text:
Even though these stories are from the last week or two they are still as relevant as ever. In fact if you look through any articles about the UN and Israel they will sound like reruns, and in effect they are.
We'll start with the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) which focused this term's Universal Periodic Review of human rights on Israel. Since Israel announced its complete cutting of ties with the UNHRC back last March, it announced that it was going to boycott this session and simply not attend. This caused widespread consternation, not to say condemnation from the usual suspects.
Yisrael Hayom has the story:
Israel boycotted the United Nations' human rights forum on Tuesday, becoming the first country ever to decline to attend a session that was due to scrutinize its own rights record.
Israel's no-show at the Human Rights Council drew widespread criticism, including a tacit rebuke from the United States, which said the U.N. process of reviewing human rights was a "valuable mechanism" as it was applied to all countries.
The council had been due to examine Israel under the Universal Periodic Review of human rights in all U.N. member states. Its last review was in December 2008, when it attended.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told Reuters that Israel had announced it was "suspending indefinitely its participation in the U.N. Human Rights Council work. This policy has not changed."
The council's president, Poland's Ambassador Remigiusz Henczel, called it "an important issue and unprecedented situation." The 47-member forum adopted a motion regretting Israel's no-show and urging it to cooperate in a review to be conducted at its October-November session "at the latest."
Arab states had been poised to criticize Israel's treatment of detainees, settlement expansion and naval blockade of the Gaza Strip, which Palestinians say is collective punishment but which Israel says is vital for its security.
"As the only recalcitrant state among 193, Israel's deliberate absence would sabotage the principle of universality," Peter Splinter, Amnesty International's representative to the U.N. in Geneva, said in a blog.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Council Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, addressing the council on Tuesday, avoided naming the close ally while stressing that Washington greatly valued the way all countries' human rights records are examined.
"The Universal Periodic Review has been a valuable mechanism both because it is universally applicable to all U.N. member states on equal terms and because it is conducted in a cooperative and collaborative manner," she said.
Pakistan's Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, said that Muslim states had "a great deal of reservations and anxieties" about postponing the review of Israel.
"What is surprising for us is the level of leverage and the level of understanding being extended to Israel by some countries for its behavior in violation of all of its obligations," he said.
"We wonder if this cooperative spirit would be extended to some other country not so close to some major powers in this world," Akram added in an apparent reference to Washington.
A team of U.N. investigators set up by the council last year is due to report soon on whether Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria violate international human rights law.
Regarding that little mention above of Amnesty, here's Elder of Ziyon's take on that biased organization:
From Amnesty:
If the Israeli government is not careful, it will ruin an important global human rights process for everybody.
As the only recalcitrant state among 193, Israel's deliberate absence would sabotage the principle of universality. Consequently the Universal Periodic Review stands to lose the compelling legitimacy it derives from being applied even-handedly to all states. Why should states that would prefer to escape scrutiny of their human rights record, or are severely resource constrained, submit to this process if Israel's non-compliance demonstrates that it is no longer universal?
UN Watch has the truth:
In reality, the UPR is — for the most part — a mutual praise society.
Though the New York Times today praised the UPR's "universal and collaborative characteristics," saying it provided "a platform to scrutinize and discuss the situation of human rights in even the most closed and repressive regimes," it apparently forgot that earlier it had reported on how Qaddafi's Libyan regime came out of its review with top marks:[…]
While some countries, notably Canada, tried to hold brutal regimes accountable in the reports, for the most part like-minded abusers of human rights praised each other and blunted any possible usefulness that the UPR was meant to have.
The best that can be said is that the UPR is somewhat less of a joke than everything else the UNHRC does, but it is still a joke. The UPR is essentially a continuation of the UNHRC's one-sided obsession with Israel with a superficial sheen of "universality," and Amnesty cannot even be bothered to point that out.
The indomitable Anne Bayefsky, an expert in the UN and human rights law, published an excellent Op-ed in the Jerusalem Post:
Just days after the UN put on a show about Holocaust remembrance, it is business as usual in terms of demonizing and encouraging hatred of Jews in the present. In Geneva, the UN's top human rights body, the Human Rights Council, is conducting its so-called "Universal Periodic Review" (UPR), and Israel was supposed to arrive before the firing squad on January 29 to listen to Iran itemize the failings of "the Zionist entity." The greater tragedy of modern anti-Semitism, however, is that the United States and almost every other Western government pressured Israel to participate too – for the sake of the reputation of the UN and the appearance of universality. These goals were considered to be the greater good.
