Saturday, March 15, 2014

To the beach, to the beach, to the glorious beach! Whoops, scratch that one!

I ran across this story about Why You Should Take Bali Off Your Bucket List and while the pictures are enough to scratch Bali off your list you may want to read further by clicking on the highlighted link.

The American sacrifice is still very much treasured...even after all these years!

After Searching for 70 Years, This WWII Wife Gets A Surprise That FINALLY Makes Her Life Complete! Source GodFruits
What a devoted wife! She never remarried and continued searching for answers for 70-years. She finally finds out what happened to her husband in WWII and is completely shocked. The answers were there all along, so heartwarming. 

"I Look At It Every Day" ...you can too!


Friday, March 14, 2014

Take this job and shove it !!! ...David quits 'Goliath' HHS

2/25
Dr. Howard Koh, M.D.
Assistant Secretary for Health
 
Dear Howard,
I am writing to resign my position as Director, Office of Research Integrity, ORI/OASH/DHHS.
This has been at once the best and worst job I’ve ever had. The best part of it has been the opportunity to lead ORI intellectually and professionally in helping research institutions better handle allegations of research misconduct, provide in-service training for institutional Research Integrity Officers (RIOs), and develop programming to promote the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). Working with members of the research community, particularly RIOs, and the brilliant scientist-investigators in ORI has been one of the great pleasures of my long career. Unfortunately, and to my great surprise, it turned out to be only about 35% of the job.
The rest of my role as ORI Director has been the very worst job I have ever had and it occupies up to 65% of my time. That part of the job is spent navigating the remarkably dysfunctional HHS bureaucracy to secure resources and, yes, get permission for ORI to serve the research community. I knew coming into this job about the bureaucratic limitations of the federal government, but I had no idea how stifling it would be. What I was able to do in a day or two as an academic administrator takes weeks or months in the federal government, our precinct of which is OASH.
I believe there are a number of reasons for this. First, whereas in most organizations the front-line agencies that do the actual work, in our case protecting the integrity of millions of dollars of PHS-funded research, command the administrative support services to get the job done. In OASH it’s the exact opposite. The Op-Divs, as the front-line offices are called, get our budgets and then have to go hat-in-hand to the administrative support people in the “immediate office” of OASH to spend it, almost item by item. These people who are generally poorly informed about what ORI is and does decide whether our requests are “mission critical.”
On one occasion, I was invited to give a talk on research integrity and misconduct to a large group of AAAS fellows. I needed to spend $35 to convert some old cassette tapes to CDs for use in the presentation. The immediate office denied my request after a couple of days of noodling. A university did the conversion for me in twenty minutes, and refused payment when I told them it was for an educational purpose.
Second, the organizational culture of OASH’s immediate office is seriously flawed, in my opinion. The academic literature over the last twenty-five years on successful organizations highlights several characteristics: transparency, power-sharing or shared decision-making and accountability. If you invert these principles, you have an organization (OASH in this instance), which is secretive, autocratic and unaccountable.
In one instance, by way of illustration, I urgently needed to fill a vacancy for an ORI division director. I asked the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health (your deputy) when I could proceed. She said there was a priority list. I asked where ORI’s request was on that list. She said the list was secret and that we weren’t on the top, but we weren’t on the bottom either. Sixteen months later we still don’t have a division director on board.
On another occasion I asked your deputy why you didn’t conduct an evaluation by the Op-Divs of the immediate office administrative services to try to improve them. She responded that that had been tried a few years ago and the results were so negative that no further evaluations have been conducted.
Third, there is the nature of the federal bureaucracy itself. The sociologist Max Weber observed in the early 20th century that while bureaucracy is in some instances an optimal organizational mode for a rationalized, industrial society, it has drawbacks. One is that public bureaucracies quit being about serving the public and focus instead on perpetuating themselves. This is exactly my experience with OASH. We spend exorbitant amounts of time in meetings and in generating repetitive and often meaningless data and reports to make our precinct of the bureaucracy look productive. None of this renders the slightest bit of assistance to ORI in handling allegations of misconduct or in promoting the responsible conduct of research. Instead, it sucks away time and resources that we might better use to meet our mission. Since I’ve been here I’ve been advised by my superiors that I had “to make my bosses look good.” I’ve been admonished: “Dave, you are a visionary leader but what we need here are team players.” Recently, I was advised that if I wanted to be happy in government service, I had to “lower my expectations.” The one thing no one in OASH leadership has said to me in two years is ‘how can we help ORI better serve the research community?’ Not once.
Finally, there is another important organizational question that deserves mention: Is OASH the proper home for a regulatory agency such as ORI? OASH is a collection of important public health offices that have agendas significantly different from the regulatory roles of ORI and OHRP. You’ve observed that OASH operates in an “intensely political environment.” I agree and have observed that in this environment decisions are often made on the basis of political expediency and to obtain favorable “optics.” There is often a lack of procedural rigor in this environment. I discovered recently, for example, that OASH operates a grievance procedure for employees that has no due process protections of any kind for respondents to those grievances. Indeed, there are no written rules or procedures for the OASH grievance process regarding the rights and responsibilities of respondents. By contrast, agencies such as ORI are bound by regulation to make principled decisions on the basis of clearly articulated procedures that protect the rights of all involved. Our decisions must be supported by the weight of factual evidence. ORI’s decisions may be and frequently are tested in court. There are members of the press and the research community who don’t believe ORI belongs in an agency such as OASH and I, reluctantly, have come to agree.
In closing, these twenty-six months of service as the Director of ORI have been a remarkable experience. As I wrote earlier in this letter, working with the research community and the remarkable scientist-investigators at ORI has been the best job I’ve ever had. As for the rest, I’m offended as an American taxpayer that the federal bureaucracy—at least the part I’ve labored in—is so profoundly dysfunctional. I’m hardly the first person to have made that discovery, but I’m saddened by the fact that there is so little discussion, much less outrage, regarding the problem. To promote healthy and productive discussion, I intend to publish a version of the daily log I’ve kept as ORI Director in order to share my experience and observations with my colleagues in government and with members of the regulated research community.
I plan to work through Tuesday March 4, 2014 and then use vacation or sick days until Thursday March 27 (by which time I will have re-established health care through my university) and then end my federal government service.
Sincerely, ...

