4 New Ideas For Becoming More Effective At Work " Bra - 4 New Ideas For Becoming More Effective At Work " Bra Resource Articles Answers Forum City Business Directory Blog Feed and Photos
Ideas@Work ...4NewIdeasforBecomingMoreEffectiveatWork [...] read more... Trunk offers 4NewIdeasforBecomingMoreEffectiveatWork including this one: ...
WORK EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS At Visesh we decided to become marketing and media savvy ten years back when we ... We pay more money to our CA for advising us on how to save tax. ...
XVIII World Congress on Safety and Health atWork More specifically, Work Education provides the basis for ... pre-vocational programmes at. 4...Foreffective implementation of Work Education in ...
50th Birthday Gift Ideas. The State of Utah has become the first state ... a day, five days a week, workfor 10 hours a day 4 days a week to make for the 40 hour workweek. ...
2008 January 04 " People atWork & Play ...atwork on the next major release (giFT 0. UNIQUE GIFT IDEAS "CLICK" ...new phase of GIFT, which we expect will result in a moreeffective ...
Education in India: NewIdeas What's New. World Day of Remembrance 2008. IDEAS-Punjab for PRBDB, a World Bank project ... Read More.. Page: << < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > ...
FAQ ...becomemore informed decision-makers about, and advocates for, their children's education. ...NewIdeas | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack ...
... and color-coded lined paper; designed for students grades 4 and up. ... as well as students who seek newideas to expedite and better manage their ...
I recently lost my 8 month old dog to the dreaded parvovirus. It was horrible the way it just destroyed her so abruptly. She was always so healthy and playful and only stayed in my fenced in backyard along with my 1 year and 3 month old beagle. She wasn't exposed to other dogs and had received all of her shots except the last round, which she was scheduled to receive this week. My beagle has had all of his shots, and he is fine. I would rarely walk them, but when I did, it was only around the same block every time. I went away for half the weekend. When I left, she was fine. When I came back, she was throwing up, turning her nose to treats, becoming lethargic, and when I paced up and down my back yard to search for signs of diarrhea, I found a splatter. I suddenly knew that she had parvo and that she must have contracted it during our last walk around the block, which was about 6 days before I went out of town. My beagle didn't catch it because he had all his shots. I took her to the vet the next day where she stayed over night with an i.v. pumping fluids in her. The vet said her diarrhea was bloody, and she died the next day. Even though my beagle is fine and vaccinated, I'm keeping him inside until I can eradicate this awful virus. I'm taking NO chances, because I've heard of rare cases where even vaccinated dogs have contracted Parvo. Whether this is true or not, I am taking all precautions. I have vacuumed, swept, scrubbed, and bleached the bathrooms and other floors. I've bleached counter tops, desks, tables, etc... I've washed clothes, shoes, blankets, sheets, etc in the washing machine with bleach. I've soaked all dog toys, food and water bowls, and even the doggy play pool in bleach for an hour or more, and then washed them all again in the washing machine or dishwasher. I threw away the bed and stuffed animals that belonged to my dog that died. Then, I took an old pesticide bottle that attaches to a garden hose and washed it out completely with bleach. I then filled it with straight bleach and attached it to the hose and sprayed the yard by sections. I divided the yard up into 4 or 5 sections and filled the bottle up with straight bleach for each. Then, the next day I repeated the same process. I again designated one full spray bottle of bleach attached to the hose for each section. After doing this both days, I had used a total of 3 or 4 gallons of bleach on my yard. I guess my questions is....is that enough? Or....is the method in which I used sufficient, rather? I guess I'm just not sure if the ratio of water to bleach works out right by attaching one of those bottles with straight bleach to the hose or if it allows too much water through. I wouldn't think so...I mean, it is a lot of bleach when you think about it. 3 or 4 gallons? Any ideas??? I know I've heard to use 30 parts water to 1 part bleach, but I think I've also heard 10 to 1. Does anyone know if my method should be sufficient? I plan to do it again. I'm such a dog lover, and even though my beagle should be okay, I don't want to let this virus live in my yard. I know my dog that caught the virus didn't get it from my yard, but, obviously, she's put it in my yard with the diarrhea she had!! I just want to make sure it's eradicated completely!!! Please, no negative responses!! I am not asking advice for my pet. My pet is fine. I'm a very responsible owner. He's had his shots, and he is healthy. The other dog, however, didn't make it to her last round of shots, and she somehow caught the parvo on one of our walks around the block. I took her to the vet, but she didn't make it. So, please....no responses saying "you shouldn't own a dog...or you shouldn't be asking advice about your dog on yahoo....or take your dog to the vet". I do own a dog...I'm very responsible...I'm not asking advice about my pet...I did take the sick dog to the vet.... I'm SIMPLY asking if anyone knows of a good method to spray your lawn with bleach in order to insure the eradication of parvovirus. I was reading other questions and answers on here, and some people can be so incredibly ignorant and rude!! It's almost like some people are just looking for an excuse to be a jerk. So, please, only respond if you have sincere advice pertaining to the question I asked. That question being the one listed above in bold. Thank you for any help you can give!!! I just want to make sure I do this in the most effective manner so that no other dogs have to suffer....at least not from my yard in case I ever decide to move. Not that I plan on moving, but I know that the virus can stay in the ground for a long time!! Thanks again!
Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood reports that Sony has locked in director Sam Raimi and star Tobey Maguire for two more "Spider-Man" films. She also says Kirsten Dunst is likely to return but that a deal hasn't been finalized.
Who will be the villain? I'd love to see the Vulture or Electro (or both), but if Finke's unnamed sources are right, it will be the Lizard (which is fine and hardly a surprise given the careful setup in previous films) or Man-Wolf (which leaves me a bit cold and could be too close to the upcoming "The Wolf-Man"). Anyway, here is what Finke reports:
Sony is taking its time officially hiring the movie's villain since principal photography doesn't start on Spider-Man 4 until next fall because of the recently postponed May 2011 release. I am told, however, that "once you find out who the villain is, you'll know who's playing it." That should lead to speculation that Dylan Baker's character of Dr. Curt Connors will ultimately turn into The Lizard as he did in the comic books. There's one other character that's been set up but is a real longshot -- Daniel Gillies, who plays John Jameson, the astronaut fiance of Mary Jane in Spider-Man 2. In the comics he becomes the villain Man-Wolf. Raimi has said in the past that he wants the best actors to play the villains in the movie, not necessarily the most famous.
I'm also told that, right now, the studio is trying to figure out if it can feasibly shoot Spider-Man 4 and 5 at the same time because doing that is so cost effective and "it wasn't so easy to get everybody back together."
She also says there is ramping interest in a Venom movie. This is one I just don't get. I never much cared for the character, and I was surprised that Raimi, a die-hard devotee of Steve Ditko, kowtowed to pressure to put him in the films. Finke:
And Sony has hired a pair of screenwriters to get going on the Spider-Man 3 spinoff movie Venom. Given that comic book artist/writer and action figure maker, Todd McFarlane, who is one of the creators of the Marvel villain, doesn't think a Venom movie could do well with a villain as the central character, my sources think Sony should let Topher Grace, even though he was blown up at the end of Spider-Man 3 (yet a portion of the Venom costume survived), stay in the role because the likeable actor could be a a sympathetic evildoer.
I'd be very happy to see Raimi and Maguire back together on Spidey. The third film was muddled and oddly indulgent (it also seemed rushed to me, like it needed a few more edits) and I hated the way it undermined its own history (both on screen and in the comics) by rewriting the murder of Uncle Ben and putting the gun in the hand of Sandman. Terrible idea. Despite that, I still consider Raimi the gold standard as far as filmmakers adapting comics. I also think he learned from the mistakes of "Spider-Man 3."
