It is commonly assumed that modern building codes assure resilience, guaranteeing that recently built structures can be quickly reoccupied, or at least readily repaired, after an earthquake. However, building codes were devised to protect lives, not property, so they do little to limit the kind of damage that might make a building uninhabitable for an extended period of time or even necessitate demolition. As demonstrated in Christchurch, New Zealand following the 22 February 2011 earthquake, code-compliant buildings may suffer several years of downtime after a significant earthquake. To address this issue, the Structural Engineering Society of New Zealand (SESOC) is preparing Low Damage Design Guidance, and the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) is in the process of developing a Functional Recovery Standard for New Buildings.
An example of an earthquake resilient building is Casa Adelante. David Mar, a structural engineer in Berkeley, California, designed this nine-storey affordable housing building in San Francisco (Figure 1), with 25 percent of the units set aside for the formerly homeless. His objective was to demonstrate that it is possible to design resilient housing that keeps functioning in a large earthquake at a cost that is no larger than that of a conventional design. David Mar was the keynote speaker at the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering webinar series on 25 June 2020 (Mar, 2020).
Figure 1. Casa Adelante building in San Francisco (left) and workers installing an earthquake energy absorbing damper within the foundation of the building. Source: David Mar.
The United States Resiliency Council (USRC), which awarded Casa Adelante a Gold Rating, has the mission “to establish and implement meaningful rating systems that describe the performance of buildings during earthquakes and other natural hazard events, to educate the general public to understand these risks and to thereby improve societal resilience.” The Casa Adelante apartment building in San Francisco is just one of 34 buildings worldwide to have received a Gold Rating award, and is the first-ever multifamily, 100 percent affordable-housing development to have been recognised.
Base isolation of the building, which uses rubber bearings or friction pendulums to isolate the horizontal motion of the ground from the building (Figure 2), is the best way of reducing damage, but is much more expensive than the conventional fixed-based approach and so was not feasible for this project. The solution was to design a very stiff building (to limit lateral displacement and therefore damage) with a specially designed foundation.
Figure 2. Base isolation using rubber bearings (left) and friction pendulum (right).
Most of Mar’s design process focused on fine-tuning a conventional reinforced concrete building with structural shear walls. The first storey of a building is especially vulnerable in earthquakes, because it often has openings such as entrances that interrupt the continuity of the shear wall. An example of a building in San Francisco that exhibited this “weak first story” behaviour in an earthquake is shown in Figure 3. There is a distinct lean in the ground floor, but the upper floors are almost vertical and relatively undamaged. The advantages of a concrete shear wall over other structural systems are illustrated in Figure 4. The concrete shear wall structure (pale blue) has much lower repair cost (left) and repair time (right) than the other structural systems.
Figure 3. Building damaged in San Francisco in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Source: Raymond B. Seed.
A good design approach for concrete shear wall buildings is to allow them to rock on their foundations in an earthquake and then come back to centre, minimising the damage. In order to allow for this rocking, Mar used a damper, developed by Professor Geoff Rodgers at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, that was installed in the foundation (right panel of Figure 1).
The design used a mat foundation that is strong but a little thinner than a conventional foundation, so that when the walls flex, the wall will not break because the foundation is sufficiently flexible to undergo uplift. The wall is also able to re-centre (have no permanent lateral displacement or tilt) after the shaking ends. The damper couples the foundation of the building to a pier in the ground, so the building pulls up on the damper, dissipating the energy during the rocking action. The rocking motion is enabled by making the wall stronger that the foundation.
Figure 4. Repair costs (left) and repair times (right) of various structural systems (colour coded) as a function of return period of the earthquake ground motion (MCE is 1:2,500 AEP). The Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall building (SRCSW, pale blue) used by Mar has much better performance than the other systems [from left to right: Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Resisting Frame (RCSMRF), Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame (StlSMRF), Steel Special Concentric Braced Frame (StlSCBF), and Steel Buckling Restrained Braced Frame (StlBRBF)]. Source: FEMA (2018).
One of the potential outcomes of physically rigorous performance based seismic design it to develop a predictive capability that is sufficiently reliable to enable the ranking and quantitative estimation of losses of the kind shown in Figure 4. The development of low damage seismic design marks an important advance in the use of performance based seismic design to accomplish performance objectives that extend beyond life safety to consider the economic costs due to damage and downtime. This has the potential to reduce not only earthquake losses but also the uncertainty and therefore the costs of insurance as well as the life cycle costs of construction. This can enable informed decision-making by building owners, regulators and insurers about impacts beyond life safety that incentive the development of resilience of individual buildings and communities.
FEMA (2018). Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings Volume 5 – Expected Seismic Performance of Code-Conforming Buildings FEMA P-58-5 / December 2018.
Mar, David (2020). Low Damage Seismic Design. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Webinar series 5, 25 June 2020.


Registration Forgot username or password?
Cart (kr 0)
Home / Artist / Karl-Magnus Fredriksson
Karl-Magnus Fredriksson
In 2004 the Swedish baritone Karl-Magnus Fredriksson was appointed Royal Court Singer as one of the youngest singers ever. Since 1999 he is engaged at the Stockholm Royal Opera where his roles have included Figaro in Il barbiere di Siviglia, the Count in Le nozze di Figaro, Marcello in La Bohème, Papageno in Die Zauberflöte, Den okände i Gefors Christina and Fritz in Die tote Stadt and the title role of Eugene Onegin. Karl-Magnus Fredriksson has appeared with conductors such…
Release date (newest) Release date (oldest) Alphabetically Alphabetically (decs)
In 2004 the Swedish baritone Karl-Magnus Fredriksson was appointed Royal Court Singer as one of the youngest singers ever. Since 1999 he is engaged at the Stockholm Royal Opera where his roles have included Figaro in Il barbiere di Siviglia, the Count in Le nozze di Figaro, Marcello in La Bohème, Papageno in Die Zauberflöte, Den okände i Gefors Christina and Fritz in Die tote Stadt and the title role of Eugene Onegin. Karl-Magnus Fredriksson has appeared with conductors such as Andrew Davies, John Eliot Gardiner, Frans Brüggen and Eric Ericson. He has made several CD recordings for BMG, Chandos, Vanguard Classics, DG, Naxos and Finlandia. jan 2009


M65 Atomic Cannon
Vintage Airfix
9 December 2022 24 January 2023
By David Doyle
Through historic photos, this volume traces the development, production and deployment of this iconic piece of military equipment from the drawing boards to the Cold War battlefields of Europe.
In 1949, the US Army wanted an artillery gun that could fire a nuclear warhead in the event that guided missiles and long-range bombers proved insufficient in delivering atomic weapons. The result was the M65, 280mm Atomic Cannon. On May 25, 1953, at 0830 hours, an M65 of A Battery, 867th Field Artillery Battalion, let loose with the only nuclear round the type would ever fire.
Six battalions of the M65 would eventually be deployed, most in Europe with one battalion sent to the Korean Peninsula. Though never used in combat, they served as a significant tactical nuclear deterrent in the early stages of the Cold War.
Vintage Airfix Review:
Yet another beautiful Images of War series book and a perfect accompaniment for Dragon Models M65 Atomic Annie Gun kit. As the series title suggests, this book is overflowing with images and with some great ideas for dioramas.
Vintage Airfix > Book Reviews > M65 Atomic Cannon
Douglas TBD-1 Devastator
De Havilland "Heron" Series II


Directory & Departments
Home ― News ― Novak is runner-up in case study competition
Novak is runner-up in case study competition
Rachel Novak, residence director for Richardson and Emry Halls at Dakota State University, was the runner-up in a recent professional competition.
The case study competition took place at the Upper Midwest Region – Association of College and University Housing Officers (UMR–ACHUHO) conference, held in Omaha, Nebr. in November. Novak and Aisha Lee, residence director of Higbie Hall, attended the event.
“The UMR-ACUHO Annual Conference provides an opportunity for housing professionals to connect with and learn from other professionals within the Upper Midwest Region,” said Dillon Pearson, the assistant director of residence life at DSU. The UMR–ACUHO is made up of eight midwestern states and one Canadian province.
The three-day conference includes sessions that focus on a variety of topics, such as social justice, facilities or supervision, he explained. “In addition, there is a case study competition that allows young professionals to work on a unique case study.” Young professionals are those with less than three years’ experience working in residence life.
The studies are created by the group’s Professional Development Training Committee; two-person teams are tasked to work through the case by discussing the different factors at play and determining a response. The cases are somewhat ambiguous, but have details which are relevant to the current higher education landscape.
Novak was paired with an assistant complex director from the University of Kansas, Alex Miller, to deal with a situation involving an RA’s concerns about a roommate conflict. The pair had not seen the case study prior to the competition, so she and her partner discussed the case, the issues involved, and created a plan of action and a follow-up plan. It was interesting working with Miller, she added, as the two schools’ resources and protocols are different, and the two sometimes had different points of view.
The exercise is intended to develop critical thinking, adaptability and teamwork skills, Pearson said, and Novak found this to be true.
“I gained experience incorporating other’s different experiences and approaches,” she said, “and organizing my thoughts and thinking through issues while being put on the spot.”
Novak, who is in her first year with DSU’s residence life department, also gained experience by attending other conference events, such as workshops and speakers. “It was interesting to hear all about the different campuses and how they deal with implementation, housing students, and how to be proactive,” Novak said. The sessions on diversity were particularly important to her service on the DSU diversity committee.


