locked in, of the majority leader to try to take up around 9 o'clock in the morning. We expect to spend somewhere in the vicinity of an hour on it, maybe a little bit longer than that, to accommodate the speakers for Senator Kyl. Then there will be one other amendment after that on missile defense, I believe an amendment that will be offered by Senator Corker and Senator Lieberman together. That amendment will be the last barrier remaining before we can get to the final vote on the treaty itself.
It would be my hope, depending on the negotiations going on and discussions with respect to the 9/11 first responders--those are discussions taking place now--depending on that, we will have a better sense of when that final vote will be able to take place. I know a lot of colleagues are trying to figure that out in the context of flights, family, and other things. Our hope is that will become clearer in the next minutes, hours, moments of the Senate.
That is the lay of the land. I know the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the ranking member have made their request to the Senate regarding the Defense authorization bill.
Our hope is that tomorrow morning we can move rapidly through the remaining two amendments. It may even be possible for us to accept the amendment on the missile defense. We are working on that language now. If that happens, obviously it will clear the possibilities of a final vote to an earlier hour, again dependent on this discussion regarding the 9/11 first responders.
That is the state of play.
Source: http://thomas.loc.gov


text:
Obama falsely claimed U.S. oil production at an all-time high
24 Jan 2012
In several speeches and interviews last year, Obama claimed that U.S. oil production is now at an all-time high. That's simply not true. I hope that in his State of the Union today—which many say will focus heavily on energy—he doesn't repeat this mistake. [See end for update.]
To give a couple of examples: In an interview last April, Obama said, "Now, I try to be honest with the American people… We've got to continue to increase production. And U.S. oil production was at the highest level that it ever was last year—that it's ever been." And in July he said, "We're producing more oil in this country than we ever have."I know statistics can be bent around to say a lot of things. But there's no way to fudge the numbers to make these statements correct—as the government's own statistics show. While there has been a small uptick in production in the past few years, U.S. crude oil production reached its peak in 1970 at nearly 10 million barrels a day. We now produce less than 6 million barrels of crude a day—less than two-thirds as much as at the peak.
Politicians rarely discuss this long slide in oil production, with one of the few exceptions being Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), who has delivered dozens of speeches on the floor of Congress about this issue. As far as I know, the last time a serving President mentioned that U.S. oil production had passed its peak was Jimmy Carter, back in 1977.
To Obama's credit, he has repeatedly argued against many Republicans' calls to "drill, baby, drill." In those same speeches and interviews where he made the false claims about U.S. oil production, Obama also argued "we can't drill our way out of the problem." History suggests that's true. Since the 1970 peak of U.S. oil production, the country has drilled more than 600,000 new oil wells, opened up the supergiant Prudhoe oilfield in Alaska, and made huge technological strides that have improved our ability to find oil and to get it out of the ground—even from extreme areas such as the Gulf's ultra-deep waters, the site of BP's ill-fated Deepwater Horizon platform.
Despite all this effort and technical progress, U.S. oil production has continued on its general downward trajectory. In the past several years, drilling has climbed to a 25-year high—and yet there has so far been only a small uptick in oil production. Meanwhile, the cost of drilling wells has skyrocketed. This history makes a powerful case for why "drill, baby, drill" is not the solution.
The recent boost in production has come in part because of a boom in shale oil production, especially in North Dakota. But even if shale oil production continues growing at a fast clip, U.S. production is likely to increase only a bit over the next few years, and then flatline from there, according to 2011 projections by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. More recent projections released this week foresee U.S. crude oil production going up to 6.7 million barrels a day by 2020, and then declining again, back to about 6.1 million barrels a day by 2035.
The EIA's forecasts over the past several years have been proven, again and again, to be overly optimistic. If that turns out to be the case once more, it seems we'll be facing not flat production, but a further decline. But even if the latest EIA projections are right, the U.S. is not going to get production up near the level of the 1970 peak, and the country would still be heavily dependent on imported oil. If things play out this way, it will be much like what happened after Alaska's supergiant Prudhoe oilfield began production: A small bump up, and then a continuation of the long decline.
What's worse, it's not just the U.S. that's facing a peak of oil production.
After the 1970s energy crises, industrialized countries set up a watchdog group, the International Energy Agency, to warn about energy shortages. In recent years their chief economist, Fatih Birol, has issued a series of increasingly strong warnings. In April, he upped the ante, saying, "We think that [global] crude oil production has already peaked in 2006."
Since that year, the oil industry has been pumping hard just to stay in place, with production staying roughly flat, despite prices having risen more than four-fold since 2000, including two huge oil price spikes—one in 2008, and one that is just easing off now.
If we are indeed at the peak of global oil production now, it is a problem of almost unimaginable scale, since, as Birol has warned, the world is not prepared for this, and high oil prices threaten the global economy. Similarly, in the 1970s, we weren't ready for the peak and decline of U.S. oil production.
It will take bold leadership to cope with the peak and then decline of world oil production. But first, we need to start at home. We need a President who will explain to the American people simply and clearly that our oil production is in a long decline, and that there's no easy solution.
Last summer, Obama stopped talking about U.S. oil production, as other problems overtook public attention. But with oil prices set to rise as tensions build with Iran, I expect Obama and other politicians will be saying a lot more about oil. So far the GOP candidates have not said anything so specific about U.S. oil production, instead laying out vague hopes—such as Romney's call for energy independence. I'm no fan of Republicans' plans, either. With the possible exception of Jon Huntsman, all the presidential candidates' plans amounting to little more than "drill, baby, drill."
When—or if—politicians start talking specifics again, let's hope they don't fall back on false hope, with increasing talk of an American energy renaissance. But whatever people say about the future, at least I hope we can be honest about the past, and put our current position in a long-term perspective. That's not too much to hope for, is it?
UPDATE: In the State of the Union, Obama did talk a fair amount about energy, and he said that U.S. oil production is at its highest in eight years—that is, since 2003. This is a line he also used last year, and which is true. But it fails to tell us where we are now, in a longer-term perspective—and that, I think, is the real problem with our thinking about oil production.
UPDATE: Tweets on this post:
from @drgrist: Listen to @masoninman: Contra Obama, US oil production not at historic high; in fact, in inexorable decline. bit.ly/xa84vc
from @dvergano: Failing Gracefully – Obama has chance for "do-over" on highest U.S. oil production claims: http://bit.ly/xTwWyS
#SOTU #energy
from @nelderini: Is US oil production at an all-time high, as Obama has claimed? Uh, no. @masoninman reviews the data: j.mp/xMhNuL