The reason I'm confident that Raimi won't make another "Spider-Man 3" is he openly regretted what he had done with the film before it even came out. Here's what he told Comic Book Resources back in April 2007 a few weeks before the release "Spider-Man 3":
There are so many fears I have making this movie, that's just one of them. That's just one in my vast array of things that I'm terrified people won't like. I had worked on the story with my brother Ivan. Primarily, it was a story that featured the Sandman. It was really about Peter, Mary Jane, Harry and that new character. When we were done, Avi Arad, my partner and president of Marvel at the time, came to me and said "Sam, you're not paying attention to the fans enough. You need to think about them. You've made two movies now with your favorite villains and now you're about to make another one with your favorite villains. The fans love Venom. He is the fan-favorite. All Spider-Man readers love Venom. Even though you came from '70s Spider-Man, this is what the kids are thinking about. Please incorporate Venom. Listen to the fans now."
So, that's really where I realized, "Okay, maybe I don't have the whole Spider-Man universe in my head. Maybe I need to learn more about Spider-Man. And maybe incorporate this villain and make some of the real die-hard fans finally happy."
Well, thanks, Mr. Arad, for derailing the momentum of the franchise that you brought to Hollywood. This next time it won't matter who is talking in Raimi's ear, he will do the right thing.
Back when I visited the set of the first "Spider-Man" film, Raimi told me a story about the big gift he got on his 12th birthday: His mom drew a Spider-Man mural on the wall of his bedroom in their suburban Detroit home. He fell asleep for years looking up at the hero and making "movies" of his adventures in his mind. Sam, you are the die-hard fan you should be trying to make happy. That's why the first two films were so great, and why a fourth and fifth have a chance to be wonderful.
I have been taking the pill for four months (This is month 5). I have never missed a pill or taken one late until now.
I missed the normal time that I take the pill, had sex, then realized RIGHT afterward that I missed the pill, and swallowed it before him and I had even gotten dressed. I've gotten some feedback that it's very unlikely that I'm pregnant, but now I'm wondering...
When I was reading the manual for Yasmin, the pill i take, and I misread what to do in this circumstance. I read the instructions for what to do if I missed two days in a row. So, I skipped the placebos and started the new pack right away. Now I'm wondering if this was such a good idea. My boyfriend and I have not had any form of sex since the incident, because I want to be sure that we're okay.
Also, I feel like skipping the placebos would lessen the chances of me becoming pregnant from the incident, but could they make the pill less effective over time? Should I wait until the next pack to start having sex again, just like when I first started taking them?
It has been four days since we last had sex and I don't feel pregnant. Is this just because it's too soon to tell, or because I'm actually not?
My boyfriend and I have been relying only on the pill for every time we've had sex since 1 month after I started the pill. Is this a good idea? Because it's hard to improve on 99.5% effectiveness, and condoms take so much away from the experience. I'd rather have a good time with someone I love with like .5% less protection than just have an awkward, numb and slippery time.
Or am I just being stupid?
Also, the only two times we did have sex where a condom was necessary, it fell off and stayed in me after he had pulled out (and finished). I was so freaked, but luckily I wasn't pregnant either time. It just makes me iffy about condoms.
In May of 2003 the so called Bush Tax Cuts were supposed to usher in a new period of economic growth. Primarily the argument back then was, if you cut taxes for the rich they will create more jobs. Wel that was a pretty good idea.
In Jan 2001, unemployment was at 4.2%, and in May of 2003 it had climbed to 6.1%. After the tax cut, it took FOUR years, but the unemployment rate climbed down to 4.4%. Now however, the unemployment rate has climbed back to 5.5% and is projected to hit 6% by the end of the year.
In January of 2001, we had a budget surplus. This is significant because it was the FIRST time that the US had a surplus in a long long time. When Clinton took office, the Budget deficit was approximately 68% of the GNP, and through the "Pay as You Go" program that his administration implemented the budget deficit was reduced to approximately 58% of the GNP. Since GWB took office, and the tax cuts became effective the budget deficit has again risen to almost 70% of the GNP.
There is now a projected RECORD budgety deficit of $482 billion....
What exactly was the benefit of the Bush Tax Cuts?
Methadone and Harmd. Is Harmd doing more harm?
I am here to write my opinion on HARMD. This means; "Helping America Reduce Methadone Deaths".
Although their intentions might be good or in their own mind considered good. H.A.R.M.D. is disseminating lies about the drug Methadone. A co-founder of this organzition experienced a horrible tragedy in regards to the admintration of this drug in a professional medical setting.
As the story goes this individuals loved one was addicted to Oxycodone. Upon seeking medical help for this, the Medical facilty gave this person Methadone in conjunction with a benzodiazepiene and this person tragically died as a result of this combination. A dangerous combination.
Harmd will tell you absolutely nothing positive about the drug Methadone. Instead of calling it Helping America reduce Methadone Deaths......... They should have called it; "Trying to ban Methadone in America". That seems to me like their goal. And the fact is Methadone save lifes. It makes people that live in chronic pain functioning human beings again. It makes addicts live normal lives. Methadone is not a replacement for Heroin! IN other word's Methadone clinics are there to help these people live normal lives.
Harmd's claims on their video's on U-tube openly admit that the onset of the rush of the drug is slow; (Thus sticking their foot in their mouth indicating the drug is used to obtain a high/hence obtaining it for illicit reasons)so the person takes more to get high and doesn't realize a toxic level is increasing in them. METHADONE IS not to be USED to get HIGH or a rush! It is so easy to point the finger at a thing than a person. Methadone does not have a brain, it cannot control how and who or why a person uses it.
No one is going to want to admit their son died in a bathroom and was found with a syringe full of cocaine in his arm are they? No one would want to admit their son was a IV cocaine addict. But they can say Methadone killed their kid? Why? Because Methadone is FDA approved? Oxycontins ruined all of this. Oxycontins made regular pill users into full blown junkies. That is how Methadone just became a issue. Funny we never heard about Methadone deaths prior to 1998.
Number one; Methadone is a powerful synthetic opiate narcotic! The only people that have business with this drug are addicts that are going to addiction treatment or people that live in chronic pain in pain management. Methadone is not used to take if you have trouble sleeping! It is not used for a headache and it is not used as a spice in making meatloaf! Methadone must be used only by people that are qualified to take it. HARMD states it stays in your system a long time and or but it's pain relief is only 4 to 6 hours.
THIS IS FALSE! Methadone's analgesia threshold is 8 or more hours! Methadone has a 24 to 36 hour half life. This indicates that if you consume 10mg's. Exactly 24 hours later you will have 5mg's dormant in you. Thus if you want to maintain this 10mg a day dose, you take 10mg initially and than every day than and there out you take 5 mg's! So on and so fourth. Again a person that is not prescribed Methadone for pain or does not get it in an addiction treatment scenario HAS NO BUSINESS WITH IT! Giving this to a non familiar user that is only using it for a stupid reason is like giving a blind person glass in their dinner. JUst say no to drugs!
True facts on Methadone:
Methadone is the most sctrunized drug on the planet. No drug , not one in the history of the world has gone under the scrutiny that Methadone has. The drug has been in use since perhaps the mid 60's and this drug has a proven tried and true list of positive virtues in regards to long term effects on the body and almost has a explanation and theory on every dosaging protocol that has ever existed on the planet. I don't believe there is a single case of anyone being allergic to Methadone.
All opiates have long term effects on the body. There is nothing but overwhelming evidence that indicates that Methadone is the lightest on all the organs compared to any other opiate. It is the long half life which does not give the body time to recover throughout doses is what I believe makes it the harshest in this aspect.
All opiates impede vitamin and mineral absorbtion. Methadone is not excempt from this and because of it's long duration on visiting the body, mineral and vitamins should be used as a supplement. There is not a single drug on the planet that is as healthy as drinking milk or as healthy as eating a apple a day. Eating a bag of Potato chips everyday may actually be worse for your health. The FDA does not tell you the long term effects of MSG to readily. Or the stuff they put in a Big Mac.
Methadone is the flattest hitting opiate on the planet. In other word's it maintains a constant blood level throughout a 24 hour period. This is what makes Methadone such a miracle drug for addicts and pain management people. But it is this virtue that HARMD claims it is so dangerous. This is the a paradox of their thinking.
Where conventional opaites hit high and rapidly drop, Methadone does not. Therefore a person that is taking conventional opiates for pain eventually will end up abusing them to chase blood levels to keep an existing happy mood in check. This is a real thing that is going on in the brain and it is not in a person's head. So instead of taking more medication for pain relief, they are taking more to keep their mood in check and not pain control. This inadvertantly results in tolerence to the drug very quickly and non-delibarate abuse. With Methadone this is almost non-existant. It is a superior pain reliever by this virtue and dosing twice a day is almost always considered effective as compared to 4 times or more a day by a conventional opiate.