Bill C-16, Transgender Rights and Anti-Discrimmination Practice in Canada
DJK3654
Compulsive set designer
Ok, so this is something I came across recently online and it's seriously peeked my interest.
So Canada is in the process of reviewing a piece of legislation called 'An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code', or bill C-16.
What the bill proposes is that 'gender identity' and 'gender expression' are added to the Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.
The bill:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/421/Government/C-16/C-16_1/C-16_1.PDF
And the current Human Rights Act and Criminal Code:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/H-6.pdf
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-72.html#h-93
This all seems relatively inarguable in that it simply ascribes that gender identity and gender expression are comparable to race, sex, marital status, etc.
Some of the provinces have already incorporated such legislature at their level.
But, I recently came across some videos by a professor of psychology from the University of Toronto, Jordan Peterson. Centrally for this discussion here that the legislature is facilitating, or at least is indicative of a certain tolerance to, a kind of censorship. The main point with regards to the specific legislature is that the purpose of the acts as written is 'messy', and that it supports the idea of the government determining needs which Peterson argues is problematic because it is ineffectual at supporting needs.
The next argument to consider which I think is more important given the former only applies to the written goals, not functionality of the law.
That argument is that the way 'gender identity' and 'gender expression' are being defined by relevant bodies is problematic. The Department of Justice, The Ontario (the province of Canada where Toronto is located) Human Rights Commission, and other groups involved in the enforcement of the legislation have used definitions of gender identity and gender expression as such:
Gender identity is each person’s internal and individual experience of gender. It is their sense of being a woman, a man, both, neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum. A person’s gender identity may be the same as or different from their birth-assigned sex. Gender identity is fundamentally different from a person’s sexual orientation.
Gender expression is how a person publicly presents their gender. This can include behaviour and outward appearance such as dress, hair, make-up, body language and voice. A person’s chosen name and pronoun are also common ways of expressing gender.
Peterson argues that the former as expressed is not a scientifically grounded idea. He argues that 'he has seen no evidence' that a person can have in some tangible sense a gender identity independent of sex that is neither or both female and male, and that therefore we shouldn't support it in legislature until we can demonstrate that such notions are scientifically supported and not conjecture. Later on the video (at around 43:15-43:50) he expands on this, looking at different formulations/expressions of the concept used, by arguing biological sex, gender identity and gender expression are not fundamentally different, but closely related. The importance of this argument is to say that a certain notion of gender identity is being mandated to be accepted but this notion is questionable, and people should be openly allowed to question it. I think it's important to clarify that what Peterson says here is I think could be slightly clearer as to his views on the subject. Looking at later videos, he clarifies that he does think 'nonbinary people' with regard to 'sexual identity' 'obviously exist', but that 'biological sex, gender identity and gender expression do not vary independently' was his main point. Note that despite this explicit clarification, people have continued to claim that Peterson does not believe nonbinary people exist.
He then argues that people should not be mandated to use whatever gender pronouns to refer to individuals as those individuals wish, as this definition of gender expression implies and has been taken to mean by groups supporting it. Peterson personally does not consent to using most nonbinary pronouns such as 'zhe/zhim/zher/zhimself'. He states that he doesn't 'recognise another person's right to determine what pronouns I use when addressing them'. He argues that use of pronouns is involved in political ideology, and that he does not want to be involved in supporting these motivations. This as well as the implicit argument of free speech that he expands upon in other videos, in particular that there is a line crossed between preventing people from saying particular kinds of supposedly dangerous things, and mandating people to say specific things. Peterson questions the former as to how good a policy it actually is, but questions the later even more so, arguing that it is clearly dangerous and immoral, even if we accept the former.
The next part of the video looks at how these organisations (namely the OHRC) defines discrimination and harassment generally (not again this is not written into the law, but these are still involved in the legislation as the views and policies of bodies involved in the enforcement of the law).
Discrimination happens when a person experiences negative treatment or impact, intentional or not, because of their gender identity or gender expression.
Harassment is a form of discrimination. It can include sexually explicit or other inappropriate comments, questions, jokes, name-calling, images, email and social media, transphobic, homophobic or other bullying, sexual advances, touching and other unwelcome and ongoing behaviour that insults, demeans, harms or threatens a person in some way.
He argues with regards to former that it gives almost all control to the supposed victim and does not consider that negative impacts may be part of a longer term benefit, namely with regards to the acceptance of ideas. Even more so, he argues that including unintentional negative impact is problematic because intent is essential to discrimination, and that this places to much focus on consequence.
He then argues that the later 'has been written to cover the broadest range of possibilities' and this is problematic. He argues that things like jokes are not dealt with here carefully enough, such that accepted humour is considered harassment and discrimination.
The final section looks at organisational liability for these things, again from OHRC:
Organizations are liable for any discrimination and harassment that happens. They are also liable for not accommodating a trans person’s needs unless it would cause undue hardship. They must deal with complaints, take steps to prevent problems and provide a safe, welcoming environment for trans people.
As per the written text of the Ontario Human Rights Code
46.3 (1) For the purposes of this Act, except subsection 2 (2), subsection 5 (2), section 7 and subsection 46.2 (1), any act or thing done or omitted to be done in the course of his or her employment by an officer, official, employee or agent of a corporation, trade union, trade or occupational association, unincorporated association or employers’ organization shall be deemed to be an act or thing done or omitted to be done by the corporation, trade union, trade or occupational association, unincorporated association or employers’ organization
Peterson argues that it unreasonable to place accountability on an organisation for controlling any and all discrimination within.
So, I personally find Peterson's arguments quite convincing. And I think there's some fair concerns to be addressed here.
Last edited by DJK3654: Oct 28, 2016
Custom Sets - All feedback is appreciated!
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Talore
Legendary Creature - Hydra
Location: Development Hell
What exactly are we debating here? You've brought up a lot of related-but-separate points and it is unclear to me what sort of argument is being made here.
Quote from Talore »
I suppose the central question is whether the approach to policy with regards to anti-discrimination practice in Canada is appropriate and generally good.
These debate threads tend to end up broad no matter what, so I figured I'd leave it mostly open ended about different points.
Tiax
Canada's free speech/hate speech laws are already a mess, so it's not surprising that trying to add another protected class to them would result in something that's still a mess. It's not really a feature of the new protected class, though.
Quote from Tiax »
Well, it's definitely a point here that the existing laws are concerning, but what is specifically concerning about C-16 is how the relevant are defining the terms. As I posted above, both 'gender identity' and 'gender expression' are being defined in ways that are potentially problematic, I'd say particularly the later, in that implies that supposedly 'misgendering' people by not consenting to use their particular preferred pronoun is some kind of offence. I don't think it's fair to include other people's use of pronouns as being controlled under anti-discrimination law, or at very least not in a way that basically gives the person being addressed the power to determine as they wish what the person must say in addressing them.
Quote from DJK3654 »
Well, it's definitely a point here that the existing laws are concerning, but what is specifically concerning about C-16 is how the relevant are defining the terms. As I posted above, both 'gender identity' and 'gender expression' are being defined in ways that are potentially problematic, I'd say particularly the later, in that implies that supposedly 'misgendering' people by not consenting to use their particular preferred pronoun is some kind of offence. I don't thik it's fair to include other people's use of pronouns as being controlled under anti-discrimination law, or at very least not in a way that basically gives the person being addressed the power to determine as they wish what the person must say in addressing them.
Suppose one of my male coworkers is a bit on the effeminate side. I decide to exclusively refer to him using female pronouns, even after he corrects me and asks me to stop. I get fired for workplace harassment. Is that fair?
Perhaps.
But that's a private decision, not a public mandate. That's a fundamentally different issue.
Incanur
Unfulfilled Desirer
Jordan Peterson strikes me as an anti-trans bigot and all-round meanie. I sympathize with the trans and queer activists/revolutionaries who're giving Peterson a hard time. On the other hand, this new bill and Canada's anti-discrimination laws indeed constitute oppressive censorship. As often happens, both sides are wrong.
As far as language goes, gendered pronouns are ridiculous to begin with. Why do pronouns need to be gendered? Trans/nonbinary/genderqueer/etc. folks are just doing our best to negotiate the goofy gendered language that doesn't suit us. You can ignore our preferred pronouns as you can ignore anybody else's, but doing so adds, if only slightly, to our marginalization. I don't recommend it.
UB EDH Decks UB
Okay, suppose that instead of coworker, it's my employee. And he sues me for workplace harassment, and wins. Is that fair?
I find it very unlikely someone would use she/her/herself to refer to someone who identifies as male simply because of effeminacy despite their asking otherwise without any other kind of issues related. If someone is generally being uncooperative and demeaning, then that would constitute a perfectly good reason to sue someone, because that's just general harassment, that's not discrimination.
The problem is defining things such usage of pronouns itself, no matter the implications in the circumstance, is regulated. The way this is being set up is that people could potentially get charged even if the person who is being referred by pronouns other than their preferred pronouns is okay with the person who is referring to them making their own decision based on their own values.
Quote from Incanur »
In what way does Peterson behaviour constitute bigotry? What evidence is there of him harboring or exercising any kind of contempt against trans people?
Maybe his opinions on these issues aren't the most well informed or well considered, but holding an imperfect or bad position with regards to a rights issue does not automatically make someone a bigot.
EDIT: Importantly for this point, Peterson has indicated that he is not totally adverse to the idea of using some nonbinary pronouns. In particular, the singular 'they/them/themself', but that it 'might depend on how they asked', and later 'depend on what I thought of your motivations'- to which let's note the response to the former was 'so, no' which I find to be a ridiculous response. See here at 11:40-12:30 (unfortunate title here and I recommend avoiding the comment section).
I don't think refusing to use certain preferred pronouns necessarily adds to marginilisaion. Pronouns aren't simply the vector of some kind of acceptance, they are specific linguistic constructs and that means people can take issue with them beyond simply what they are intended to describe.
I agree that gendered pronouns are in general an archaic, unnecessary idea.
Lithl
Rules Guru
'biological sex, gender identity and gender expression do not vary independently' was his main point.
So it is impossible for someone to be born a man, present themselves as a woman, and consider themselves to be neither? (Hint: the answer is "no," and I've met an individual fitting this description so greater than zero such individuals exist.)
Sure, sex, identity, and expression are related... in that most people are the same in all three categories. But that's really it.
He then argues that people should not be mandated to use whatever gender pronouns to refer to individuals as those individuals wish, as this definition of gender expression implies and has been taken to mean by groups supporting it. Peterson personally does not consent to using most nonbinary pronouns such as 'zhe/zhim/zher/zhimself'. He states that he doesn't 'recognise another person's right to determined what pronouns I use when addressing them'.
I will refer to someone by whatever pronouns they ask me to use, because I'm not an ********.
If they haven't asked me to use anything specifically, I'll use their apparent gender if I can, because that's all I have to go on. But there's zero cost to me using the requested pronouns, and goodwill is earned in the process.
Of course, codifying "don't be an ********" into law is potentially problematic, but... seriously, don't be an ********.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Quote from Lithl »
So it is impossible for someone to be born a man, present themselves as a woman, and consider themselves to be neither?
That's not what that statement means and that's already explicitly stated immediately before what you quoted.
What that statement means is that these aspects affect each other and are correlated, and are not entirely separate things.
Disagree. The correlation is not coincidental. They are related in what they are and how they work.
For one, I don't think you will refer to a person by wahtever pronouns they want, I don't think really anyone will, you just don't expect someone to ask you to refer to them as something totally random, very long and/or very difficult to pronounce.
Is it really morally reprehensible for individuals to have personal standards about what they consider to be appropriate pronouns? Because what you do if you simply accept whatever pronoun preferences is establish in practice that any pronoun is valid, even if there are dozens of existing pronouns to describe the same thing, to the point of linguistic chaos. Do I really have to point out that this would be unreasonable?
I think it is morally reprehensible to not be at least somewhat accomodating to others despite personal beliefs/values, but I think it is also morally reprehensible to expect others to use your prefered pronouns no matter what they are. I think people should work within reason to find alternative pronouns to their most preferred pronouns- that there needs to be a balance where people on both sides of the exchange sometimes make accomodations or compromises.
There is a cost- using a pronoun gives it validity in practice when one may consider the pronoun to be in some way invalid, and pronouns can carry ideological implications that people may want to avoiding supporting by using them.
There is a vast difference between "make up a new word that means the exact same thing as an existing word", and similar words with nuanced usages.
I'll concede the point that I'd be unlikely to call someone "Valentinez Alkalinella Xifax Sicidabohertz Gumbigobilla Blue Stradivari Talentrent Pierre Andry Charton-Haymoss Ivanovici Baldeus George Doitzel Kaiser III" when asked to do so, because that's simply being silly. But we're talking pronouns.
Objecting to a pronoun someone wants you to use for them is like objecting to the name someone wants you to use for them. I'm not going to call you "Steve" if you ask me to call you "John". Because I'm not an ********. Similarly, if you ask to be referred to with "zhe" or something, that's fine, I'll do it. Because I'm not an ********. I might make a mistake because it's outside the norm for my speech, but I'll also correct myself when I notice it.
What ideological implications are carried by "please call me X"?
There are definitely currently used pronouns that mean the same thing.
Yes, so you have conceded that you will not simply accept whatever pronouns someone asks of you, that you have certain standards about what constitutes a valid pronoun.
So where exactly is the line? What standards are acceptable? It's not a one dimensional subject.
Objecting to a pronoun someone wants you to use for them is like objecting to the name someone wants you to use for them.
Names don't carry the same implications (as names are generally purely referential, pronouns carry grouping implications) or standards for usage as pronouns.
I'm not going to call you "Steve" if you ask me to call you "John". Because I'm not an ********. Similarly, if you ask to be referred to with "zhe" or something, that's fine, I'll do it. Because I'm not an ********. I might make a mistake because it's outside the norm for my speech, but I'll also correct myself when I notice it.
But by your own admission, you wouldn't call someone "Valentinez Alkalinella Xifax Sicidabohertz Gumbigobilla Blue Stradivari Talentrent Pierre Andry Charton-Haymoss Ivanovici Baldeus George Doitzel Kaiser III" if they asked you to.
I expect you'd ask them about an abbreviation.
In the same way, I think it's reasonable to ask people if there are any alternative pronouns they would be ok with being referred to as other than their top preference, just as I think it's reasonable for people to make the pronoun request in the first place.
I think both persons should be willing to compromise. I don't think it's morally reprehensible to contest new pronouns just as I don't think it's morally reprehensible to suggest them.
What's the point of spreading new pronouns at all?
Because pronouns are grouping words. They carry implications about the meaningful and significant existence of specific groups, and not everyone agrees that all the specific groups these pronouns are implying do meaningfully and significantly exist, and may instead believe people have characterised a group in such a way as they consider it misleading, perhaps even false.
Furthermore, pronouns don't have to be created to describe every one of these groups. People may have different opinions about how pronouns should be created and used in the first place. Some people will have higher standards about how broad a use a pronoun should have, others very low. I think both those people are within reason logically and ethically, and they can work out their differences without either being 'an ********'.
I find it very unlikely someone would use she/her/herself to refer to someone who identifies as male simply because of effeminacy despite their asking otherwise without any other kind of issues related.
I'm not asking you whether you find it likely. It's a hypothetical. I'm asking whether you think that, by itself, constitutes workplace harassment.
Not42
By itself this should never constitute harassment. However things are never by themselves, there is some kind of intent behind actions. If the person is doing this for the purpose of harassing, offending, mocking or any such thing then it is wrong. If they think it is only in jest, or in the case of nonbinary pronouns a constant slip of the tongue because you aren't used to the new word, then there should be other avenues for dealing with this that 'can' escalate to a harassment case but shouldn't start there. The point is that the proposed bill would make it harassment regardless of intent and intent is one of the most important issues in this kind of event.
Quote from Not42 »
I'm confused. You say "By itself this should never constitute harassment", but then you go on to say that it would be harassment as long as there is intent behind it. In the hypothetical I proposed - the intent was clear. The person in question had made a conscious decision to use the female pronouns, and had continued doing so even after being asked to stop. So when you say "this" should never constitute harassment, does "this" not refer to the situation I described?
What's the intent? What's the tone in which it's done? Does the person using the she/her pronoun go out of their way to use the pronoun very often?
I don't think using non preferred pronoun constitutes harassment. I think using non preferred pronouns to demean someone constitutes (EDIT: harassment)- because you are demeaning them. Which is to say I think using non preferred pronouns is not itself harassment but can be used to harass someone. Going back to my name abbreviation analogy, using an abbreviation of someone's chosen name is not itself harassment but it could be used to harass them.
Let's say we have Bob and David, both cisgendered men. Bob refers to David exclusively using female pronouns. David has repeatedly asked Bob to stop doing so. Bob does not use the female pronouns with a particularly derisive or insulting tone - it's the same normal tone he uses when talking about female coworkers. Bob is not making a mistake or a slip of the tongue, nor is he doing it as an attempt at a joke. He fully intends to use the female pronouns when talking about David, and matter-of-factly refuses David's requests to stop.
Is that harassment? Would you be okay with this situation if you were David?
It's not harassment, but I would consider doing that without a good reason to be ethically bad. I would not be okay with that if they weren't doing it for a good reason.
What do you mean "without a good reason"? What possible good reason do you see here?
I think it's reasonable to ask people if there are any alternative pronouns they would be ok with being referred to as other than their top preference
Sure, that's fine. And at that point, it's not a matter of "please call me X", but "please call me X or Y".
What would your response be if every single alternative acceptable to the person you're talking to doesn't meet your arbitrarily-defined boundaries of an acceptable pronoun?
What a loaded question.
I don't think many people at all have boundaries of what constitutes a valid pronoun that are arbitrarily determined, there are reasons why people think that sort of thing, whether or not you share those perspectives, some of which do note are not objective.
And at that point, it would depend on a whole variety of things.
I think this circumstance is very unlikely to occur for me though, based on my standards and what pronouns people use.
Read the thread.
He argues that use of pronouns is involved in political ideology, and that he does not want to be involved in supporting these motivations.