Thursday, March 13, 2014

Creating Dangerous Neurotoxin Cocktail By Peeing In The Pool

It may take a moment for video to load.

Peeing In Pools Can Create Dangerous Neurotoxin Cocktail
DAVIS (CBS13) — The next time you jump in a pool, think twice before you skip a trip to the bathroom. The chemical stew could harm more than just your reputation.
Scientists say peeing in pools is more than just socially frowned upon, it can be hazardous to your health.
It’s something that Olympic swimmers Ryan Lochte and Michael Phelps admit to doing, and it made for a funny scene in the movie “Grown Ups.”
We had UC Davis chemistry professor Matthew Augustine examine a study from Purdue and China Agricultural universities.
“I had not heard about it before, but it completely makes sense,” he said.
Researchers found that when uric acid—a compound in our urine—combines with chlorine, the result is two potentially dangerous chemical byproducts.
“Not only do you make a nerve toxin, you make another toxin that’s known to be tear gas,” he said.
You heard him right: You pee in a pool, and you essentially turn it into a weapon of mass destruction.
“It’s been noticed that lifeguards, avid swimmers have had sickness, nausea and essentially all of the symptoms you would expect to get from a nerve agent,” he said.
Howard Chew and the swimmers at Davis Swim And Fitness say they haven’t experienced any of those symptoms.
But Augustine says there’s a surefire way to significantly cut the risk.
“Don’t pee in the pool,” he said.
Those chemicals can also potentially affect the lungs, heart, central nervous system and other organs.
It’s worth noting that one in five American adults admit to peeing in a public pool.

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 ...a 'patented' solution

I have no idea if the following story is true or not but it does offer an intriguing explanation of a possible motive...but to kill 239 people for a potential cash bonanza is really unconscionable.  Amazing how someone pieced together the information in such a relatively short period of time.  I suppose there were obvious hints if a friend or an associate knew the passenger manifest and was aware of the patent application filed by those named in the story...  Check this out...very interesting and why has not the main stream media picked up on it.  Hopefully an explanation will be forthcoming.  ~  Norman E. Hooben