It is this aspect of Methadone that also of course makes it a choice for addcition treatment. It keeps the person in check throughout the entire day (Not needing more and more of the opiate) and cancels the so-called mental cravings a opiate addict gets.
Methadone in a pain scenario is also a opiate that keeps opiate induced hypersensitivity down to a low. All pain people in time will experience this and it either can be considered a form of withdrawal as more opiates are administered or break-thru pain. Since Methadone maintains a flat blood level and keeps pain receptors filled constantly, this phenomenon is greatly reduced. There are some claim that Methadone does not create opiate induced hypersnsitivity. I think it does and will but the effects are far less apparent.
Methadone is the simpliest of all opiate molecular structures.
Methadone was developed in Germany (I.G. Farben) under the direction of Herman Goering in mid 40's as a substitute for morphine. It was never intended at the time to be used in opiate addiction. It just happened that way.
People in pain management that obtain Methadone for pain are readily sterotyped as ex Heroin addicts because of Methdone's use in addiction centers.
Fact: A 40mg Methadone pill( Wafer) was as large as a quarter. And it is thick as two on the eges and in the middle as thick as three quarters stacked. If someone gave you a pill the size of a quarter and told you it was an aspirin, would you be a little apprehensive about it? It was perhaps one of the largest pain pills ever produced and as a aspirin in this form this would be perhaps be a 4,000 MG aspirin? Just saying.
The size alone of the 40mg pill should have been a deterrant from anyone abusing it. The truth is, you would have difficulty placing the entire thing in your mouth and swallowing it whole. It was also serated into four sections, not half but quarters. Thus indicating a quarter of the pill could be taken, but people that decided to abuse it, and took the entire thing anyways? Knowing it could be broken in fours? 40 Milligrams are no longer made however the 10's are. The company makes very small 10 mg pills and by eliminating the 40 they should make the 10mg just as large to indicate it looks strong? Who knows. For 10mg's of Methadone is strong!
Fact: 10mg's of Methadone is approx. 100 Milligrams of Morphine. Now this varies in IV and other routes of administration how it is metabolized, but for a standard equal it holds primary true. Methadone in a pain scenario prescribed 5mg's a day for three days, than 10 mg's a day for three day's and so on (Until determined the level of pain it is controlling) will never represent a problem with the patient. This patient must be simply monitored to see how they are reacting to the medication as far as fatique, lack of motor coordination, mental awareness for a two week period. The patient decides how they are reacting to the medication. Than they can safely be on the a stable dose of Methadone which is superior in pain control versus anything else.
Methadone should not be mixed with alcohol at all! Methadone should not be mixed with any type of Benzodiazepiene.
Methadone does not induce "Sleep Driving" like Ambien does.
And last HARMD is so quick to indicate that pain patients use Methadone because it is cheap. They say "Cheaper is not always better." What an crazy statement. I never heard that before. Since when is anything cheap ever better? I think they made it up. Don't better things cost money? Explain that to me?
BUT! Methadone as bought as a illegal drug on the street is anything but cheap! Not in the least. It is just as expensive as everything else. Again it should never be purchased illegally! That solves that problem. Say no to drugs.The only way to obtain it cheap is legal. Methadone treatment in clinic's is EXPENSIVE not CHEAP either. So I have no idea what they are talking about. So people that used it, abused it and died, did not pay pennies for their death but high dollar like everything else. And it is cheap. So what? I am a pain person that didn't have insurance, that was a blessing. HARMD could care less about that! Stating that Methadone is cheap as bought from a genuine prescription was a dumb thing to put in their arsenal. So what? It again is not cheap on the street or from the drug dealer on the corner.
What are my sources? I am a extensive researcher on opiates. I weaned off of 200mg's of Methadone a day as precribed for pain in 3 months and had them in my hand. I been researching opiates for 10 years and was a legally prescribed user of the,Give me any question on any opiate. I will give you an answer. Not a lie.
Methadone and Harmd. Is Harmd doing more harm?
I am here to write my opinion on HARMD. This means; "Helping America Reduce Methadone Deaths".
Although their intentions might be good or in their own mind considered good. H.A.R.M.D. is disseminating lies about the drug Methadone. A co-founder of this organzition experienced a horrible tragedy in regards to the admintration of this drug in a professional medical setting.
As the story goes this individuals loved one was addicted to Oxycodone. Upon seeking medical help for this, the Medical facilty gave this person Methadone in conjunction with a benzodiazepiene and this person tragically died as a result of this combination. A dangerous combination.
Harmd will tell you absolutely nothing positive about the drug Methadone. Instead of calling it Helping America reduce Methadone Deaths......... They should have called it; "Trying to ban Methadone in America". That seems to me like their goal. And the fact is Methadone save lifes. It makes people that live in chronic pain functioning human beings again. It makes addicts live normal lives. Methadone is not a replacement for Heroin! IN other word's Methadone clinics are there to help these people live normal lives.
Harmd's claims on their video's on U-tube openly admit that the onset of the rush of the drug is slow; (Thus sticking their foot in their mouth indicating the drug is used to obtain a high/hence obtaining it for illicit reasons)so the person takes more to get high and doesn't realize a toxic level is increasing in them. METHADONE IS not to be USED to get HIGH or a rush! It is so easy to point the finger at a thing than a person. Methadone does not have a brain, it cannot control how and who or why a person uses it.
No one is going to want to admit their son died in a bathroom and was found with a syringe full of cocaine in his arm are they? No one would want to admit their son was a IV cocaine addict. But they can say Methadone killed their kid? Why? Because Methadone is FDA approved? Oxycontins ruined all of this. Oxycontins made regular pill users into full blown junkies. That is how Methadone just became a issue. Funny we never heard about Methadone deaths prior to 1998.
Number one; Methadone is a powerful synthetic opiate narcotic! The only people that have business with this drug are addicts that are going to addiction treatment or people that live in chronic pain in pain management. Methadone is not used to take if you have trouble sleeping! It is not used for a headache and it is not used as a spice in making meatloaf! Methadone must be used only by people that are qualified to take it. HARMD states it stays in your system a long time and or but it's pain relief is only 4 to 6 hours.
THIS IS FALSE! Methadone's analgesia threshold is 8 or more hours! Methadone has a 24 to 36 hour half life. This indicates that if you consume 10mg's. Exactly 24 hours later you will have 5mg's dormant in you. Thus if you want to maintain this 10mg a day dose, you take 10mg initially and than every day than and there out you take 5 mg's! So on and so fourth. Again a person that is not prescribed Methadone for pain or does not get it in an addiction treatment scenario HAS NO BUSINESS WITH IT! Giving this to a non familiar user that is only using it for a stupid reason is like giving a blind person glass in their dinner. JUst say no to drugs!
True facts on Methadone:
Methadone is the most sctrunized drug on the planet. No drug , not one in the history of the world has gone under the scrutiny that Methadone has. The drug has been in use since perhaps the mid 60's and this drug has a proven tried and true list of positive virtues in regards to long term effects on the body and almost has a explanation and theory on every dosaging protocol that has ever existed on the planet. I don't believe there is a single case of anyone being allergic to Methadone.
All opiates have long term effects on the body. There is nothing but overwhelming evidence that indicates that Methadone is the lightest on all the organs compared to any other opiate. It is the long half life which does not give the body time to recover throughout doses is what I believe makes it the harshest in this aspect.
All opiates impede vitamin and mineral absorbtion. Methadone is not excempt from this and because of it's long duration on visiting the body, mineral and vitamins should be used as a supplement. There is not a single drug on the planet that is as healthy as drinking milk or as healthy as eating a apple a day. Eating a bag of Potato chips everyday may actually be worse for your health. The FDA does not tell you the long term effects of MSG to readily. Or the stuff they put in a Big Mac.
Methadone is the flattest hitting opiate on the planet. In other word's it maintains a constant blood level throughout a 24 hour period. This is what makes Methadone such a miracle drug for addicts and pain management people. But it is this virtue that HARMD claims it is so dangerous. This is the a paradox of their thinking.