Photo: Express/Getty ImagesPhoto: Express/Getty Images
Who Will Be President Trump’s Dr. Strangelove?
One worry among the national security community is that Trump may wind up being, in effect, his own national security adviser.
Mattathias Schwartz
November 11 2016, 6:59 p.m.
If he could, President Donald Trump might roll up his sleeves and single-handedly manage U.S. foreign and military policy. He would be the only man in the room for the coming negotiations with Russia and NATO. He would personally select targets for lethal strikes in places like Yemen, Iraq, and Syria. He might even spend his afternoons piloting each of the unmanned drones and choosing the right moment to pull the trigger.
But he can’t. It’s too much work for one man. Instead, he’ll likely pursue his overseas agenda through the administrative instrument over which the White House has the most direct control — the National Security Council, or NSC, and the national security adviser.
John Podesta, who chaired Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 presidential campaign, emphasized the raw power of the NSC in a four-page staffing memo that he sent to President-elect Obama in 2008. “The White House really has two chiefs of staff,” Podesta wrote: the actual chief of staff and the national security adviser, who runs the NSC on the president’s behalf. The memo was among the hacked Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks in the run-up to the election.
Evidence of the NSC’s vast, opaque powers runs through postwar presidential history. As President Nixon’s national security adviser, Henry Kissinger cemented his access to the Oval Office and outmaneuvered his rival, Secretary of State William Rogers, eventually taking Rogers’s job. Under President George W. Bush, the National Security Council was discussing the possibility of invading Iraq as early as July 2001, at the suggestion of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
It seems unlikely that a President Trump would invest anyone with the kind of trust held by Kissinger or Rumsfeld. Trump burned through a number of high-level campaign staff during the months leading up to the election, and the only consistent members of his inner circle are his immediate family.
Paul B. Stares, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who studies the NSC, characterized Trump as “someone who likes to be in total control, believes he knows more than his subordinates, encourages competition and tension among them.” In an email, Stares said these qualities are “antithetical to all the virtues we look for at the pinnacle of the national security decision-making process. So the question is: Is he going to change? Or are we going to see a very different NSC process?”
“The president is the key person,” said David Rothkopf, the CEO and editor of Foreign Policy and the author of a book on the history of the NSC. “Trump has no experience dealing with the various agencies in question, nor with the White House apparatus. He has essentially no experience with anybody in the national security community. There’s going to be a kind of battle — Who’s going to teach him national security? Who’s going to show him the right way to run a meeting, how to delegate, how to use the NSC, how to use the agencies? If his professor is Trump himself, who doesn’t know anything, that’s one thing. If it’s [former Defense Intelligence Agency director and Trump adviser] Michael Flynn, a deranged maniac, that’s something else.”
Formally known as the “assistant to the president for national security affairs,” the national security adviser heads up the NSC, one of the federal government’s most powerful and least transparent entities. The council was created in 1947 as part of the far-reaching National Security Act. Its original purpose was to coordinate the Department of State and the Department of Defense in their efforts to husband American power around the globe. Today, the NSC has evolved into the federal government’s foreign policy spinal cord, the most direct bureaucratic means presidents can impress their will directly onto the rest of the government, with a minimum of external oversight. “If it [the NSC] doesn’t work, it is like congestive heart failure,” said David C. Miller Jr., a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, in a congressional hearing this September. He called the national security adviser “the most important presidential appointment not subject to Senate confirmation.”
The hub of the NSC is the NSC Principals Committee, a kind of super cabinet. Its nerve center is the Situation Room in the West Wing basement. Twelve of the 13 people depicted in the famous White House photo taken in the Situation Room during the Osama bin Laden operation were connected to the NSC. By law, the Principals Committee includes the president, vice president, and secretaries of defense, state, and, since 2007, energy. The committee’s exact composition varies from meeting to meeting, to be decided by the president and senior White House staff. Within the broad strokes of the original 1947 law, as updated over the years and then amended by the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, NSC quite literally makes its own rules, and those rules are set by the president.
President George W. Bush leads his National Security Council in the Situation Room of the White House on Oct. 12, 2001, in Washington, D.C.
Photo: Eric Draper/White House/Getty Images
A few weeks after inauguration, the new NSC will issue its first memo, signed by President Trump. The memo will define who is part of the Principals Committee and the Deputies Committee, which is made up of the principals’ seconds-in-command. Even the names of the memos bear the fingerprints of the president. For Kennedy, they were “National Security Action Memorandums.” For Reagan, they were “National Security Decision Directives.” Obama called them “Presidential Policy Directives.” According to the Federation of American Scientists, Obama has issued 43 of them over eight years. Twenty-two have been made public in whole or part; the other 21 remain secret.
The NSC is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, although Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., proposed a bill that would have changed that earlier this year. It has a tiny stub of a website and a small budget: $12.6 million under the Executive Office of the President. It has no headquarters of its own, operating out of the West Wing and the Old Executive Office Building.
Unlike the secretaries of defense and state, the director of the CIA, and many other heads of key agencies, the national security adviser and NSC senior staff are not subject to Senate confirmation. During Obama’s term, Capitol Hill became more partisan, which led to even more power concentrating within the NSC, with the president’s most trusted allies obtaining proximity and influence inside the White House. Meanwhile, more experienced figures, who may not have been the president’s first choices but could survive Senate confirmation, were shipped off to the agencies.
After controversy over John O. Brennan’s role in the Bush-era torture program forced him to withdraw his name from consideration for CIA director in 2008, he obtained arguably more influence inside the White House as assistant to the president for homeland security, a role that expanded under Obama to be a dual-hatted NSC role that also served as a deputy to the national security adviser and a full member of the Principals Committee. Working in a basement office a few steps away from the Oval Office, Brennan wound up with better access to the president than Obama’s first national security adviser, Gen. James Jones, and his director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, both of whom departed during the administration’s second year. “There have been some complaints that Mr. Brennan has exercised an influence on intelligence activities that more properly belongs to the director of national intelligence,” noted a 2011 report by the Congressional Research Service.
National Security Adviser Susan Rice listens to Indonesian President Joko Widodo and President Barack Obama speak to the press following talks at the White House in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 26, 2015.
Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images
Another would-be cabinet member who wound up on the Principals Committee is Susan Rice, who in 2012 withdrew her name from consideration for secretary of state in the midst of criticism from Congress over her comments on the Benghazi attacks. John Kerry, someone with more experience but weaker White House ties than Rice, was confirmed as Obama’s second secretary of state; Obama appointed Rice to be his third national security adviser.
The NSC exercises so much control that it can become a kind of scapegoat for an administration’s worst mistakes. Under Reagan, NSC had an in-house “special activities” or covert action wing, which organized much of the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages fiasco. When the plot unraveled, a special prosecutor came down hardest on the NSC, particularly National Security Adviser John Poindexter and one of his staffers, Oliver North.
In the case of Obama’s NSC, many of the administration’s Senate-confirmed heavyweights, including members of the Principals Committee, have complained about being shut out. For all his accomplishments, Obama struggled to forge deep relationships with old Washington hands — Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden being the exceptions. In his memoir, former CIA Director and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta wrote that his speeches and interview requests had to be cleared by the White House, and that the administration’s senior staff exerted tight control over his interactions with Congress. Robert Gates, Obama’s first secretary of defense, called it “micromanagement.”
Under previous administrations, the NSC’s third-tier “interagency” or “directorate” committees had two chairs: one from NSC staff, and one from outside agencies. Under Obama, most of the committees eliminated the outside co-chair. “This may be one reason why there was criticism of the Obama administration centralizing control of the process,” says Stares. “They might have done that to maintain control and discipline, but it does come at a cost. You can be perceived as micromanaging, or distrustful.”
In an email, Ned Price, an NSC spokesperson, wrote that the council draws most of its in-house staff from agencies like State and Defense. “Almost 90 percent are career public servants spending one to two years on the NSC staff before returning to their home agency.” Price put the number of NSC “policy and leadership staff” at less than 200. Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., who chairs the House Foreign Relations Committee and recently held hearings on NSC reform, has claimed that the total staff level is above 400.
Stares said that the council’s increasingly broad responsibilities carry a risk of being overly focused on the short-term. “We’ve got to get away with being fixated on structure and process and numbers and instead think about what we want the NSC to do well,” he said. “The common lament seems to be that the NSC is in an endless struggle to manage day-to-day events. There isn’t time to pause, think, and look at the big picture.”
Obama will be leaving the NSC with an unusually flat structure. Beneath the principals and deputies committees are more than 20 “directorates” organized around regions and issues. There was speculation that Hillary Clinton’s NSC might take a more hierarchical form, with a thicker layer of presidential assistants and White House “czars” — presidentially appointed mid-level staffers — mediating between the directorates and the Deputies Committee.
Today, the Republican Party holds a thin 54-46 majority in the Senate. If the Senate proves hostile to Trump’s cabinet choices, it is likely that some of his innermost circle will wind up on the NSC, as the president can choose to populate the Principals Committee with his chief of staff, and other non-confirmed appointees. Shortly after the beginning of Obama’s first term, the Principals Committee had 13 full members. Two of those members were neither elected nor subject to Senate confirmation. Another two members of his senior White House staff were “invited to attend every NSC meeting.”
Trump could respond to congressional concerns about growth in the NSC by cutting its staff numbers, but Price, the spokesperson, said that recent presidents have not exercised total control over NSC staff, at least not at the lower levels. “The vast majority of those staffers are career public servants,” he wrote in an email, “who, as a general matter, do not turn over with a change of administration.”
So far, little is known about Trump’s plans for the NSC’s organization and leadership. He may not have any. It bears watching.
Top photo: Actors on the set of “Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb,” on March 14, 1963.
Mattathias Schwartz[email protected]gmail.com@Schwartzesque