text:
When USA TODAY's Nashville music critic Brian Mansfield was diagnosed with colon cancer at age 48, he figured that a lifetime of Southern-fried foods, extra-large sodas and stress eating on deadline had brought it on. Turned out he had a genetic syndrome that gave him an 80% chance of developing colon cancer. He'll chronicle his life with the disease – and with only a small part of his colon – in a series of weekly installments.
Getting used to my new body is taking some time.
Strictly going on outward appearances, I'm doing fabulously. Sure, there's a 4-inch, deep-red scar running straight through what used to be a nice, round navel, but that's smaller than what I initially expected from my colectomy back in July. The four laparoscopic incisions around my scar look like bug bites; a year from now, I probably won't even notice them.
The weight loss that accompanied my surgery is even better. Between the diet and exercise changes I implemented beforehand and the surgery itself, I dropped 30 pounds, 12% of my body weight. People who associate cancer with the effects of chemotherapy – hair loss, fluid retention – look shocked when they see me: I'm slimmer than I've been in 15 years. My skin's a little loose from the sudden weight loss but, at 48, who doesn't have some loose skin? The only time people can tell just from looking that I've been sick is when I have to wear clothes that used to fit but now look baggy.
Digestion requires some planning. Since the surgeon removed four feet of my colon, I've got less storage space than I once did. Smaller portions appeal to me more. At restaurants, sharing entrees and using doggy bags have become common.
Some foods, shall we say, process more quickly than others. I just haven't figured out which ones. I have some friends in my situation that can't do dairy. Others find that leafy greens disagree with them. I haven't determined my specific digestive preferences yet. Nothing has caused a severe enough reaction to make me swear off a particular food, but it'd be nice to know what not to eat before going into a two-hour movie. Dairy and fried food seems an iffy combination, so the next time I eat mozzarella sticks, it'll probably be under tightly controlled conditions.
On a related note, I've read a lot of books this summer.
I also like to know where the restrooms are, whether I'm walking into a building or mapping out a trip. When I start thinking about going to the bathroom, there's no hurry, but it's a good idea for me to start considering my options. (By the way, if you know me and you're reading this, please, please don't make a point of informing me of the location of the nearest restroom the next time we're together.)
The one thing that has really surprised me is my equilibrium. I suppose it stands to reason that having internal organs removed and shifted around would throw off one's balance in subtle ways one might not notice until he was, say, standing on one foot. Or, perhaps more accurately, attempting to stand on one foot.
I often get slightly dizzy if I'm standing on an incline. I attend a church with a slight slope to the floor of its auditorium, so when I grab the pew in front of me and bow my head, it's not because I'm praying. Trees and railings have come in handy when I've been talking with neighbors in their hilly yards.
If I'm moving, though, it's not a problem. Nearly two months after my surgery, I can do any physical activity I did before; I'm just more tired after I've done it. Lifting boxes, working out, standing on concrete floors in clubs for hours on end – everything's back to full strength and full speed, I'm just going to feel it the next day in my arms, my legs and my back.
My wife's employer has a fitness center for the company's workers and their spouses, and a trainer there has put together a program to help me get back in shape. The program combines some modest strength-training exercises with a running regimen. I've got three goals: To indirectly strengthen my abdominal muscles by working on my chest, back and legs; to keep my weight within a 10-pound range from my surgery low; and to run a 5K in October.
Shortly after my diagnosis, the Colon Cancer Alliance noticed my tweets and told me about their Undy5000 – a fundraising event where participants often run in their boxer shorts. Nashville's run takes place on Oct. 20. So far, six people have joined my "Mansfield United" team: My wife, Nancy; a colleague who's been training for a half-marathon; the host of a radio show I write and his spouse; and a couple of friends from my high school years. Some of them will be running their first 5Ks with me. Initially, I was hoping to walk the Undy5000 between chemo treatments. The way things have worked out, I'm thinking I can run it.
To get there, it's going to take some work. Though I never ran competitively, as a teen I ran distances like that almost without thinking. Now, though, I'm only a couple of weeks from being able to run at all without pain. I tire too easily, and I fall quickly back to a flat-footed pace that absorbs the shock to my guts. At my best, though, I could find a springy, loping groove that made me feel like I was taking flight.
Honestly, the 5K's secondary. What I want to recapture is that split-second sensation of going airborne. It's the best feeling in the world.
Music that makes me want to live
Cancer has changed the way I hear music, more than any other life event except marriage. Songs I once appreciated only on a surface level now strike deep at the core of my soul. Some inspire me; some terrify me. Others that I might have liked before I've got no use for now. I've also got more time to listen, whether it's during my morning exercise time or while lying in a hospital bed. These songs form part of the soundtrack to my cancer story.
Comfortable, Ian Hunter & the Rant Band
Last Chance at Love, Foxy Shazam
The Descent, Bob Mould
Running Red Lights, The Postelles
Keep on Walking, Passenger
Next week: Finding community
Source link Original