Where conventional opaites hit high and rapidly drop, Methadone does not. Therefore a person that is taking conventional opiates for pain eventually will end up abusing them to chase blood levels to keep an existing happy mood in check. This is a real thing that is going on in the brain and it is not in a person's head. So instead of taking more medication for pain relief, they are taking more to keep their mood in check and not pain control. This inadvertantly results in tolerence to the drug very quickly and non-delibarate abuse. With Methadone this is almost non-existant. It is a superior pain reliever by this virtue and dosing twice a day is almost always considered effective as compared to 4 times or more a day by a conventional opiate.
It is this aspect of Methadone that also of course makes it a choice for addcition treatment. It keeps the person in check throughout the entire day (Not needing more and more of the opiate) and cancels the so-called mental cravings a opiate addict gets.
Methadone in a pain scenario is also a opiate that keeps opiate induced hypersensitivity down to a low. All pain people in time will experience this and it either can be considered a form of withdrawal as more opiates are administered or break-thru pain. Since Methadone maintains a flat blood level and keeps pain receptors filled constantly, this phenomenon is greatly reduced. There are some claim that Methadone does not create opiate induced hypersnsitivity. I think it does and will but the effects are far less apparent.
Methadone is the simpliest of all opiate molecular structures.
Methadone was developed in Germany (I.G. Farben) under the direction of Herman Goering in mid 40's as a substitute for morphine. It was never intended at the time to be used in opiate addiction. It just happened that way.
People in pain management that obtain Methadone for pain are readily sterotyped as ex Heroin addicts because of Methdone's use in addiction centers.
Fact: A 40mg Methadone pill( Wafer) was as large as a quarter. And it is thick as two on the eges and in the middle as thick as three quarters stacked. If someone gave you a pill the size of a quarter and told you it was an aspirin, would you be a little apprehensive about it? It was perhaps one of the largest pain pills ever produced and as a aspirin in this form this would be perhaps be a 4,000 MG aspirin? Just saying.
The size alone of the 40mg pill should have been a deterrant from anyone abusing it. The truth is, you would have difficulty placing the entire thing in your mouth and swallowing it whole. It was also serated into four sections, not half but quarters. Thus indicating a quarter of the pill could be taken, but people that decided to abuse it, and took the entire thing anyways? Knowing it could be broken in fours? 40 Milligrams are no longer made however the 10's are. The company makes very small 10 mg pills and by eliminating the 40 they should make the 10mg just as large to indicate it looks strong? Who knows. For 10mg's of Methadone is strong!
Fact: 10mg's of Methadone is approx. 100 Milligrams of Morphine. Now this varies in IV and other routes of administration how it is metabolized, but for a standard equal it holds primary true. Methadone in a pain scenario prescribed 5mg's a day for three days, than 10 mg's a day for three day's and so on (Until determined the level of pain it is controlling) will never represent a problem with the patient. This patient must be simply monitored to see how they are reacting to the medication as far as fatique, lack of motor coordination, mental awareness for a two week period. The patient decides how they are reacting to the medication. Than they can safely be on the a stable dose of Methadone which is superior in pain control versus anything else.
Methadone should not be mixed with alcohol at all! Methadone should not be mixed with any type of Benzodiazepiene.
Methadone does not induce "Sleep Driving" like Ambien does.
And last HARMD is so quick to indicate that pain patients use Methadone because it is cheap. They say "Cheaper is not always better." What an crazy statement. I never heard that before. Since when is anything cheap ever better? I think they made it up. Don't better things cost money? Explain that to me?
BUT! Methadone as bought as a illegal drug on the street is anything but cheap! Not in the least. It is just as expensive as everything else. Again it should never be purchased illegally! That solves that problem. Say no to drugs.The only way to obtain it cheap is legal. Methadone treatment in clinic's is EXPENSIVE not CHEAP either. So I have no idea what they are talking about. So people that used it, abused it and died, did not pay pennies for their death but high dollar like everything else. And it is cheap. So what? I am a pain person that didn't have insurance, that was a blessing. HARMD could care less about that! Stating that Methadone is cheap as bought from a genuine prescription was a dumb thing to put in their arsenal. So what? It again is not cheap on the street or from the drug dealer on the corner.
What are my sources? I am a extensive researcher on opiates. I weaned off of 200mg's of Methadone a day as precribed for pain in 3 months and had them in my hand. I been researching opiates for 10 years and was a legally prescribed user of the,Give me any question on any opiate. I will give you an answer. Not a lie.
I am a 24 year old choir director and I need some ideas on how to get people, especially NON MEMBERS of the church to join my church choir. I have been directing this choir for 4 years now and the quality of the choir is very low, unfortunately. 98% of the choir is over 75-80 years old. Hence, many of these members are losing their voices, can't project their voices, have trouble standing up while singing, are becoming less committed (missing rehearsals). In the past, I have made and printed flyers and passed them out into the neighborhood, with no results. Can someone give me any ideas for some effective ways to draw people in, ensuring that they are doing it for the right reasons. The reason that I am looking outside of our church membership is because I've tried for years to get many members to join but they all have said no over and over.
*I am welcoming people of all ages BUT specifically targeting young people between the ages of 18-40.*
TeachingAmericanHistory.org Homepage
Register Online About Us Search Site
Seminars & Institutes
Historical Documents Library
Audio Lectures & Discussions
Constitutional Convention
Home > Constitutional Convention > Introduction to the Constitutional Convention by Gordon Lloyd
Introduction to the Constitutional Convention
by Gordon Lloyd
See Also:
Convention: Introduction to this Site | Introduction to the Convention | Four Act Drama |
Day by Day Summary | Major Themes | Madison's Notes | Selected Correspondence
Delegates: Age of Framers in 1787 | Educational Backgrounds | Continental Experiences |
Delegates by State | Alphabetical List | Interactive Scene at the Signing of the Constitution |
Interactive Map of Philadelphia | Entertainment of George Washington at the City Tavern
The Call for a Grand Convention
On May 15, 1776, the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, is
so can you answer my question?
Operating Thetan (OT) documents of the Church of Scientology
"One: Walk around and counts bodies until you have a cognition. Make a report saying how many you counted and your cognition. Two: Note several large and small female bodies until you have a cognition. Note it down. Three: Note several large and several small male bodies until you have a cognition. Note it down. Four: Final a tight packed crowd of people. Write it as a crowd and then as individuals until you have a cognition. Note it down. Do step over until you do."
Hubbard then goes on to explain OT2, but before he does so, he tells the Churches how to keep Scientology working. One way is to not divulge information on their "technology." Doing so, says Hubbard, would result in "the complete destruction of all our work."
"On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands of suggestions and writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would have resulted in the complete destruction of all our work. Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had not supported me in many ways, I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that if in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can safely assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future," states Hubbard in a confidential letter dated February 7, 1965.
Hubbard also goes on to say that "man has never before evolved workable mental technology and emphasizing it is the vicious technology he did evolve—psychiatry, psychology, surgery, shock treatment, whips, duress, punishment, etc., ad infinitum." Hubbard also says that "war, famine, agony and disease has been the lot of Man" and that Man "has been what has made Earth a Hell—and if you were looking for Hell and found Earth, it would certainly serve."
Hubbard calls those 'men' "SP Body Thetans" or those who "are out of valance" and who are "stuck to another thetan or body but is not in control" with Scientology. Some he says are even "psychotic, serve faces and have fixed ideas" which "inhibits recovery." Thetan is derived from the Greek word "Theta" which means "thought or life."
"An individual being such as a man is a thetan, he is not a body and he does not think because he has no brain," states Hubbard.
It is not until 'OT3' when you learn the true beginning of Scientology. In Hubbard's own hand written notes, he begins to describe a series of "76 planets [orbiting] around larger stars founded 95,000,000 years ago" which he says "are visible from here [Earth]."