Florida School Shooting Hits Home for ElderLawAnswers Member Attorney
In Elder Law News
Florida School Shooting Hits Home for ElderLawAnswers Member Attorney2018-03-072018-03-07/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/logo-bluetxt-updated-sm.pngStavely & Sallitto Elder Law, LLC/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/logo-bluetxt-updated-sm.png200px200px
Florida ElderLawAnswers member attorney Howard S. Krooks was at work on February 14 when he received a text from his son, Noah, a ninth-grader at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
“Dad, I think there is a shooter at the school I’m in.” “I think it’s real.”
In a gripping op-ed published in the Sun-Sentinel, a daily newspaper in Broward County, Krooks records his exchanges with Noah, who was texting him from under a desk in a classroom across the hall from the shooter. The article also recounts Krooks’s own powerful emotional response to what Noah was telling him. “What if I stop receiving texts from him?,” Krooks asks himself at one point.
It turns out that Noah was in the first classroom on the left that the killer passed on his way into the building. For reasons unknown, the shooter skipped that classroom and chose others to attack. One was the second classroom on the right, where Noah’s close friend Alex was killed.
After relating the first-hand account of the shooting, Krooks, who is a former president of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, describes the tragedy’s impact on his family, and implores lawmakers to take the necessary steps so that parents don’t have to continue sending their children into potential killing zones. “Legislators, are you listening? Take this tragedy and use it to pass legislation that addresses the combined problems of mental illness and possession of weapons.”
Krooks ends with an apology to those affected by all past school shootings. “My heart went out to them during those times, but it wasn’t until it hit me in my own home, my own backyard and my own children were affected, that I took the time to write this plea to our lawmakers seeking to effectuate change. I hope you can forgive me for that.”
To read Krooks’s entire op-ed, click here.