text:
The oeuvre of porn director Anna Span, one of the few British women behind the camera in the still small and low-budget world of British-based pornography (and, she likes to claim, the first), has always had a political slant. A self-professed feminist, she wrote a dissertation while a student at Central St Martin's about the possibilities of making porn from a female viewpoint and rejects the anti-porn stance often associated with feminism. She told F Word's Abby O'Reilly that the "the best way to tackle derogatory sex and speech is to reply with positive sex and speech" - adding that pornography was "central to the third wave of feminism". She currently has two nominations in the 2010 Feminist Porn Awards.
Span's renowned 2006 production, Hug A Hoodie, used footage of hardcore sex-acts to cast a rigorous eye on social breakdown on some of our less salubrious council estates. Notwithstanding such high-mindedness, the BBFC censored one scene featuring creative use of someone's foot. Ah well. Last year she celebrated victory after winning another tussle with the censor over a scene of female ejaculation. The BBFC denied that such a thing were even possible, but the determined Ms Span provided them with "irrefutable scientific evidence in support of model DJ's ability to 'squirt,' as it is known in the adult industry." She boasted that she was proud to have "made a difference to women who experience this in their own lives throughout the UK. It was never fair that the BBFC dismissed their orgasms as urinary incontinence." The offending film, indeed, was part of an altruistic project to increase female involvement in the porn industry:
It is particularly fitting that 'Women Love Porn' should be so groundbreaking for women in the UK, as it is the result of a competition set by Anna Span to encourage new female directors into directing pornography. Five women won the opportunity to write and film a scene for the DVD, which includes the contentious FE scene 'Top Milf' by director Paula Porn. The winner of the competition Katie Coxxx then went on to film a full DVD of her own titled Apocalypse Angels, also for Easy on the Eye Productions.
Now, I learn, the "openly bisexual" Span - who also has her own range of sex toys - is to stand for Parliament. Under her real name of Anna Arrowsmith, she has just won the selection battle for the Liberal Democrats in Gravesham, Kent. That's going to make for some interesting hustings. I've not been able to find out much information is available about her political activities - certainly compared with her porn work - but I discover that around the time of her triumph over the BBFC she was speaking at party conference in support of Jo Swinson's proposals for compulsory labelling of airbrushed advertisements. The stars of her own films, obviously, are real women - not the plasticated creations of West Coast surgeons who feature so strongly in the US porn industry.
Arrowsmith's road to Parliamentary candidature has not been altogether smooth. Just last month, after an unsuccessful selection meeting, she Tweeted that she was "a bit upset today as my dreams of being a Lib Dem candidate at next election have all gone. I am not sure any local party will Vote for someone who has worked in adult industry. Even the supposed liberals!" Less than a fortnight later, however, she was celebrating her triumph in Kent. And at a House of Lords meeting in honour of International Women's Day she commented that she'd met "women from all parties and backgrounds who were very supportive of my becoming an MP after my previous job. Nice!"
The Gravesham Lib Dems have certainly made a brave choice. The tabloids will love it.