From those planets, which were over populated by "about 250 million per planet," came a "head of the Galactic Federation" named Xenu who solved the overpopulation by sending mass amounts of his people to Earth somewhere between "75,000,000 and 4 qadrillion [Sic] years ago." Hubbard says that he brought them to Earth and dropped them off inside volcanoes on an island he describes as Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean. Xenu then captured the ones who escaped after 36 days and exploded the remaining individuals with a hydrogen bomb. Xenu was later "captured after six years of battle" and Earth had since become a "desert."
It is also said at this level, an implant, in what Hubbard calls an "engram" will be given in which the individual can "see pictures." However these pictures are not to be "stuck" or permanent.
At 'OT4' individuals are allegedly rid of illegal and legal drugs. Documents state that addicts are not treated with drugs, but simply not given anything.
"As drugs and drug incidents have been so common on the whole track, to simply generally ask for drugs or drug incidents when dealing with BTs and clusters, could cause a total restim," states the document which then says that individuals are made to wait out the effects of the drugs. Another process used to try and stop drug use is to "take any previously given Drug somatic items, or newly list any additional items connected with reading drugs, medicines, etc., and assess for reading somatic item." Hubbard insists that these methods are proven effective.
'OT5' is when individuals learn about the "physical universe, not the laws of physical scientists, but the basic considerations about Matter, Energy, Space and Time," states Hubbard.
At 'OT6' you allegedly learn telepathy and 'OT7'is the "rehabilitation of ability to project intention."
The final level, 'OT8', you are to "have full certainty and, therefore, perception on all" of your issues. According to Hubbard, the 'OT8' manuals are supposed to stay aboard the Free Winds Scientology ship which has heavy security because nothing is supposed to leave the ship. Despite that, Hubbard himself claims to have smuggled out his own 'OT8' instructions for the "elite" Scientologists.
"I am breaking security as I disagree that this should only be released to an elite in Scientology. I do, however, ask it not be released to psyches or 'squirrels' or anyone who will break the Independent Security Network and allow it to get back to the Church of Scientology. It would be best if they do not find out that we have it. Please treat this data responsibly. It is the key to the only truth possible," said Hubbard in regards to his 'OT8' instructions
Operating Thetan (OT) documents of the Church of Scientology
"One: Walk around and counts bodies until you have a cognition. Make a report saying how many you counted and your cognition. Two: Note several large and small female bodies until you have a cognition. Note it down. Three: Note several large and several small male bodies until you have a cognition. Note it down. Four: Final a tight packed crowd of people. Write it as a crowd and then as individuals until you have a cognition. Note it down. Do step over until you do."
Hubbard then goes on to explain OT2, but before he does so, he tells the Churches how to keep Scientology working. One way is to not divulge information on their "technology." Doing so, says Hubbard, would result in "the complete destruction of all our work."
"On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands of suggestions and writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would have resulted in the complete destruction of all our work. Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had not supported me in many ways, I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that if in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can safely assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future," states Hubbard in a confidential letter dated February 7, 1965.
Hubbard also goes on to say that "man has never before evolved workable mental technology and emphasizing it is the vicious technology he did evolve—psychiatry, psychology, surgery, shock treatment, whips, duress, punishment, etc., ad infinitum." Hubbard also says that "war, famine, agony and disease has been the lot of Man" and that Man "has been what has made Earth a Hell—and if you were looking for Hell and found Earth, it would certainly serve."
Hubbard calls those 'men' "SP Body Thetans" or those who "are out of valance" and who are "stuck to another thetan or body but is not in control" with Scientology. Some he says are even "psychotic, serve faces and have fixed ideas" which "inhibits recovery." Thetan is derived from the Greek word "Theta" which means "thought or life."
"An individual being such as a man is a thetan, he is not a body and he does not think because he has no brain," states Hubbard.
It is not until 'OT3' when you learn the true beginning of Scientology. In Hubbard's own hand written notes, he begins to describe a series of "76 planets [orbiting] around larger stars founded 95,000,000 years ago" which he says "are visible from here [Earth]."
From those planets, which were over populated by "about 250 million per planet," came a "head of the Galactic Federation" named Xenu who solved the overpopulation by sending mass amounts of his people to Earth somewhere between "75,000,000 and 4 qadrillion [Sic] years ago." Hubbard says that he brought them to Earth and dropped them off inside volcanoes on an island he describes as Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean. Xenu then captured the ones who escaped after 36 days and exploded the remaining individuals with a hydrogen bomb. Xenu was later "captured after six years of battle" and Earth had since become a "desert."
It is also said at this level, an implant, in what Hubbard calls an "engram" will be given in which the individual can "see pictures." However these pictures are not to be "stuck" or permanent.
At 'OT4' individuals are allegedly rid of illegal and legal drugs. Documents state that addicts are not treated with drugs, but simply not given anything.
"As drugs and drug incidents have been so common on the whole track, to simply generally ask for drugs or drug incidents when dealing with BTs and clusters, could cause a total restim," states the document which then says that individuals are made to wait out the effects of the drugs. Another process used to try and stop drug use is to "take any previously given Drug somatic items, or newly list any additional items connected with reading drugs, medicines, etc., and assess for reading somatic item." Hubbard insists that these methods are proven effective.
'OT5' is when individuals learn about the "physical universe, not the laws of physical scientists, but the basic considerations about Matter, Energy, Space and Time," states Hubbard.
At 'OT6' you allegedly learn telepathy and 'OT7'is the "rehabilitation of ability to project intention."
The final level, 'OT8', you are to "have full certainty and, therefore, perception on all" of your issues. According to Hubbard, the 'OT8' manuals are supposed to stay aboard the Free Winds Scientology ship which has heavy security because nothing is supposed to leave the ship. Despite that, Hubbard himself claims to have smuggled out his own 'OT8' instructions for the "elite" Scientologists.
"I am breaking security as I disagree that this should only be released to an elite in Scientology. I do, however, ask it not be released to psyches or 'squirrels' or anyone who will break the Independent Security Network and allow it to get back to the Church of Scientology. It would be best if they do not find out that we have it. Please treat this data responsibly. It is the key to the only truth possible," said Hubbard in regards to his 'OT8' instructions
“The Government’s Response to Hurricane Katrina”
Hurricane Katrina was the most destructive natural disaster to ever hit America. Over 90,000 square miles of land was destroyed, about the size of the United Kingdom. In Mississippi, the storm obliterated coastal communities and left thousands destitute. New Orleans was overwhelmed by flooding. Along the Gulf Coast, tens of thousands suffered without basic essentials for almost a week. More than 1500 people died and not just from the storm alone. Suffering continued in the days and weeks after the storm passed because of the government’s failure at all levels to plan, prepare for and respond aggressively to the storm. In this paper, will explain how the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina greatly affected the nation and the many factors that show the government’s inability to plan, prepare for, and respond to national catastrophes lead to one of the most talked about event in history.
The first factor is the long term warnings that went unheeded. Before Hurricane Katrina, government officials knew for forty years of the potentially devastating threat of a catastrophic hurricane to the Gulf region and the destruction it could cause. Government officials had plenty of time to prepare for a catastrophic hurricane but refused to heed the warnings of past hurricanes to the gulf coast. For example when New Orleans experienced flooding in some areas of remarkably similar proportions from Hurricane Betsy in 1965, and when Hurricane Camille devastated the Gulf Coast in 1969 (NOAA/ National Weather Services). When Hurricane George hit the Gulf in 1998, the state of Louisiana to ask FEMA for assistance with catastrophic hurricane planning but little was accomplished in the six years of planning.
With six years of planning, the government should have had time to develop and test a catastrophic hurricane plan. In 2004, numerous experts and governmental officials had been anticipating an increase in violent hurricanes, and New Orleans’ special and growing vulnerability to catastrophic flooding due to changing geological and other conditions. If these facts were known, why weren’t plans made in order to prevent a disaster such as this from happening?
It seems as though that officials at every level of government did not appear to grasp the magnitude of the storm’s potential for destruction before it made landfall despite strongly worded advisories from the National Hurricane Center (NHC) and personal warnings from NHC Director Max Mayfield. Mayfield was so worried about Hurricane Katrina that he called the governors of Louisiana, Mississippi, and the mayor of New Orleans to discuss the effect Hurricane Katrina might have on their regions. Mayfield even talked about the force of Katrina during a video conference call to President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas (Lush). If Mayfield was so worried about the effects of the storm, why weren’t his advice heeded and the necessary precautions taken to reduce the effects of Hurricane Katrina?