Birdsong Is Just What Doctor Ordered for Cards
Kathy Perovich
In the past five years, the St. Louis Cardinals have had seven punters, which does not say much about the job security that comes with the position.
The most recent turnover came just before the start of the regular season. Larry Swider, who had been at the job for exactly one year, was upstaged in the exhibition season by Carl Birdsong, who had replaced Swider by the Cardinals' first regular season game.
Birdsong, a free agent who still has one year of pharmacy school left at Southwestern Sate at Weatherford, says punting is a means to an end in his life.
"This is an opportunity for me to make money for business purposes later," said Birdsong after St. Louis had shut out the Buffalo Bills 24-0 Sunday. "I want to own my own pharmacy someday."
As a junior at Southwestern, Birdsong was first team Little All-American and had a punting average of 45.6. As a senior, he was second team All-American and averaged 43.5 yards per kick.
Birdsong transfered from East Texas State to Southwestern to go to pharmacy school. As a sophomore at East Texas, he was ranked as high as third nationally before falling to 12th by the end of the season.
In the NFL, Birdsong was averaging 43.3 before Sunday's game. That average will fall because he kicked three punts Sunday for a 33.7 average. It's that low because of a 13-yarder he booted in the second quarter while going for a coffin corner kick. Instead, he shanked the ball and it went out of bounds.
Recently, Birdsong has not been getting much of a chance to perform.
"In the last four games, I've been getting about three punts a game," said Birdsong, who is planning to return to Weatherford to complete his pharmacy degree over the next two spring semesters. "We lost some of those games by big scores, and there were a lot of turnovers. I would like to kick more, so that I get into a good rhythm."
A punter's job might look easier than that of a defensive back, but Birdsong says punting is more of a mental exercise than a physical one.
"It requires you to be prepared mentally all the time," Birdsong said. "Sometimes I don't pay that much attention to what's happening on the field so I can keep my concentration. Sometimes you have to divorce yourself from the game."
Birdsong, who has signed three one-year contracts with the Cardinals, was signed by Buffalo initially. He was there a week and a half before being released. When the Cardinals picked him up, he was in an immediate duel with Swider, who is now with Tampa Bay.
"The time that I was the most nervous was when I was at Buffalo," Birdsong said. "When I first went out on the field, I didn't know whether to ask these guys for autographs, or what."
Birdsong felt more at ease in St. Louis. "I had never been cut from a team before. When that happened in Buffalo, I considered it the worst possible thing. But when I was given another chance here, I just thought I could make it."
Birdsong says a rookie punter is not given as long a time to get adjusted as a rookie running back is.
"Sometimes you might just be out there three times a game," Birdsong said. "Every one can see any mistage you make perfectly." BIOG: NAME:
Archive ID: 39727


U.S. WorldWND EXCLUSIVE
Russia helping Syria quell insurgency
Moscow's aid comes amid calls for U.S.-NATO to deploy in Arab country
By Aaron Klein
Damascus protest
TEL AVIV – Russian military experts have been inside Syria helping Bashar Assad's regime face down a months-long insurgency, according to informed Middle Eastern security officials.
The officials told WND the team of Russian experts were currently advising Assad's regime on how to quell rioting in Damascus and around the presidential compound.
This is not the first report of Russian aid to Assad's faltering regime.
Last month, WND quoted an Egyptian security official stating that Russian military technicians were in Syria to inspect the country's missile and army installations.
Russia is a military ally to Syria. Moscow has been trying to water down United Nations Security Council resolutions targeting Syria in recent days, with Russia insisting that any council action should not only focus on the Assad government but also the opposition movement trying to end Assad's rule.
The latest information comes as the Syrian opposition yesterday issued yet another call for foreign intervention in Syria.
The Syrian rebel army chief urged the world to protect civilians in Syria, complaining that Arab peace monitors had failed to curb Assad's response to the 10-month-old revolt against his rule.
Riad al-Asaad, Turkish-based commander of the rebel Free Syrian Army, stated, "We ask that the international community intervene because they are more capable of protecting Syrians at this stage than our Arab brothers."
The opposition in Syria previously specifically requested the U.S. and NATO intervene.
Also yesterday, Assad said he "absolutely rejects" any plans to send Arab troops into the country. He was referring to a statement from the leader of Qatar, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, who was quoted Sunday as saying Arab troops should be sent to Syria – the first statements by an Arab leader calling for the deployment of troops inside Syria.
Damascus officials claimed in November that NATO troops were training in Turkey for a Turkish-led NATO invasion of Syria.
Arab League diplomats previously told reporters they might recognize the opposition as the sole representative of the Syrian people in a move that would symbolically isolate Assad's regime.
If such a step is taken, it would mimic the diplomatic initiatives recently utilized to isolate Moammar Gadhafi's regime before the NATO campaign in Libya.
Any deployment would most likely come under the banner of the same "Responsibility to Protect" global doctrine used to justify the U.S.-NATO airstrikes in Libya.
Responsibility to Protect, or Responsibility to Act, as cited by President Obama, is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of "war crimes," "genocide," "crimes against humanity" or "ethnic cleansing."
A Turkish-U.S.-NATO strike could have immediate implications for Israel.
The Syrian president warned in an interview last month with a U.K. newspaper that foreign intervention in Syria would cause an "earthquake" across the region and create another Afghanistan, while directly threatening the Jewish state.
Assad reportedly made similar comments in a meeting in early October with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmad Davutoglu. He was quoted stating, "If a crazy measure is taken against Damascus, I will need not more than six hours to transfer hundreds of rockets and missiles to the Golan Heights to fire them at Tel Aviv."
Assad also reportedly warned that "all these events will happen in three hours, but in the second three hours, Iran will attack the U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf and the U.S. and European interests will be targeted simultaneously."
George Soros-funded doctrine
In his address to the nation in April explaining the NATO campaign in Libya, Obama cited Responsibility to Protect doctrine as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.
The Global Center for Responsibility to Protect is the world's leading champion of the military doctrine.
As WND reported, billionaire activist George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Center for Responsibility to Protect. Several of the doctrine's main founders also sit on boards with Soros.
WND reported the committee that devised the Responsibility to Protect doctrine included Arab League Secretary General Amre Moussa as well as Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi, a staunch denier of the Holocaust who long served as the deputy of late Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.
Also, the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy has a seat on the advisory board of the 2001 commission that originally founded Responsibility to Protect. The commission is called the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. It invented the term Responsibility to Protect while defining its guidelines.
The Carr Center is a research center concerned with human rights located at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, was Carr's founding executive director and headed the institute at the time it advised in the founding of Responsibility to Protect.
With Power's center on the advisory board, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty first defined the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.
Power reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the decision to bomb Libya.
Two of the global group's advisory board members, Ramesh Thakur and Gareth Evans, are the original founders of the doctrine, with the duo even coining the term.
As WND reported, Soros' Open Society Institute is a primary funder and key proponent of the GlobalCenter for Responsibility to Protect. Also, Thakur and Evans sit on multiple boards with Soros.
Soros' Open Society is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.
Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.
Annan once famously stated, "State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined – not least by the forces of globalization and international co-operation. States are … instruments at the service of their peoples and not vice versa."
Soros: Right to 'penetrate nation-states'
Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article titled "The People's Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World's Most Vulnerable Populations."
In the article Soros said, "True sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments."
"If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified," Soros wrote. "By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.
"In particular," he continued, "the principle of the people's sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict."
More Soros ties
"Responsibility" founders Evans and Thakur served as co-chairmen with Vartan Gregorian, president of Carnegie Corp. Charitable Foundation, on the advisory board of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which invented the term Responsibility to Protect.
In his capacity as co-chairman, Evans also played a pivotal role in initiating the fundamental shift from sovereignty as a right to "sovereignty as responsibility."
Evans presented Responsibility to Protect at the July 23, 2009, United Nations General Assembly, which was convened to consider the principle.
Thakur is a fellow at the Center for International Governance Innovation, which is in partnership with an economic institute founded by Soros.
Soros is on the executive board of the International Crisis Group, a "crisis management organization" for which Evans serves as president-emeritus.
WND previously reported how the group has been petitioning for the U.S. to normalize ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition in Egypt, where longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak was recently toppled.
Aside from Evans and Soros, the group includes on its board Egyptian opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei and other personalities who champion dialogue with Hamas, a violent offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
WND also reported the crisis group has petitioned for the Algerian government to cease "excessive" military activities against al-Qaida-linked groups and to allow organizations seeking to create an Islamic state to participate in the Algerian government.
Soros' own Open Society Institute has funded opposition groups across the Middle East and North Africa, including organizations involved in the current chaos.
'One World Order'
WND reported that doctrine founder Thakur recently advocated for a "global rebalancing" and "international redistribution" to create a "New World Order."
In a piece last March in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, "Toward a new world order," Thakur wrote: "Westerners must change lifestyles and support international redistribution."
He was referring to a United Nations-brokered international climate treaty in which he argued, "Developing countries must reorient growth in cleaner and greener directions."
In the opinion piece, Thakur then discussed recent military engagements and how the financial crisis has impacted the U.S.
"The West's bullying approach to developing nations won't work anymore – global power is shifting to Asia," he wrote.
"A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train," he added.
Thakur continued: "Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behavior for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant progress in deadlocked international negotiations."
Thakur contended "the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left many less fearful of 'superior' Western power."
Aaron Klein is WND's senior staff writer and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on Salem Talk Radio. Follow Aaron on Twitter and Facebook.
@AaronKleinShow
ABC forced to issue correction as big Ukraine story crumbles
Memos uncovered: Has Biden lied about Ukraine all along?
Beto dishonestly uses Kent State shooting to shame gun owners
Pelosi: Director of National Intelligence 'broke the law'
New comedic novel spanks loony university politics