text:
Nordihydroguaiaretic Acid in Treating Patients With Nonmetastatic Relapsed Prostate Cancer
- Full Text View
- Tabular View
- No Study Results Posted
- Disclaimer
- How to Read a Study Record
RATIONALE: Nordihydroguaiaretic acid may stop the growth of tumor cells by blocking some of the enzymes needed for cell growth.
PURPOSE: This phase I trial is studying the side effects and best dose of nordihydroguaiaretic acid in treating patients with nonmetastatic relapsed prostate cancer.
|Prostate Cancer
|Drug: masoprocol
|Phase 1
|Study Type:
|Study Design:
|Primary Purpose: Treatment
|Official Title:
|A Phase I Study of NDGA in Patients With Non-Metastatic Biochemically Relapsed Prostate Cancer
- Dose-limiting toxicity as measured by CTC v3.0
- Maximum tolerated dose
- Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at baseline and on day 1 of each course
|Study Start Date:
|June 2005
|Study Completion Date:
|October 2006
|Primary Completion Date:
|October 2006 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
- Determine the maximum tolerated dose of nordihydroguaiaretic acid (NDGA) in patients with nonmetastatic, biochemically relapsed prostate cancer.
- Determine prostate-specific antigen-modulating effects of NDGA in these patients.
OUTLINE: This is a dose-escalation study.
Patients receive oral nordihydroguaiaretic acid (NDGA) twice daily on days 1-28. Treatment repeats every 28 days in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Cohorts of 3-6 patients receive escalating doses of NDGA until the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) is determined. The MTD is defined as the dose preceding that at which 2 of 3 or 2 of 6 patients experience dose-limiting toxicity.
PROJECTED ACCRUAL: A total of 30 patients will be accrued for this study.
|Ages Eligible for Study:
|18 Years and older (Adult, Senior)
|Sexes Eligible for Study:
|Accepts Healthy Volunteers:
Histologically confirmed prostate cancer, meeting 1 of the following criteria:
- Androgen-dependent disease (testosterone ≥ 250 ng/mL)
- Androgen-independent disease (testosterone < 50 ng/mL)
Received prior definitive therapy for primary prostate cancer comprising any of the following:
- External-beam radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy
- Brachytherapy with or without pelvic external-beam radiotherapy or hormonal therapy
- Radical prostatectomy with or without adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy
- Cryotherapy
Must have evidence of disease progression, as evidenced by elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) that has risen serially from post-definitive therapy nadir on 2 determinations taken ≥ 1 week apart
Elevated PSA, meeting 1 of the following criteria:
- At least 1.0 ng/mL post radiotherapy or cryotherapy
- At least 4 ng/mL post radical prostatectomy
- Must show disease progression after discontinuation of the antiandrogen (for patients with androgen-dependent disease receiving antiandrogen as part of primary androgen ablation)
- No metastatic disease, confirmed by negative bone scan and negative CT scan or MRI of abdomen/pelvis
- Karnofsky performance status 70-100%
- Absolute neutrophil count ≥ 1,500/mm³
- Hemoglobin ≥ 8.0 g/dL
- Platelet count ≥ 100,000/mm³
- Creatinine ≤ 1.5 times upper limit of normal (ULN)
- Bilirubin ≤ 1.5 times ULN
- AST ≤ 1.5 times ULN
- No other medical condition that would interfere with study therapy or compliance
- No other active malignancy except previously treated squamous cell or basal cell skin cancer or cancer that has been treated and considered to be at < 30% risk of relapse
- Fertile patients must use effective contraception
- See Disease Characteristics
- More than 8 weeks since prior strontium-chloride Sr 89
- More than 4 weeks since first dose of bisphosphonates
- More than 4 weeks since prior major surgery or radiotherapy
At least 4 weeks since prior hormonal agents, including megestrol or steroids
- Concurrent luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogs allowed to maintain castrate levels of testosterone
- At least 4 weeks since prior and no concurrent saw palmetto, finasteride, or any herbal agent intended to lower PSA
Prior adjuvant or neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy allowed for androgen-dependent prostate cancer provided that all of the following are met:
- No more than 8 months of androgen deprivation
- At least 12 months since last day of effective androgen deprivation
- Testosterone > 250 ng/mL at enrollment
- Prior hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, or investigational therapy for biochemical relapse allowed
- No concurrent chemotherapeutic, immunotherapeutic, or other investigational agents
- No concurrent radiotherapy
- No concurrent filgrastim (G-CSF) or sargramostim (GM-CSF)
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00313534
|United States, California
|UCSF Comprehensive Cancer Center
|San Francisco, California, United States, 94115
|Study Chair:
|Charles Ryan, MD
|University of California, San Francisco
|Responsible Party:
|University of California, San Francisco
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
|NCT00313534 History of Changes
|Other Study ID Numbers:
|Study First Received:
|April 11, 2006
|Last Updated:
|October 9, 2012
Keywords provided by University of California, San Francisco:
recurrent prostate cancer
stage IIB prostate cancer
stage IIA prostate cancer
stage III prostate cancer
stage I prostate cancer
Additional relevant MeSH terms:
Prostatic Neoplasms
Genital Neoplasms, Male
Urogenital Neoplasms
Neoplasms by Site
Genital Diseases, Male
Prostatic Diseases
Molecular Mechanisms of Pharmacological Action
Protective Agents
Physiological Effects of Drugs
Lipoxygenase Inhibitors
Enzyme Inhibitors
Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors
Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal
Analgesics, Non-Narcotic
Sensory System Agents
Peripheral Nervous System Agents
Anti-Inflammatory Agents
Antirheumatic Agents
ClinicalTrials.gov processed this record on July 19, 2017