The second factor was the terrible decisions in the days before the hurricane hit. Some coastal towns in Mississippi went to extraordinary lengths to get citizens to evacuate, including sending people door-to-door to convince people to move out of harm’s way. While New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin only orders a mandatory evacuation of all residents from the city of New Orleans. Yet instead of asking for assistance to help residents who lacked the means to leave the city, he orders the Superdome to be opened as a shelter of last resort.
The Superdome proved to be more like a prison than a shelter. More than 20,000 people were forced to reside inside the Superdome without working plumbing, food, water, and other necessities for nearly two weeks. Yet Ray Nagin decided that this was appropriate shelter for those people instead of evacuating everyone out of the city.
Hurricane Katrina’s devastating effects were felt before the storm even reached the Gulf Coast on August 29, 2005. In the Gulf of Mexico, Hurricane Katrina battered the offshore energy infrastructure and forced the evacuation of more than 75 percent of the Gulf’s 819 manned oil platforms. Two days before landfall, U.S. energy companies estimated that the approaching storm had already reduced Gulf of Mexico oil production by more than a third. The government knew that if Hurricane Katrina had that much force to evacuate 819 manned oil platforms, that the havoc it would reap on the New Orleans would be devastating.
Despite the understanding of the Gulf Coast’s vulnerability to hurricane devastation, officials braced for Katrina with full awareness of critical deficiencies in their plans and enormous holes in their resources. While Katrina’s destructive force could not be denied, state and local officials did not have enough of the resources at their disposal. And even though the Governors of the three affected states requested, and President Bush issued, emergency declarations before the Hurricane hit, none of it actually prepared citizens for what they were about to experience.
Another terrible decision was the lack of transportation and supplies. FEMA failed to approach other federal agencies for help with transportation to ensure that the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana had the means to evacuate their citizens. The City of New Orleans was unprepared to help people evacuate, as many buses from the city’s own fleet were submerged, while at the same time officials had not arranged in advance for drivers for those buses that were available.
On Monday, August 29, 2005, Governor Blanco asked FEMA Director Michael Brown for buses, and Brown assured the state the same day that 500 buses were en route to assist in the evacuation of New Orleans and would arrive within hours. In spite of Brown’s assurances and the state’s continued requests over the course of the next two days, FEMA did not direct the U.S. Department of Transportation to send buses until very early on Wednesday, two days after Hurricane Katrina hit and the levees had broken, and the buses did not begin to arrive at all until Wednesday evening and not in significant numbers until Thursday (Millholom).
By the time the government realized that they needed the buses to help get people out of the city, the levees had broken and most of the people who they intended to rescues had died or were either trapped on top of roofs on untraveled, flooded streets. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin could have prevented many deaths had he gotten people to drive the local buses through the residential areas to save the elderly and the people who had no way out. FEMA could have arraigned for buses from other towns close to New Orleans to rescue the citizens. Yet, these ideas were not thought of when they had two days before the levees broke.
The government also failed to communicate properly throughout the entire Hurricane Katrina dilemma. The Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC) was suppose to provide information about the disaster to decision-makers including the Secretary and the President but failed to create a system to identify and acquire all available, relevant information, and as a result situational awareness was deeply flawed. Yet reliable information on such vital developments as the levee failures, the extent of flooding, and the presence of thousands of people in need of life-sustaining assistance at the New Orleans Convention Center did not reach the White House, Secretary Chertoff or other key officials for hours, and in some cases more than a day.
FEMA Director Michael Brown, then in Louisiana, contributed to the problem by refusing to communicate with Secretary Chertoff opting instead to pass information directly to White House staff (Taylor). Moreover, even though senior DHS officials did receive on the day of landfall numerous reports that should have led to an understanding of the increasingly dire situation in New Orleans, many indicated they were not aware of the crisis until sometime Tuesday morning. DHS was slow to recognize the scope of the disaster and that FEMA had become overwhelmed.
On the day after landfall, DHS officials were still struggling to determine the “ground truth” about the extent of the flooding despite the many reports it had received about the catastrophe. Government officials did not grasp the need to act on the less-than-complete information that is to be expected in a disaster. DHS leaders did not become fully engaged in recovery efforts until Thursday, when in Deputy Secretary Michael Jackson’s words, they “tried to kick it up a notch”; after that, they did provide significant leadership within DHS and FEMA as well as coordination across the federal government.
But this effort should have begun sooner. This effort should have been done when they realized Hurricane Katrina was coming to destroy New Orleans. They had enough time to investigate the reports that were given or to go and get a firsthand look at the destruction that Hurricane Katrina had caused.
Another factor was the government’s knowledge that the levees could not withstand a level 4 or 5 hurricane. The levees which prevented New Orleans from being turned into a swamp were built to only withstand Category 3 hurricanes. Officials have known for years that the levees could fail under the pressures of a Category 4 or 5 hurricanes but did nothing to reinforce the levees (CNN). There have been many different sources acknowledging the affects the hurricane would have on the levees. In 2002 the New Orleans Times-Picayune ran a five-part series exploring the vulnerability of the city (The New Orleans Times). The newspaper and other news media as well, specifically addressed the possibility of massive floods drowning residents, destroying homes and releasing toxic chemicals throughout the city.
Reuters reported that in 2004, more than 40 state, local and volunteer organizations practiced a scenario in which a massive hurricane struck and levees were breached, allowing water to flood New Orleans. Under the simulation, called "Hurricane Pam," the officials "had to deal with an imaginary storm that destroyed more than half a million buildings in New Orleans and forced the evacuation of a million residents," the Reuters report said (Kahn).
If government officials knew that the levees could not stand a Category 4 or 5 hurricanes, then why wasn’t anything done to reinforce the strength of the levees. If nothing could be done to reinforce the wall, why wasn’t a secondary barrier put in place in case of the levees actually breakage? The government had enough time to do something about the levees but instead choose to ignore that it was a structural problem. If the problem had been fixed, many lives and homes would have been spared.
Government has since then fixed the levees. Almost a year ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers declared that it had restored New Orleans' levees and floodwalls to pre-Hurricane Katrina strength. But yet again another storm weaker than Hurricane Katrina can destroy the levees once again. The new levees sit atop steel sheet piles driven 20 feet (6 meters) into the ground. The piles are long interlocking wall sections that retain water and transfer pressure deeper into the ground, where the soil is more stable (Bourne).
But water from holes in the canal bed, excavated before Katrina or scoured by the storm, may be seeping under the barrier through permeable layers of sand and silt. Thus again making the levees a vulnerable target for the next hurricane. The government has spent 3 billion dollars on these levees only to have them possibly torn down again (MSNBC). What was the purpose of fixing the levees if they were still going to have major structural flaws in them that could possibly cause dozens of lives to be lost again?
Another major factor is the law enforcement problem that New Orleans faced after Hurricane Katrina. Law enforcement outside the Superdome and the Convention Center was a major problem, and was fueled by several contributing factors, including multiple statements by government officials inflaming the public’s perception of the lawlessness in New Orleans (New York Times). Without effective law enforcement, real or imagined safety threats interrupted every aspect of the response. So without
Fearing for their personal safety, medical and search and rescue teams withdrew from their missions. FEMA and commercial vendors of critical supplies often refused to make deliveries until military escorts could be arranged. In fact, there was some lawlessness, yet for every actual act there were rumors of dozens more, leading to widespread and inaccurate reporting that severely complicated a desperate situation (Dyson). Some were looters who were stealing just to be stealing but others were looting for the supplies such as water and food that the vendors refused to bring because of other crime or speculation.
Unfortunately, local, state, and federal officials did little to stanch this rumor flow. Police presence on the streets was inadequate, in part because in a matter of hours Katrina turned the New Orleans police department from protectors of the public to victims of the storm as well. Nonetheless, most New Orleans police officers appear to have reported for duty, many setting aside fears about the safety of their families or the status of their homes just to maintain order amidst the chaos.