Kyrie Irving Took What Sure Looks Like a Shot At Brad Stevens
By Ryan Glasspiegel
Kyrie Irving after the #Celtics blew an 18-point 4Q lead, questions defense on Kemba Walker. pic.twitter.com/m6F0j9ZTTW
— gary washburn (@GwashburnGlobe) March 24, 2019
The Hornets erased an 18-point deficit and Kemba Walker had 18 points in the fourth quarter as Charlotte handed the Celtics a crushing defeat on Saturday. This would be a story in and of itself, but Kyrie Irving appearing to question Brad Stevens and the coaching staff after the game puts it in another light.
While Irving said to “judge us when we have our full line-up,” he was asked about Walker and had this to say: “It’s one on one … down the stretch you try to come in and help as much as possible. We should have probably trapped him a little more like every other team does.”
As Jeff Goodman, a reporter for Stadium who follows the Celtics closely, tweeted, it “[c]ertainly looks like a shot at the game plan, and thus Brad Stevens and the staff. Continues to throw people under the bus to the media.”
It seems like just yesterday when a cross-country plane ride had allegedly saved the Celtics’ season. It’s been under two weeks since a self reflective Kyrie told Chris Haynes about how he could’ve handled things better during what has been a tumultuous season.
“The way I’ve handled things, it hasn’t been perfect,” Irving said in the interview. “I’ve made a lot of mistakes that I take full responsibility for. I apologize. I haven’t done it perfectly. I haven’t said the right things all the time. I don’t want to sit on a place like I’m on a pedestal from anybody. I’m a normal human being that makes mistakes. For me, I think because of how fixated I was on trying to prove other people wrong, I got into a lot of habits that were bad, like reading stuff and reacting emotionally. That’s just not who I am.”
The Celtics are 43-30, and if the season ended today the Pacers would have home-court advantage in the 4-5 series of the first round.


The Grand 1894 Opera House
“PINK MARTINI IS A ROLLICKING AROUND-THE-WORLD MUSICAL ADVENTURE… IF THE UNITED NATIONS HAD A HOUSE BAND IN 1962, HOPEFULLY WE’D BE THAT BAND.”
– THOMAS LAUDERDALE, BANDLEADER/PIANIST
Drawing inspiration from music from all over the world – crossing genres of classical, jazz and old-fashioned pop – Thomas Lauderdale founded Pink Martini in 1994 to provide more beautiful and inclusive musical soundtracks for political fundraisers for causes such as civil rights, affordable housing, the environment, libraries, public broadcasting, education and parks.
Twenty years later, Pink Martini still tours the world, singing in 22 languages at opera houses, concert halls, film festivals, museums and fashion shows. In 2014, Pink Martini was inducted into both the Hollywood Bowl Hall of Fame and the Oregon Music Hall of Fame.
Featuring a dozen musicians, Pink Martini performs its multilingual repertoire in over 25 languages on concert stages and with symphony orchestras throughout Europe, Asia, Greece, Turkey, the Middle East, Northern Africa, Australia, New Zealand, South America and North America. Pink Martini made its European debut at the Cannes Film Festival in 1997 and its orchestral debut with the Oregon Symphony in 1998 under the direction of Norman Leyden. Since then, the band has gone on to play with more than 70 orchestras around the world, including multiple engagements with the Los Angeles Philharmonic at the Hollywood Bowl, the Boston Pops, the National Symphony at the Kennedy Center, the San Francisco Symphony, the Cleveland Orchestra, the Sydney Symphony at the Sydney Opera House, and the BBC Concert Orchestra at Royal Albert Hall in London.
CLICK HERE FOR TICKETS
Classical, Jazz, Music, Orchestra, Pop, Songs, Symphony, World
The Grand is a performing arts theatre, presenting a year-round schedule of performances that include stars of stage and screen, music, dance, Broadway hits, comedy and more! The Grand is the official opera house of the State of Texas, and is a non-profit organization.


Hot List ’05
BlackEnterprise.com December 1, 2005 December 2, 2008 1821
be answered in the U.S. Senate. Win or lose in the upcoming senatorial race, Ford will always be a role model for today’s young Americans, having been the youngest person ever elected to Congress. The eldest son of former U.S. Rep. Harold E. Ford Sr., also from Tennessee, Ford Jr. earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1992 and his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School in 1996, the year he was first sworn to represent the Ninth District of Tennessee. He was 26. AGE: 35
DR. KEVIN HOLCOMB. Director of Gynecologic Oncology BETH ISRAEL MEDICAL CENTER, NY
Why he’s hot: Kevin Holcomb is one of about 12 black male physicians in the country dedicated to gynecologic oncology medicine. His special interest is the laparoscopic management of GYN malignancies, and he’s among the first physicians in his field trained in the use of robotic surgery. Holcomb performs about 200 surgeries a year in addition to being an assistant clinical professor in obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. He’s also very involved in physician awareness and community outreach programs, particularly as they relate to educating women in the Harlem community about the benefits of cancer screening and early detection. AGE: 38
PHIL IVEY,
Why he’s hot: Phil Ivey has captured the country’s attention with extraordinary wins at some high-stakes tables. This year, Ivey won his fifth career bracelet at the World Series of Poker tournament in Las Vegas, earning a little more than $630,000. When he won his first World Series of Poker bracelet in 2000 at the age of 23, he was one of the youngest winners in the history of the tournament. Two years later, he tied a World Series of Poker record by winning three events in a single year. In all, Ivey has cashed in at nearly 50 tournaments, reached six finals tables, and amassed more than $1.25 million. AGE: 29
BeyoncÃ© Knowles Singer, Actress
Why she’s hot: Even before she inspired Tommy Hilfiger’s fragrance line, True Star, BeyoncÃ© Knowles was well on her way to becoming one. The former frontwoman of R&B group Destiny’s Child went solo in 2003, and her debut CD, Dangerously in Love, sold 1.4 million copies, and won five Grammy awards. A budding actress, Knowles played the title role in the television production Carmen: A Hip-Hopera. She made her silver-screen debut as Foxxy Cleopatra in Austin Powers: Goldmember and had a starring role in The Fighting Temptations. Next year, she will appear in The Pink Panther, co-starring Steve Martin, and she recently inked a multimillion-dollar deal to play the coveted role of one of the title characters in Dreamgirls, the movie adapted from the hit Broadway play. Knowles has millions in endorsement deals, including a five-year, $4.7 million contract with L’Oreal and a $3 million contract with Hilfiger’s Star fragrance line. And did we mention she had style to spare? Knowles and her mother, Tina, collaborated to develop a women’s clothing line called The
BlackEnterprise.com


Riyadh Int’l Book Fair rich cultural event: Ambassador
RIYADH: Kuwait's Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Sheikh Ali Al-Khaled Al-Jaber Al-Sabah tours the Riyadh International Book Fair 2021. - KUNA photos
RIYADH: Kuwait’s Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Sheikh Ali Al-Khaled Al-Jaber Al-Sabah tours the Riyadh International Book Fair 2021. – KUNA photos
RIYADH: Kuwait’s Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Sheikh Ali Al-Khaled Al-Jaber Al-Sabah affirmed that the Riyadh International Book Fair 2021 is a diverse and rich cultural event to the Gulf and the Arab world. In remarks to the press yesterday on the sidelines of his visit to the fair, Sheikh Ali lauded the organizers of the event, thanking the Saudi Ministry of Culture for this great cultural gathering.
The ambassador also pointed out that Saudi Arabia has a rich and great cultural asset and bright minds that have influenced Gulf, Arab and Islamic culture and literature. Sheikh Ali stressed that Kuwaiti publishing houses and writers represent the bright-civilized Kuwaiti culture and literature. Last Thursday, the Saudi Minister of Culture, Prince Bader bin Farhan, inaugurated the Riyadh International Book Fair 2021 under the patronage of the Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz, with the participation of more than 1,000 publishing houses from 30 countries.
The exhibition will be held on an area of more than 36,000 square meters and includes areas dedicated to the work of publishers, workshops, dialogue sessions, and training courses, as well as poetry and art gatherings, performances, and international plays presented in three external theaters. – KUNA
cultural event Int'l Book RIYADH
Bohra Sultan's representative congratulates Amir
KDIPA promotes Kuwaiti investments in Expo 2020 Dubai
Kuwait top leaders’ awards for shooters handed over
Trio ‘brought together’ by drugs
Man rapes neighbor in revenge
Cabinet applauds Amir’s Ramadan speech
88 residency violators arrested