text:
Come stay in luxurious, professionally-decorated accommodations at Sunrise Beach Resort, one of the most popular locations in Panama City Beach. Located close to the tourist district, you'll be minutes away from Shipwreck Island Waterpark, St. Joe's Pier Park (the newly constructed Mega Shopping complex) and Gulf World.
This fifth floor, corner unit features a wrap-around balcony, private pool deck with access to the unit's two oversized pools (one is heated), hot tubs and a fountain for the kids. The three bedroom, three bath condominium sleeps 2-8 people. You'll enjoy plasma TVs and DVD players in all rooms, broadband internet, a washer/dryer and beachfront access.If you are looking for luxury at an affordable price in Panama City Beach, this is the condo for you.


text:
Publisher: Frictional Games
Genre: Adventure / Horror
Players: 1
ESRB: Mature
Reviewer: Nick Stewart
Overall: 9 = Must Buy
High-end Intel Core i3 / AMD A6 CPU, 2 GB RAM, Mid-range Nvidia GeForce 200 / AMD Radeon HD 5000, 5 GB Hard Drive space
As one of the best examples of true horror in modern gaming, Amnesia: the Dark Descent was a real genre classic as it understood extremely well that the scariest things are often those you can't exactly see. Its terrifying triumph only worsened the news that its sequel, Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs, was being handled by a curious choice of outside developer: The Chinese Room, of Dear Esther fame. The transition from the artful, leisurely exploration on which it made its fame to a game supposedly centered on incredible fear might seem a strange one for this particular team, but what's most shocking is how well suited their talents prove to be in carrying forward the spirit of Amnesia. As it turns out, A Machine for Pigs is a grimy puzzlebox containing no end of high-minded horror—in other words, a fine addition to the Amnesia canon.
Mere moments. That's how long it takes from first booting up the game until the time that your bones are filled with a sense of pervasive unease, as the game opens with fever-dream imagery of an insidiously nasty sort. It's to its credit that this doesn't feel like a cheap gut-punch of an opener, because even though the volume is turned down as you take your first few steps, the dull hum of unsettling dread is omnipresent and continues to climb as you move on. As Oswald Mandus, a wealthy British industrialist in the late 1800s, you snap awake from your nightmare in the middle of a stormy night (of course) to discover your terror is becoming real: your young children have gone missing, and you must explore your mansion and impossibly massive factory complex to see where they may have gone. This means descending, lantern in hand, into the bowels of a great and terrible machine as you—the player—slowly come to grips with the things that Oswald may or may not have wrought over the previous years.
Indeed, exploration is the driving factor here, both literal and figurative. Not only are you wandering through some surprisingly and mind-rendingly large environments in pursuit of your missing children, but you also spend the vast majority of that time combing through drawers and crevices for hints as to what brought you to this point. Suggestions of the past are scattered quite liberally throughout this brutish and dark series of environments, as you glean your clues from written notes, Victrola-style voice recordings, and even phone calls from mysterious individuals you instinctively know are not to be trusted. It's a kind of gradual construction but easily the best way of finding real narrative satisfaction as the gameplay lends itself very rarely to these kinds of revelations.
Some might argue that this exploration is in fact the entirety of gameplay, as there is little else to occupy the player beyond some profoundly rudimentary puzzles. As you wander through the steampunk, industrial horrors amidst the rust and the whistles and the creaks, groans, and screams, your focus will remain on that wandering. Gone is any kind of inventory, leaving you with nothing but the ability of carrying the occasional large-ish object across the room or from one room to another, in your hands, in front of you. The physics system comes into play here, but often in superficial ways that don't typically feel essential to the experience. This is no criticism: this simplification helps to focus the player's attention on the pervasive nastiness that emerges in bits and pieces in the upper rooms of your mansion before exploding into full view as you tumble down the industrial rabbit hole.
Also absent from this game is its predecessor's infamous insanity meter, which will likely cause fans of the original to chafe and wonder just what The Chinese Room is up to. Ultimately, though, it's a good move: although it's an interesting gaming concept, it was less fun in actual practice than in, say, Eternal Darkness. While it reinforced the idea of refusing to gaze directly at monstrous abominations, it largely forced the player to figure out their own in-game workarounds that were rarely fun; with that out of the way, a Machine for Pigs gets around rather efficiently to quite simply terrifying you, the player, with real fear rather than a simulated digital response.
What has remained, however, is the reality that you are supremely ill equipped to fight any monsters that may arise, and arise they eventually will. Armed only with a lantern, you are squarely in "run and hide" mode, and although there is no longer a limit to the amount of light you can shine, you are well advised to use it sparingly to avoid attracting violent attention. It's a stripped-down take on Amnesia's primary approach, and one that works incredibly well.
It's worth pointing out that every single second of A Machine for Pigs is infused with gritty, in-your-bones unpleasantness. Even the act of wandering through the world is a pervasive sliver in your soul, as the visuals themselves appear as though someone slathered a thin layer of Vaseline on your eyes, as the world often has trouble coming into focus. This sounds more unappealing than it is; the effect is slight but crucial, and combined with its all-too-effective audio, makes for a game well worth the nightmares.
This is an incredibly well-written tale, and the sheer strength of its writing is not to be ignored. Although the underlying metaphor is incredibly obvious and blunt—industry is the machine and people are the pigs—it surprisingly doesn't take away from the great horror it builds around that idea. There is a lot going on here beyond the initial "house of horrors" motif, and those who find actual ideas every bit as unnerving as jump-scares and murderous beasts will appreciate the uncanny intellect lurking beneath the surface here.
This isn't to say that the game is perfect, which it most certainly isn't. Its length might be a bit too brief for some, and although later stages are quite linear, the earlier ones are a bit too much so as they can leave players wandering aimlessly throughout relatively large spaces in search of the next story trigger. Similarly, the use of the physics engine can be rather flawed at times, as it is unnervingly easy to accidentally lodge a piece of furniture or crate in the environment so completely that you actually prevent yourself from being able to move forward. These are all frustrating moments that scratch at the otherwise brilliant veneer, as they pull you from the atmosphere of Oswald's frantic struggle and into a far less-entertaining struggle with the mechanics of the game itself. Still, these are exceptions rather than the rule, leaving a Machine for Pigs as a rather fantastic and thoroughly brutish experience.
Overall: 9/10
Writing about horror-based games is always a challenge, as the enjoyment in playing them is often in the discovery of what it has in store, making it difficult to describe why those experiences are worthwhile. Luckily, Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs is laden with laudable moments, as a bone-rattling exploration game filled with an atmosphere so pervasively unsettling that it can be nearly unbearable. The idea of industrial terror and evil is nothing new, and in fact should border on cliche, but it doesn't: it's a truly effective bit of nastiness that will best reward those who prize exploration and story above all else. There's no combat here, as all its violence is strictly one way; this leaves only fear, and flight, and the darkness at the heart of one man.
(This review is based on a copy provided by the publisher.)