Source: FaceBook
Have you pieced together the puzzle of missing flight 370 to Beijing China ??
If not, here are your missing pieces.
Patents, Patents, Patents, and patents!
Four days after the missing flight MH370 a patent is approved
by the Patent Office...
4 of the 5 Patent holders are Chinese employees of Freescale Semiconductor of Austin TX.
Patent is divided up on 20% increments to 5 holders.  Peidong Wang of Suzhou, China (20%), Zhijun Chen pf Suzhou, China (20%), Zhihong Cheng of Suzhou, China (20%),
Li Ying of Suzhou, China (20%),  Freescale Semiconductor (20%)
If a patent holder dies, then the remaining holders  equally share the dividends of the deceased if not disputed in a will.  If 4 of the 5 dies, then the remaining 1 Patent holder
gets 100% of the wealth of the patent.
That remaining live Patent holder is Freescale Semiconductor.
Who owns Freescale Semiconductor ?
Jacob Rothschild through Blackstone who owns Freescale.
Here is your motive for the missing Beijing plane.  All 4 Chinese members of the Patent were passengers on the missing plane.  Patent holders can alter the proceeds legally by
passing wealth to their heirs. However, they cannot do so until the Patent is approved. So when the plane went missing, the patent had not been approved.  Thus, Rothschild gets 100% of Patent once Patent holders declared deceased.
______________________________
There's also this:
The following video and commentary suggested by annonymous commentor:

CNN reporter in sex, rope and drug scandal
A well-known CNN reporter has been arrested in New York's Central Park with drugs in his pocket, a rope around his neck that was tied to his genitals, and a sex toy inside his boot.
Richard Quest - who is known for his boisterous and quirky style - was arrested at 3.40am on Friday, almost three hours after the park's 1am closing time.
He was initially arrested for loitering, the New York Post said. However, a search by police uncovered the oddly configured rope, a sex toy inside Quest's boot, and a small bag of methamphetamine in his left jacket pocket, the Post said.
It wasn't immediately clear what the rope was for, the paper said.
Quest, 46, confirmed the contents of the bag by saying, "I've got some meth in my pocket". He later agreed to six months of drug counselling in exchange for the charges being dropped, provided the therapy was successful.
According to the CNN website, Quest, "is one of the most instantly recognisable members of the CNN team".
The British reporter is described as an expert on business travel issues, and his regular programs include CNN Business Traveller, as well as his own hour-long feature program, Quest.
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
Un-related news...
If this cop is still a cop as of now...we're in big trouble!
Lexington Undercover Cop Illegally Searches House Without A Warrant, Then Feels sleeping woman up ... from TIP News
 

Current World View Of America

________________
 
 

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

How can you fight if you don't know what you're fighting?


Watch on YouTube

Connecticut Police...coming to their senses

Source: Ezine Articles
Connecticut Gun Confiscation Law Will Not Be Enforced, Police Say
By
Gun rights advocates have been up in arms (pun intended) over a new gun control law recently passed in Connecticut. The law, which is hugely controversial, requires that certain weapons be registered with the state. Gun owners who fail to comply with the registration must either get the guns out of the state, surrender their weapons, or face confiscation with a felony arrest. Opponents of the bill seem to have found support from an unlikely place.
Torrey Grimes, a retired twenty-five year police veteran, is the chairman of the Connecticut Peace Officers Association. He penned an open letter opposed to the legislation on behalf of his organization. The letter's defiant tone threatens that Connecticut police will not, "be party to the oppression of the people of the state by enforcing an unconstitutional law." Because Grimes is retired, he will have minimal repercussions for his stance on the bill.
"I believe in the Second Ammendment," Grimes said in a phone interview. "I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and that comes before my duty to enforce an unconstitutional state law." Apparently Connecticut law enforcement agrees, as the letter already has over 250 signatures from police refusing to enforce the law.
Not everyone is happy to hear about the letter, however. One Hartford resident, a gun control advocate who asked to remain anonymous, had this to say, "I am outraged that the police would suggest that they do not have to enforce the law. Our elected officials have created legislation, and it is the cops' job to enforce it!"
There is no doubt that the situation is unique. It is not often that those charged to enforce the law refuse to do so, and the case raises a myriad of ethical and legal questions. John Porshboll, a lawyer who specializes in representing cops in disciplinary trouble with their departments, seemed supportive of the officers. "In every profession employees have the right to refuse to act against their personal beliefs. Law enforcement is no different. When these officers refuse to enforce this law, it is because they genuinely believe it to be in conflict with their oath. These guys are idealists, nearly every cop I know is."
What will happen moving forward remains unclear. Enforcement of the law would likely require sending law enforcement to the homes of known violators, but if the police refuse then state lawmakers may be forced to rethink the bill.
_________________________
 
Democrats Cleverly Defined

 
Martial Law...it's coming