Zinn perpetuates myth of 1950s anti-Communist “book burning”
In Chapter 16 of A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn uses a string of half-truths to present a stilted portrait of legendary Cold Warrior, Sen. Joseph McCarthy. In a clear allusion to the Nazi book burnings of the early 1930s, Zinn presents McCarthy as a paranoid bully, chasing down innocent Foreign Service workers and ordering the removal and destruction of any texts he personally deemed too subversive.
According to Zinn,
As chairman of the Permanent Investigations Sub-Committee of a Senate Committee on Government Operations, [Senator Joe McCarthy] investigated the State Department’s information program, its Voice of America, and its overseas libraries, which included books by people McCarthy considered Communists. The State Department reacted in panic, issuing a stream of directives to its library centers across the world. Forty books were removed, including The Selected Works of Thomas Jefferson, edited by Philip Foner, and The Children’s Hour by Lillian Hellman. Some books were burned.[1]
Every sentence of Zinn’s paragraph above is factually accurate. But, when taken altogether, the effect of Zinn’s anecdotes is to conceal the true nature of the situation. The sole purpose of these overseas libraries under federal law was to promote anti-Communist literature internationally. The presence of even a single pro-Communist work would seem to stand at odds with that stated goal. While the number of books ultimately removed is unclear, substantially more than forty pro-Communist books were found in these libraries. Senate Sub-Committee estimates were as high as 30,000 such books worldwide. The Communist party membership of many of the authors was more than McCarthy’s opinion. Among the books found were those by the then current General Secretary of the Communist Party in America. State Department officials reacted in panic largely because their efforts to subvert U.S. initiatives abroad had been discovered and could have easily led to additional scrutiny which would have revealed their own ties to the Communist Party and the Soviet Union.
These were not private libraries. These were not even general interest public libraries, where the argument could be made that in the American tradition of the First Amendment, diverse viewpoints could and should be available. The State Department maintained these libraries pursuant to a statute intended to support pro-U.S. anti-Communist propaganda efforts internationally; or as the State Department put it, “to utilize…books and related materials to advance the idea of America in the struggle against Communism.” [2]
There were considerably more than 40 works by Communists, Communist sympathizers, or that in their copy promoted Communism or the Soviet Union. The sub-committee estimated as many as 30,000 books by Communists and Communist sympathizers on the shelves of the State Department’s overseas libraries.[3] In the book Howard Fast, scholar Gerald Sorin writes that library staff initially estimated as many as four hundred the number of authors whose books needed to be removed,[4] and according to journalist M. Stanton Evans, the pro-Communist works on offer at these libraries far outnumbered the number of anti-Communist works.[5]
Furthermore, it was not the unsupported opinion of McCarthy that these authors were Communist. This was the fact of the matter. Many of these authors were prominent members of the Communist Party of the United States. According Evans, among the authors were former General Secretary of the Communist Party of the U.S.A. Earl Russell Browder and his immediate successor William Z. Foster, who was still serving as General Secretary when the investigation into the State Department’s overseas libraries took place in the mid-1950s.[6] Others were known or suspected Soviet agents. According to a 1954 Sub-Committee report,
A breakdown of some of these authors shows that at least 12 have been in the past either identified under oath as having been involved or implicated in Soviet espionage or had acted in some important or confidential capacity in behalf of Soviet Russia: Cedric Belfrage, Haakon Chevalier, Lauchlin Currie, Israel Epstein, Philip Jaffe, Owen Lattimore, Kate Mitchell, Harriet Lucy Moore, Andrew Roth, Agnes Smedley, Guenther Stein, [and] Victor Yakhontoff. The adverse information on the above individuals was not classified or secret but was available to anyone who could read the public press. Most of them had been the subject of extensive reports published by the Senate Internal Security subcommittee or the House Committee on Un-American Activities.[7]
According to Evans,
The committee also provided information on the books themselves, including numerous quotes in lavish praise of Moscow. Following are some examples: “The Soviet Union plays the role of clearing the path, of facilitating world progress, of proving by its own example the superiority of the socialist system” (James S. Allen). “Russia’s strength, to put it in a nutshell, lies in her moral and scientific achievements. Russia has introduced moral principle and scientific method into the heart of productive life. That is the prime cause of her matchless strength” (Hewlett Johnson). “The one hopeful light on the horizon [was] the exciting and encouraging conditions in Soviet Russia, where for the first time in history our race problem has been squarely faced and solved” (Eslanda Robeson)… These effusive tributes to the Kremlin, to repeat, were taken from books in official U.S. reading rooms, allegedly meant to advance American interests in the Cold War.[8]
State Department officials began removing the objectionable books, not, however, at the directive of McCarthy, who as a Senator had no direct control over a Cabinet Department of the Executive branch. During a press conference in July 1953, Eisenhower said that “if USIS [U.S. Information Service] libraries overseas carried books that advocated Communism, such books should be gotten rid of, “because he saw no reason for the Federal government to be supporting something that advocated its own destruction. That seemed to him the acme of silliness.””[9] To that end Secretary of State John Foster Dulles directed that books by Communist authors be removed from the overseas libraries.
Among the reasons for the prevalence of Communist works in the overseas libraries was that “the book collections, and the people who chose them, were holdovers from the days of OWI [the Office of War Information], among the most heavily penetrated and leftward-tilting federal agencies ever.”[10] For example, Theodore Kaghan, who in 1953 was the acting deputy director of public affairs for the Allied High Commission (basically he was in charge of the U.S. propaganda war against Moscow in West Germany), and by extension was in charge of the State Department libraries in West Germany, had previously worked in the OWI.
Among his ties to Communism, Kaghan had previously signed a nominating petition for a Communist politician, “in the 1930s had also been the roommate and coworker of an identified Communist, worked with a Communist-dominated outfit called the New Theater Project,” and had previously flunked a loyalty-security check.[11] Later, while working for the Allied High Commission, Kaghan had directed and sponsored various pro-Soviet initiatives, from print runs of pro-Soviet books, to the sponsorship of pro-Soviet lecturers touring Europe.[12]
Zinn cites no source for the claim that the State Department removed The Selected Works of Thomas Jefferson and The Children’s Hour from the overseas libraries, and the veracity of that claim is unknown. However, what is known is that the books’ authors, Philip Foner and Lillian Hellman respectively, were long time Communist sympathizers. In the 1940s, Foner had aided in the publication of an official Communist Party newsletter, among other activities, and in 1942 was dismissed from the City College of New York for his affiliation with the Communist Party. This was at a time when the Soviet Union was a military ally and, for that reason, pro-Soviet sentiments were more widely tolerated than would be the case after the war. Lillian Hellman on the other hand, admitted in 1952 to being a member of the Communist Party from 1938-1940 and later in the 1940s had a passport application denied on account being “an active communist.”
While it is unclear how many books were removed from the State Department’s overseas libraries, a number were apparently burned, none however by Sen. Joseph McCarthy.
[1] Howard Zinn. A People’s History of the United States (Harper Perennial Modern Classics; Reissue edition, Kindle, November 17, 2015), 9278. http://a.co/aG5aBfX
[2] Ibid, 9174. Public Law 402 enacted in 1948.
[3] Ibid, 9182.
[4] Gerald Sorin. Howard Fast: Life and Literature in the Left Lane (Indiana University Press), 270. https://goo.gl/VAe8Vc
[5] M. Stanton Evans. Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies (Crown Forum; Kindle, November 6, 2007), 9224. http://a.co/304HXGC
Transcript of Eisenhower Press Conference, New York Times, July 2, 1953.
http://www.nytimes.com/1953/07/02/archives/transcript-of-eisenhower-press-conference-on-foreign-and-domestic.html
[10] M. Stanton Evans. Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies (Crown Forum; Kindle, November 6, 2007), 9240. http://a.co/304HXGC
[11] Ibid, 9255.
This entry was posted in Cold War and tagged A People's History, McCarthyism, Zinn by admin. Bookmark the permalink.


Back to former Alabama governors
Gov. William Hugh Smith
Terms July 13, 1868 - November 26, 1870
Party Republican
Passed January 1, 1899
Birth State Georgia
Family Married Lucy Wortham; eight children
WILLIAM HUGH SMITH, Alabama’s 21st governor, was born in Fayette County, Georgia, on April 26, 1826. In 1839, he moved with his parents, Jeptha and Nancy Smith, to Randolph County, Alabama. Smith received an academic education, studied law with John T. Heflin, passed the bar in 1850, and partnered with James Aiken in a law practice. He started his political career in the Alabama House of Representatives, serving from 1855 to 1859. He was a presidential elector in 1860, and was unsuccessful in his bid for the Provisional Congress of the Confederate States in 1861. In 1862, Smith crossed the lines of the federal forces, and remained there until the end of the Civil War. He returned to Alabama and applied for a presidential pardon. Smith was appointed a judge in the 10th judicial circuit, but resigned from the bench six months later to participate in the organization of the Republican Party in Alabama. Smith was nominated in the 1868 gubernatorial election, and became Alabama’s first elected Republican governor on February 4, 1868. He was sworn into office on July 13, 1868. During his term, the general assembly ratified the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and elected U.S. senators to represent Alabama. Also during Smith’s administration, the University of Alabama reopened, the legislature ratified the 15th Amendment to the U.S.Constitution, bonds were endorsed to expand the state’s railways, and the development of Alabama’s mineral and natural resources was encouraged. Smith ran for reelection in 1870, but was defeated, in a narrow victory by Democrat Robert B. Lindsay. Smith, refusing to turn over the governor’s seat, held on to his office for three weeks following Lindsay’s inauguration. The second judicial court ordered Smith to leave office, and he finally did so on November 26, 1870. Smith was reappointed to the circuit court bench in 1873, and served as a U.S. district judge for northern and middle Alabama from 1881 to 1885. Smith died on January 1, 1899, and is buried at the Oak Hill Cemetery, Birmingham, Alabama.
Alabama Department of Archives and History
Sobel, Robert, and John Raimo, eds. Biographical Directory of the Governors of the United States, 1789-1978, Vol. 1, Westport, Conn.; Meckler books, 1978. 4 vols.
Current Alabama Governor
Recent Alabama Governors
Gov. Robert Bentley
Gov. Bob Riley
Gov. Donald Eugene Siegelman
Gov. Forrest Hood James
Gov. James Elisha Folsom, Jr.
Gov. Harold Guy Hunt
Gov. George Corley Wallace
Gov. Albert Preston Brewer
May 7, 1968 - January 18, 1971
Gov. Lurleen Burns Wallace
January 15, 1967 - May 6, 1968
Gov. John Malcolm Patterson