text:
Tyler Perry is back putting on his famous character, Mabel 'Madea' Simmons, when her trouble-making act leads her straight to be locked up behind bars.
Tyler Perry has let fans get a sneak peek into his forthcoming comedy "Madea Goes to Jail" though a new teaser trailer. Less than a minute long, the video focuses on the arrest of Mabel "Madea" Simmons by a band of police. Though surrounded by the authorities from land and air, she still makes the effort hard for them.
Inspired by Perry's play of the same name, "Goes to Jail" focuses its story on Madea whose trouble-making act puts her behind bars. This time, she will come to the rescue of Candy, a fellow inmate who becomes the subject of bully by a large woman named Big Sal. Starring Perry as Madea, the film also stars Keshia Knight Pulliam, Vanessa Ferlito, Sofia Vergara, Derek Luke, Keke Palmer and others.
"Goes to Jail" is the second Madea's film after "Madea's Family Reunion". The Lionsgate Films comedy flick is also directed/co-produced/penned by Perry. It has been set to be outed on February 20, 2009.
"Madea Goes to Jail" Teaser:


text:
Wastewater Overflow Lets Sewage into Muskegon County's Ruddiman Creek
Muskegon County's Department of Wastewater Management says an overflow at the 1690 Lakeshore Drive pumping station let sewage into Ruddiman Creek Monday morning.
Authorities say fewer than 25,000 gallons spilled into the creek, and Public Health - Muskegon County says people should avoid body contact and fishing in Ruddiman Lagoon or at the mouth of the creek because of likely E. Coli contamination.
Wastewater workers collected samples to analyze for the bacteria.