The storm also laid waste to much of the city’s police headquarters and several district offices, along with hundreds of vehicles, rounds of ammunition, and uniforms were all destroyed within the first two days of landfall. Because of this reason, the government shipped out 15, 000 soldiers to enforce the law and maintain public safety (USA TODAY). Crime eventually died down and this was one area that the government actually accomplished something and did it correctly without hesitation.
Another factor was the terrible living conditions that people faced while stranded in New Orleans. Over 20,000 people took refuge in Louisiana’s Superdome under unbearable living conditions. The halls reeked of urine and feces were everywhere, a sign of the broken plumbing system; food and water supplies were diminished; and crime ran rampant in the Superdome also known as the “Terrordome” (Brinkley). The Superdome was so packed, that thousands were turned away daily that were seeking refuge from the rising, polluted floodwaters.
Many people who were trapped in the city due to the flooding from the breaking of the levees. Flooding in New Orleans drove thousands of survivors to attics and rooftops to await rescue. Some people were trapped in attics and nursing homes and drowned as the dirty waters rose around them. Others escaped only by chopping their way through roofs. Others were sleeping on bridges, cars, and any place they could find that the water could not reach them.
The government failed to provide these people with appropriate shelter and when they did provide shelter, the living conditions were deplorable. They failed to provide them with enough food to make sure that they were well fed and not mal-nourished. While authorities recognized the need to begin search-and-rescue missions, other aspects of the response were hindered by a failure to quickly recognize the dimensions of the disaster.
Not only did they face terrible living conditions in New Orleans but during the after math as well. FEMA did not even provide adequate temporary relocated homes for many victims who got displaced because of Hurricane Katrina. FEMA offer these people, some of whom lost 300,000 dollar homes, with trailers to live in. Others were stuck in hotels across the U.S. But that didn’t last long, FEMA terminated their contract with the hotels and many people found themselves homeless once again (New York Times).
The government didn’t even have a system in place for those who lost their personal information. Many victims found it difficult to reconstruct their shattered lives. In many cases, they had either lost or forgotten basic documents, such as insurance information, birth certificates, and marriage licenses, which would later prove essential to rebuilding their lives. Most of the evacuees did not have access to their medical records, which increased the risk of complications when receiving medical treatment. And many of these citizens were faced with identity theft and no way to prove if they had payed certain debts off.
After the government realized that its initial response and the actions it took towards the Hurricane Katrina situation, it releases “The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned”, an extensive review, that identifies deficiencies in the Federal government's response and lays the groundwork for transforming how the Nation - from every level of government, to the private sector, to individual citizens and communities - pursues a real and lasting vision of emergency preparedness and response (Fragos-Townsend).
In conclusion, there are a lot of factors that contribute to the government’s appalling response to Hurricane Katrina and destruction that it caused. There are a lot of mixed feelings when it comes to this topic but I think the government has a lot of work to do in regards to creating and implementing a hurricane disaster program. Many things could have been done to prevent Hurricane Katrina from being one of the worst natural disasters in America but it can only provide as an example to teach the government how to be more prepared when disaster strikes.
Bourne, Joel K. "National Geographic News." 6 May 2007. National Geographic. 11 March 2008 .
Brinkley, Douglas. The Great Deluge. New York City: HarperCollins, 2006.
CNN. "CNN.com." September 5 2005. CNN.com. 11 March 2008 .
Dyson, Micheal Eric. Come Hell or High Water. New York City: Basic Civitas/ Perseus Books Group, 2006.
Fragos-Townsend, Frances. The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned. Extensive Review Report. Washington, D.C.: Homeland Security and CounterTerrorism, 2006.
Kahn, Michael. "Reuters.com." 19 April 2007. Reuters.com. 11 March 2008 .
Lush, Tamara. "St. Petersburg Times Online." 30 August 2005. St. Petersburg Times Online. 11 March 2008 .
Millholom, Michelle. "Free Republic." 18 September 2005. Free Republic. 11 March 2008 .
MSNBC. "MSNBC." 15 December 2005. MSNBC. 11 March 2008 .
New York Times. "New York Times." 1 September 2005. New York Times. 11 March 2008 .
—. New York Times. 31 August 2006. 11 March 2008 .
NOAA/ National Weather Services. "National Hurricane Center." 31 August 2007. National Hurricane Center. 11 March 2008 .
Taylor, Matthew. "Yahoo News." 31 September 2005. Yahoo. 11 March 2008 .
The New Orleans Times. "The New Orleans Times." 22 September 2002. The New Orleans Times. 11 March 2008 .
USA TODAY. "USA TODAY." 21 June 2006. USA TODAY. 11 March 2008 .
Old Yesterday, 06:10 PM #1
Cartman
Remember the Intifada
Cartman's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,394
Reputation: points: 4864 / Rep Power: 50
Cartman has a reputation beyond reputeCartman has a reputation beyond reputeCartman has a reputation beyond reputeCartman has a reputation beyond reputeCartman has a reputation beyond reputeCartman has a reputation beyond reputeCartman has a reputation beyond reputeCartman has a reputation beyond reputeCartman has a reputation beyond reputeCartman has a reputation beyond reputeCartman has a reputation beyond repute
Israeli Lobby In America:Corruption of The American Politician
"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture." -- Michael Medved, well-known Jewish author and respected film critic.
For decades Israel has violated well established precepts of international law and defied numerous United Nations resolutions in its occupation of conquered lands, in extra-judicial killings, and in its repeated acts of military aggression.
Most of the world regards Israel's policies, and especially its oppression of Palestinians, as outrageous and criminal. This international consensus is reflected, for example, in numerous UN resolutions condemning Israel, which have been approved with overwhelming majorities.
"The whole world," United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan recently said, "is demanding that Israel withdraw [from occupied Palestinian territories]. I don't think the whole world ... can be wrong." [note 1]
Only in the United States do politicians and the media still fervently support Israel and its policies. For decades the US has provided Israel with crucial military, diplomatic and financial backing, including more than $3 billion each year in aid.
Why is the U.S. the only remaining bastion of support for Israel?
Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who was awarded the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize, has candidly identified the reason: "The Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic," he said. "People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful -- very powerful." [note 2]
Bishop Tutu spoke the truth. Although Jews make up only about three percent of the US population, they wield immense power and influence -- vastly more than any other ethnic or religious group.
As Jewish author and political science professor, Benjamin Ginsberg, has pointed out: [note 3]
"Since the 1960s, Jews have come to wield considerable influence in American economic, cultural, intellectual and political life. Jews played a central role in American finance during the 1980s, and they were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade's corporate mergers and reorganizations."
Today, though barely two percent of the nation's population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation's largest newspaper chain and the most influential single newspaper, the New York Times ... The role and influence of Jews in American politics is equally marked.
Jews are only two percent of the nation's population yet comprise eleven percent of what this study defines as the nation's elite. However, Jews constitute more than 25 percent of the elite journalists and publishers, more than 17 percent of the leaders of important voluntary and public interest organizations, and more than 15 percent of the top ranking civil servants.
Stephen Steinlight, former Director of National Affairs of the American Jewish Committee, similarly notes the "disproportionate political power" of Jews, which is "pound for pound the greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America." He goes on to explain that "Jewish economic influence and power are disproportionately concentrated in Hollywood, television, and in the news industry." [note 4]
Two well-known Jewish writers, Seymour Lipset and Earl Raab, pointed out in their 1995 book, Jews and the New American Scene: [note 5]
"During the last three decades Jews [in the United States] have made up 50 percent of the top two hundred intellectuals ... 20 percent of professors at the leading universities ... 40 percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington ... 59 percent of the directors, writers, and producers of the 50 top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of directors, writers, and producers in two or more primetime television series."
The influence of American Jewry in Washington, notes the Israeli daily Jerusalem Post, is "far disproportionate to the size of the community, Jewish leaders and U.S. official acknowledge. But so is the amount of money they contribute to [election] campaigns." One member of the influential Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations "estimated Jews alone had contributed 50 percent of the funds for [President Bill] Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign." [note 6]
"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture," acknowledges Michael Medved, a well-known Jewish author and film critic. "Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names." [note 7]
One person who has carefully studied this subject is Jonathan J. Goldberg, now editor of the influential Jewish community weekly 'Forward.' In his 1996 book, Jewish Power, he wrote: [note 8]
"In a few key sectors of the media, notably among Hollywood studio executives, Jews are so numerically dominant that calling these businesses Jewish-controlled is little more than a statistical observation ... Hollywood at the end of the twentieth century is still an industry with a pronounced ethnic tinge. Virtually all the senior executives at the major studios are Jews. Writers, producers, and to a lesser degree directors are disproportionately Jewish -- one recent study showed the figure as high as 59 percent among top-grossing films."