2. Legal Aspects to Buying a Property in Spain
Although the form is different, the substance of a Spanish contract for the sale and purchase of real property is essentially the same as that of an English contract though normally with the additional guarantees for both parties typical of a Civil Code contract.
There are three main mechanisms by which real property is bought and sold:
Solely by private contract between the parties. Note that this mechanism does not per se permit registration of the purchaser's title in the property registry.
Solely by public deed (escritura pública) before a Notary.
By a combination of private contract between the parties leading to later elevation thereof to public deed with completion upon signature of the escritura. This is the commonest mechanism (and probably the safest for a foreigner to adopt when purchasing).
The normal procedure (i.e. 3 above) is for the parties to agree in private contract that the parties shall buy and sell, and establish the terms thereof, and a completion procedure and date. The actual transaction (which may thought of as "completion") is later effected by way of public deed including payment of consideration and formal handing over ofpossession (normally signified by the handing over of the keys to the property).
It should be noted that the private contract stage is somewhat different from the moment of contract (as opposed to completion) in English law. Whilst the private contract may, and sometimes does, serve as the actual contract of sale and purchase (see 1 above), the said private contract is more often a preliminary agreement which binds the parties to a future deed of contract for sale and purchase (see 3 above). In consequence, the purchaser does not normally need to consider such matters as insurance of the property and against his public liability in respect thereof until the actual conveyance (i.e. formal handover of possession) has taken place, normally upon signature of the public deed.
Once the escritura has been signed, the purchaser may then register his title in the property registry. Inscription in the registry is proof of title against all claims. Unregistered, the escritura (or indeed the private contract in the procedure outlined at 1 above) is prima facie proof only against the vendor. Note that a private contract (if the purchase and conveyance were effected in that way) does not permit registration in the property registry.
Once signed, the escritura is included in the Notary's "protocol" and forms part of his records forever.
Immediately following the signing, the details should be presented to the Property Registry for noting in their daybook. This gives intermediate protection until formal presentation of the escritura (which protection is important, since it prevents, for example, the vendor fraudulently charging the property by way of security for a loan in the interregnum between him having sold and the purchaser registering his title). Notaries will, if requested, formally notify the registry of the transaction for note in the daybook.


Home » Lung Cancer » Symptoms of Lung Cancer » Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines 2017
Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines 2017
Alice Miles March 26, 2017 Lung Cancer, Symptoms of Lung Cancer
Lung cancer screening guidelines 2017 (including nccn lung cancer) - In a paper published in Chest magazine, a group of experts to discuss the latest evidence on the benefits, harms, and the application of small doses of computed chest tomography (CT) in the detection of lung cancer. The study was titled "Screening for Lung cancer: Guide and expert report". The team also presented its conclusions at the 2017 annual meeting in Toronto, Canada (28 October-1 November).
The mortality of lung cancer every year continues to grow and expand beyond colon, san and prostate cancer combined. Currently, based on the results of the pulmonary cancer screening National screening, small CT doses is a standard practice and is considered as an effective screening method for people at high risk. One of the main recommendations of the new guidelines is that the annual screening with small doses CT should be offered asymptomatic smokers and former smokers-aged between 55 and 77 years-that was intensive smoking (30 pack-years or more Much), continues to smoke, or stopped over the last 15 years.
Instead, these guidelines do not recommend small doses of routine CT screening to asymptomatic smokers and former smokers that fall than the previous one, but is considered at high risk, or develop lung cancer. The same recommendation for persons who have less than 30 pack-years of smoking or not included in the 55-77 age range, and for those who quit smoking more than 15 years ago, and did not have a higher risk of having/developing cancer Pulmo According to the calculation of clinical risk prediction.
Persons who have comorbidities (other conditions) who have a negative impact on their ability to maintain assessment findings have been detected on the screen, or tolerate lung cancer treatment, which is detected on the screen early stages, or Substantially limiting life expectancy, is also not recommended for low-dose screening. "These guidelines differ from our previous guidance as we discuss more the dangers and benefits," Peter Mazzone, MD, and president of the guidelines, said in a press release. "We discussed application screening-CT low doses, including who should filter, how to identify the right patients for screening, how they make decision-making visits, how LDCT [small CT doses] and how to manage abnormal results," he added.
Lung cancer screening guidelines - The team says it takes a balance between risk and screening. "The potential benefits of cancer screening is to reduce the number of cancer-related death needs to be balanced with the potential dangers of screening," said Gerard Silvestri, MD, exhibitors and immediate chairman of the thing orientations.
"The current evidence suggests that even in a group with increased risk of cancer, only a fraction of the screens would be beneficial, while everyone was filtered exposed to potential hazards, including physical consequences and psychosocial identification, and then to Assess the nodules that are detected by the display, radiation exposure, overdiagnosis and overtreatment ", he continued. For this reason, our screening recommendation has become more selective and specifically targets populations at increased risk. The current evidence does not support the widespread adoption of the examination of lung cancer outside the patients described in our recommendations," Silvestri concluded.
Computerized dose tomography (CT) low for lung cancer has become a standard practice, largely because of the results of the National long screening. Related evidence continues to evolve, informing the benefits and risks of CT with small doses in clinical practice. Mazzone and ET have presented new evidence regarding the screening of lung cancer with small doses of computerized tomography and to offer new recommendations to the 2017 CHEST.
The summary of the recommendations together with the observations for each recommendation and summaries can be seen at the American College of Medical practitioners, and the full text of which will come to be published in the magazine issue. Lung cancer screening guidelines - Key recommendations and changes to previous guidelines include:
For smokers and ex-asymptomatic smokers aged between 55 - 77 years of age who smoked 30 pack-years or more and either continue to smoke or quit in the last 15 years, it should be offered yearly screening with low dose CT.
For asymptomatic smokers and former smokers who do not meet the smoke and age criteria in the last recommendation, but considered at high risk/develop lung cancer based on clinical risk prediction, low doses of CT screening should not Normally perform.
For people who have accumulated smoking less than 30 pack-years or younger than the age of 55 years or older than the age of 77 or have quit smoking more than 15 years ago, and do not have a high risk of developing lung cancer/on Based on a clinical risk prediction calculation, low-dose screening of CT should not be performed.
For people with comorbidities who affect their ability to tolerate the evaluation of the results detected on the screen, in order to tolerate the treatment of lung cancer is detected at an early stage, or which substantially limits their Life expectancy, a small dose of CT screening should not be done.
"These guidelines differ from our previous orientation because we will go beyond discussing dangers and benefits," said Peter Mazzone, MD, FCCP, president of the guidelines. "We discussed application screening-CT small doses, including which should filter, how to identify suitable patients for screening, how do visit with decision making, how to do a small CT dose, and how to manage abnormal results."
Lung cancer screening guidelines - "The potential benefits of cancer screening is to reduce the number of cancer-related death needs to be balanced with potential dangers of screening," said Gerard Silvestri, MD, FCCP, speaker guide, and chest, the president immediately. "The current evidence suggests that even in the group with a high risk of developing cancer, only a fraction of the screens would be beneficial, while everyone was filtered exposed to potential hazards, including physical and psychosocial consequences of identification and Then evaluate the nodes detected by the screen, radiation exposure, overdiagnosis, and overload. For this reason, our recommendations for screening has expanded to a more selective way and especially the populations of the highest risk. Current evidence does not support large-scale adoption of lung cancer outside the patient described in our recommendations."


The Magnum Story II- The Savage Years
Magnum in Motion 2007
In celebration of the 60th anniversary of the legendary agency Magnum Photos, the Berlin International Film Festival and Magnum are presenting a rare opportunity to view films by and about its outstanding photographers. The Berlinale's MAGNUM IN MOTION programme contains documentaries, biographies, short films and photo essays. Founded in 1947 by Robert Capa, Henri Cartier-Bresson, George Rodger and David "Chim" Sey mour, Magnum Photos opened a new chapter in the history of photojournalism. The agency was established as a co-operative recognising the photographers as owners of their own copyright. Today, Magnum continues to be wholly governed by its members and is probably the longest running artists' co-operative in the world. In the words of Cartier-Bresson: "Magnum is a community of thought, a shared human quality, a curiosity about what is going on in the world, a respect for what is going on, and a desire to transcribe it visually." The list of Magnum's members reads like the who's who of photography. However, the fact that many of them also worked in film is less known. Many members have turned their talents to moving images: from the founding generation of Henri Cartier-Bresson, Elliott Erwitt, René Burri and Eve Arnold through to Raymond Depardon, Thomas Hoepker, Donovan Wylie, Susan Meiselas, to name just a few. "From still photography through to the moving image, by way of the animated photo essay, different forms of story telling has always been the passion of Magnum photographers", says Dominique Green, director of Magnum Photos, London.
The film series will be accompanied by a DVD and a booklet. The Berlin gallery Camera Work will also be presenting an exhi bition, Magnum Photos@Camera Work, Berlin 1946 - 2006 from February 9 -March 3, 2007.
by Patricia Wheatley United Kingdom 1989 64’