text:
· Weekly Newsletter
January 16, 2014
· Parish Bulletin
December 27, 2013
· BASILICA Magazine
December 6, 2013
Monday of week 16 in Ordinary Time, or...
The communal celebration of the liturgy is the "source and summit" of the life of a parish. It is in the liturgy that we express who we are as Christians. It is in the liturgy that we continue to be formed in the ways of our Christian life. The celebrant of the liturgy is the entire community, from priest to parishioner, from musician to minister of hospitality. The preferred language of the liturgy is art in its many different expressions: architecture, music, visual arts, movement and poetry.
At The Basilica of Saint Mary, with its magnificent building, artistic riches, musical talent and thriving community, we hold this mandate to heart. From very traditional celebrations with the Basilica Cathedral Choir and small orchestra, to West African sounds and Mexican dances, to piano and guitar; whatever language or music is used, the liturgy is like no other. Join us today and experience the joy of life in Christ Jesus as never before.
Schedule of Liturgies
Times and locations of our services. To volunteer in liturgical ministry, visit the Liturgical Ministries page on MyBasilica.
Liturgical Year
Overview of the Catholic liturgical year and rituals.
History and theology of the Catholic sacraments.
Learn how the arts are integral to the liturgy. To volunteer to help with art exhibits and concerts, visit the Sacred Arts MyBasilica page.
Look at church architecture in a new and exciting way.
Discover how music is essential to the liturgy. Visit the Music page on MyBasilica to get involved.
Special Liturgies
View a regularly updated list of special liturgies, prayer services, visiting musicians and other liturgy-related events at The Basilica of Saint Mary.


text:
Get whatever you want. Shutters will help you plan and execute your dream Santa Monica beach wedding, exactly as you envision it. Or just get engaged here. You can compromise after you get married, not now.
From expert wedding planners to any kind of food and wine to the ideal photo backdrop, Shutters is the place for the ultimate L.A. wedding. Whether non-traditional or by the book, destination or local, a Shutters wedding comes with ONE the spa, beachfront rooms for guests, a variety of reception venues, and an ocean view you won't find anywhere else. But it's the feeling you'll fall in love with. There's no place like here. Isn't that what this day is all about?
"The setting was spectacular, food was fantastic. Shutters made our idea of a sophisticated beach wedding come to life."


text:
Ph.D. Database
The aim of the IACR Ph.D. database is twofold. On the first hand, we want to offer an overview of Ph.D. already completed in the domain of cryptology. Where possible, this should also include a subject classification, an abstract, and access to the full text. On the second hand, it deals with Ph.D. subjects currently under investigation. This way, we provide a timely map of contemporary research in cryptology. All entries or changes need to be approved by an editor. You can contact them via phds (at) iacr.org.
Add New Entry
Please add a new Ph.D. thesis here. Most entries (e.g. full text) can be added later. You can change all entries later, too.
Further Steps
New Entry
Contact: phds (at) iacr.org
[ IACR home page ] [ IACR PhDs page ] © IACR


text:
This is the journey of two middle aged women embarking on the RV fulltimers life. Preparing and living as nomads to keep from being committed to the local lunatic asylum by their friends and family. This is their journey from beginning to present day.
Monday, March 10, 2014
1958 The Year of Dawn
6 comments:
Happy Birthday, Dawn! Hard to believe some of the low prices back then - I'll take a few Corvettes, please!ReplyDelete
Happy birthday, Dawn! Amazing that the prices were so low, but so were the wages :) All relative, I assume!ReplyDelete
Have a GREAT birthday...I see a couple Margaritas in your future...FYI, I was 10 years old when you were born.ReplyDelete
Hope you had a great birthday, Dawn..I tried to comment from my blogger, but it wouldn't let me. Today I got an email with your blog post so I will try from here...Sorry we won't see you two this year..We have a rigid schedule and a family member at home with some critical health issues....Keep in touch!ReplyDelete
Happy birthday Dawn!ReplyDelete
I was 7 years old in 1958. That 1958 Chevy convertible at the filling station is now worth in excess of $100,000!ReplyDelete


text:
Leftfield Pictures is a reality television powerhouse with hundreds of hours of cutting-edge and innovative unscripted programming, airing on various major networks. Our ratings-grabbing shows are rooted in strong storytelling and casting, and run the gamut from compelling character-driven pieces to laugh-out-loud comedies. Leftfield Pictures has pioneered a new standard of television: Delivering shows with both 'laugh and learn' elements that entertain and also inform the audience.
Based in Manhattan with over 40,000 sq feet of office space, Leftfield is consistently churning out quality programming that is developed internally, powered by its 50+ person casting department that is at the forefront of who and what is next in reality television. In addition to original concept, Leftfield is known for being a great partner to independent producers and to networks who bring the company their ideas.
At Leftfield Pictures, we believe content is king, and our superior casting and storytelling results in must-see television. We believe in not overselling in the room and emphasize execution in everything we do. The results speak for themselves: In the company's history the first 15 pilots commissioned all went to series.