The combined weight of so many Jews in one of America's most lucrative and important industries gives the Jews of Hollywood a great deal of political power. They are a major source of money for Democratic candidates.
Reflecting their role in the American media, Jews are routinely portrayed as high-minded, altruistic, trustworthy, compassionate, and deserving of sympathy and support. While millions of Americans readily accept such stereotyped imagery, not everyone is impressed.
"I am very angry with some of the Jews," complained actor Marlon Brando during a 1996 interview. "They know perfectly well what their responsibilities are ... Hollywood is run by Jews. It's owned by Jews, and they should have a greater sensitivity about the issue of people who are suffering." [note 9]
A Well-Entrenched Factor
The intimidating power of the "Jewish lobby" is not a new phenomenon, but has long been an important factor in American life.
In 1941 Charles Lindbergh spoke about the danger of Jewish power in the media and government. The shy 39-year-old -- known around the world for his epic 1927 New York to Paris flight, the first solo trans-Atlantic crossing -- was addressing 7,000 people in Des Moines, Iowa, on September 11, 1941, about the dangers of US involvement in the war then raging in Europe. The three most important groups pressing America into war, he explained, were the British, the Jews, and the Roosevelt administration.
Of the Jews, he said: "Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government." Lindbergh went on:
"For reasons which are understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, [they] wish to involve us in the war. We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we must also look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction."
In 1978, Jewish American scholar Alfred M. Lilienthal wrote in his detailed study, The Zionist Connection: [note 10]
"How has the Zionist will been imposed on the American people?... It is the Jewish connection, the tribal solidarity among themselves and the amazing pull on non-Jews, that has molded this unprecedented power ... In the larger metropolitan areas, the Jewish-Zionist connection thoroughly pervades affluent financial, commercial, social, entertainment, and art circles."
As a result of the Jewish grip on the media, wrote Lilienthal, news coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict in American television, newspapers and magazines is relentlessly sympathetic to Israel. This is manifest, for example, in the misleading portrayal of Palestinian "terrorism." As Lilienthal put it: "One-sided reportage on terrorism, in which cause is never related to effect, was assured because the most effective component of the Jewish connection is probably that of media control."
One-Sided 'Holocaust' History
The Jewish hold on cultural and academic life has had a profound impact on how Americans look at the past. Nowhere is the well-entrenched Judeocentric view of history more obvious than in the "Holocaust" media campaign, which focuses on the fate of Jews in Europe during World War II.
Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer, a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, has remarked: [note 11]
"Whether presented authentically or inauthentically, in accordance with the historical facts or in contradiction to them, with empathy and understanding or as monumental kitsch, the Holocaust has become a ruling symbol of our culture ... Hardly a month goes by without a new TV production, a new film, a new drama, new books, prose or poetry, dealing with the subject, and the flood is increasing rather than abating."
Non-Jewish suffering simply does not merit comparable attention. Overshadowed in the focus on Jewish victimization are, for example, the tens of millions of victims of America's World War II ally, Stalinist Russia, along with the tens of millions of victims of China's Maoist regime, as well as the 12 to 14 million Germans, victims of the flight and expulsion of 1944-1949, of whom some two million lost their lives.
The well-financed Holocaust media and "educational" campaign is crucially important to the interests of Israel. Paula Hyman, a professor of modern Jewish history at Yale University, has observed: "With regard to Israel, the Holocaust may be used to forestall political criticism and suppress debate; it reinforces the sense of Jews as an eternally beleaguered people who can rely for their defense only upon themselves. The invocation of the suffering endured by the Jews under the Nazis often takes the place of rational argument, and is expected to convince doubters of the legitimacy of current Israeli government policy." [note 12]
Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish scholar who has taught political science at City University of New York (Hunter College), says in his book, 'The Holocaust Industry,' that "invoking The Holocaust" is "a ploy to delegitimize all criticism of Jews."[note 13] "By conferring total blamelessness on Jews, the Holocaust dogma immunizes Israel and American Jewry from legitimate censure. ... Organized Jewry has exploited the Nazi holocaust to deflect criticism of Israel's and its own morally indefensible policies." He writes of the brazen "shakedown" of Germany, Switzerland and other countries by Israel and organized Jewry "to extort billions of dollars." "The Holocaust," Finkelstein predicts, "may yet turn out to be the 'greatest robbery in the history of mankind'."
Jews in Israel feel free to act brutally against Arabs, writes Israeli journalist Ari Shavit, "believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own." [note 14]
Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has spoken with blunt exasperation about the Jewish-Israeli hold on the United States: [note 15]
"I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."
Today, the danger is greater than ever. Israel and Jewish organizations, in collaboration with this country's pro-Zionist Christian fundamentalist "amen corner," are prodding the United States -- the world's foremost military and economic power -- into new wars against Israel's enemies.
As the French ambassador in London recently acknowledged, Israel -- which he called (a quote which shocked millions -ed) "that ****ty little country" -- is a threat to world peace. "Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?," he said. [note 16]
In summation:
Jews wield immense power and influence in the United States.
The "Jewish lobby" is a decisive factor in US support for Israel.
Jewish-Zionist interests are not identical to American interests. In fact, they often conflict.
As long as the "very powerful" Jewish lobby remains entrenched, there will be no end to the systematic Jewish-Zionist distortion of current affairs and history, the Jewish-Zionist domination of the U.S. political system, Zionist oppression of Palestinians, the bloody conflict between Jews and non-Jews in the Middle East, and the Israeli threat to peace.
Notes
1. Quoted in Forward (New York City), April 19, 2002, p. 11. 2. D. Tutu, "Apartheid in the Holy Land," The Guardian (Britain), April 29, 2002. 3. Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of Chicago, 1993), pp. 1, 103. 4. S. Steinlight, "The Jewish Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration Policy," Center for Immigration Studies , Nov. 2001. http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back130... 5. Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab, Jews and the New American Scene (Harvard Univ. Press, 1995), pp. 26-27. 6. Janine Zacharia, "The Unofficial Ambassadors of the Jewish State," The Jerusalem Post (Israel), April 2, 2000. Reprinted in "Other Voices," June 2000, p. OV-4, a supplement to The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. 7. M. Medved, "Is Hollywood Too Jewish?," Moment, Vol. 21, No. 4 (1996), p. 37. 8. Jonathan Jeremy Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment (Addison-Wesley, 1996), pp. 280, 287-288. See also pp. 39-40, 290-291. 9. Interview with Larry King, CNN network, April 5, 1996. "Brando Remarks," Los Angeles Times, April 8, 1996, p. F4 (OC). A short time later, Brando was obliged to apologize for his remarks. 10. A. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1978), pp. 206, 218, 219, 229. 11. From a 1992 lecture, published in: David Cesarani, ed., The Final Solution: Origins and Implementation (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), pp. 305, 306. 12. Paula E. Hyman, "New Debate on the Holocaust," The New York Times Magazine , Sept. 14, 1980, p. 79. 13. Norman G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry (London, New York: Verso, 2000), pp. 130, 138, 139, 149. 14. The New York Times, May 27, 1996. Shavit is identified as a columnist for Ha'aretz, a Hebrew-language Israeli daily newspaper, "from which this article is adapted." 15. Interview with Moorer, Aug. 24, 1983. Quoted in: Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby (Lawrence Hill, 1984 and 1985), p. 161. 16. D. Davis, "French Envoy to UK: Israel Threatens World Peace," Jerusalem Post, Dec. 20, 2001. The French ambassador is Daniel Bernard.6/02
About the author
Mark Weber is director of the Institute for Historical Review. He studied history at the University of Illinois (Chicago), the University of Munich, Portland State University and Indiana University (M.A., 1977). For nine years he served as editor of t