text:
How to save on your next flight
It's no surprise then that many would-be travelers are somewhat reticent to fly, especially if those travelers have kids in tow. However, there are ways to save on flights; it just takes a little flexibility and a willingness to shop around.
* Don't insist on nonstop flights. No one likes layovers, but they might just save you a substantial amount of money. Compare the cost of a nonstop flight to your desired destination to one that has one or even
multiple stops. Chances are the cost of a nonstop flight will be considerably more than a flight that includes at least one layover. Though connecting flights are not ideal, many international airports now offer a host of stores and restaurants that can help make those layovers more bearable.
* Don't necessarily choose a round-trip ticket. Though it's almost second nature for travelers to purchase a round-trip ticket, it might be more affordable to buy two one-way tickets instead. This allows consumers to compare prices of tickets from different airlines, which can make the overall cost lower.
* Be flexible with airports. Many online travel sites, including Orbitz and Expedia, allow consumers to search for flights departing from and arriving to multiple airports. This is done to give travelers more flexibility and ultimately to help them find the most affordable flight. Take advantage of this option. However, before booking the flight, consider the costs associated with getting to and from an airport that's farther away from home or your desired destination than the airport that's closest to both. The cost of transportation to and from an airport that's off the beaten path might offset the savings on the cost of the flight.


text:
§15-1D-1. Calling out national guard by governor.
In event of war, insurrection, rebellion, invasion, tumult, riot, mob or body of men acting together by force with intent to commit a felony or to offer violence to persons or property, or by force and violence to break and resist the laws of this state or the United States, or in case of the imminent danger of the occurrence of any of said events, or in event of public disaster or emergency, the governor shall have power to order the West Virginia national guard, or any part thereof, into the active service of the state, and to cause them to perform such duty as he shall deem proper.


text:
HCA, Hospital Corporation of America Supervisor Respiratory Therapy - FT Days in El Paso, Texas
Del Sol Medical Center is a Level II Trauma, 347 bed acute care TJC accredited hospital. Within our hospital campus, we also house an Inpatient, CARF accredited Rehabilitation Hospital. We are located on the Eastside of El Paso, Texas right off of Interstate 10. We provide exceptional patient care services to the El Paso and Fort Bliss communities, as well as Southern New Mexico and West Texas Regions.
POSITION SUMMARY: Directs shift specific Respiratory Care Practitioners in their daily assignments. Provides completed shift schedule as needed to the Clinical Coordinator by designated time frame. Is proactive in reviewing shift schedule in advance to plan and provide shift coverage for days with below minimum staffing levels. Provides Department Director a shift log of all treatments ordered and initiated during specific shift. Monitors appropriateness of therapy and quality of patient care provided by the RCP's throughout the shift. Ensures all orders are reviewed by staff. Provides ongoing education of staff in all areas of basic therapy, and performs specialized training in critical care areas. Provides counseling, and informs Clinical Coordinator of disciplinary actions taken. Assists therapists in providing coverage for all critical care areas, and provision of floor therapy as needed on a daily basis. Supervisors are expected to use all of these abilities to act as a resource of guidance and decision maker for their respective shift staff members. Facilitates interdisciplinary/interdepartmental communication.
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS: 1. Uses thorough knowledge and understanding of all physiological and mechanical aspects of Respiratory Care to insure quality of services provided by staff. 2. Practices, develops and endorses customer service skills in relationships with internal and external customers. 3. Adjust assignments daily as needed. 4. Provides routine floor, adult and neonatal critical care therapy as needed. 5. Monitors patient quality of care, and appropriateness of therapy. 6. Performs all staff evaluations in a timely and organized fashion within the designated time frame assigned by Director, and actively participates in counseling sessions and pursuing disciplinary action when and if necessary. 7. Assists Department Director in developing department policies and procedures pertinent to new therapy processes. 8. Attends 100 % of department meetings to improve communication between nursing and ancillary services. 9. Other duties as assigned.
EDUCATION REQUIRED AND/OR PREFERRED: (list required and preferred separately) Minimum College: Associates degreeORat least25 years in current field of practice, with a Respiratory Care Practitioner Title awarded by the Texas Department of Health, authorizing practitioner to apply for Licensure.
LICENSURE/CERTIFICATION: (list required and preferred separately) Current Texas License for Respiratory Care Practitioner required. Current BCLS certification required. NALS, PALS, or ACLS certifications preferred.
EXPERIENCE REQUIRED OR PREFERRED: (list required and preferred separately)
Minimum of two years clinical experience in Respiratory Care required. Minimum of one-year previous experience as a supervisor preferred.
SKILLS, KNOWLEDGE, AND ABILITIES: Reads and writes basic English Good communication skills both verbal and written. Knowledge of body substance isolation and infection control. Comprehensive knowledge of Respiratory Care concepts. Knowledge of basic research and statistical methods. Able to differentiate between all types of respiratory equipment. Able to teach and mentor staff in critical and non-critical care settings. Bilingual in English/Spanish preferred.
Title: Supervisor Respiratory Therapy - FT Days
Location: Texas-El Paso-Del Sol Medical Center - El Paso
Requisition ID: 01512-17694