[…]… the UN Human Rights "Council," desperate to repair the UN's human rights credibility after Libya was elected President of the Human Rights "Commission," created the much-trumpeted UPR. All 193 UN members undergo the same procedure – states like Syria and the United States, for example.
During the UPR, country representatives turn up in Geneva while diplomats from other states proceed to make comments and recommendations on improving the country's human rights record. Since the country can "accept" or "reject" those recommendations, it is in its interest to line up friendly participants, a disingenuous role willingly played only by rogue states. At the end, the President of the Council thanks the country concerned, regardless of the statements made by its representatives, the recommendations it has rejected, or its actual human rights record.
So here's how the UPR rubber hit the road of crimes against humanity in Syria. On October 7, 2011, the Syrian vice-minister of foreign affairs and his entourage took their places in the Council chamber. And then the Cubans said: "the Syrian government is working for the human rights of its people." The North Koreans said: "we commend Syria on its efforts taken to maintain security and stability." The Iranians said: "we appreciate the efforts of the government of Syria to promote and protect human rights." Ditto Sudan, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Algeria, Lebanon, China, Zimbabwe, Burma/Myanmar, and so on.
Four days later, on behalf of the three countries charged with compiling recommendations, Mexico reported to the Council: "Syria received a total of 179 recommendations…It is a pleasure to inform you that 98 recommendations were accepted and 26 shall be considered." Among the recommendations that "did not enjoy the support" of Syria were "immediately end attacks on peaceful protesters and bring violators to account," "put an end to secret detentions" and "allow journalists to freely exercise their profession." At the end of this stage of the UPR, the President of the Council turned to Syria and signed off with "I thank both you and your delegation for your participation in the UPR."
At the time, there were 2,600 dead Syrian citizens at the hands of their own government. And Assad got the message about the human rights bona fides of the UN.
The next and final stage of the UPR took place in Geneva on March 15, 2012 – by which time there were 11,000 dead.
There are now over 60,000 dead in Syria.
And yet, incredibly, the enormous pressure now descending on Israel to play by these rules has been mounted for the sake of the credibility of the UPR. It is the Jewish state that poses the threat to the UN's house of cards.
This is what modern anti-Semitism in the world of international affairs is really all about. Israel's willingness to expose the lack of universal application of standards, its refusal to play with a stacked deck, its stubborn insistence that it will not go quietly into that good night, is itself an affront – a violation of the rules of a club from which Jews have been excluded throughout history.
[…]The official UN document entitled "summary of stakeholder submissions," which is intended to drive Israel's UPR, includes allegations from NGOs that object to "the Jewish character of the state," and demand that "five million Palestinians" should "return" to Israel to seal the deal.
And then there all the fabricated, hate-filled investigations and reports the Council regularly produces after every Israeli effort at self-defense, from the infamous "Goldstone" report – later recanted by its namesake – to the flotilla report claiming Turkish terrorists were humanitarians.
After another Council investigation on settlements was initiated last year, Israel said enough; it would not cooperate with the Council, which entailed not attending the UPR session today. Its absence at Tuesday's UPR is the first time that anybody has cared that the hatemongering might take place in the country's absence. The worry? Somebody might notice that the UN Human Rights Council is really not about the universal application of human rights after all.
So far, everything about the UN Human Rights Commission fact-finding mission on the settlements has gone according to script.
The report slammed Israel for violating human rights and international law, called for a withdrawal from the West Bank and east Jerusalem, and called for private business to terminate their business interests in the settlements.
Right on script, nothing new there.
Everyone knew that the wildly biased Human Rights Commission was going to issue a blistering report against Israel, just as everyone knew that Israel would summarily dismiss it.
But just because the conclusions were pre-ordained, does not make the entire exercise unimportant. From Israel's point of view this is just another step in the Palestinian strategy – increasingly successful – for confronting Israel in the international diplomatic arena, making things increasingly tough for Jerusalem in the world, keeping it on the defensive, trying to isolate it and keeping the world's pressure on.
The UNHRC report by itself has little meaning, it becomes important – and problematic for Israel – within the context of this overall Palestinian strategy of keeping up a constant drumbeat of diplomatic confrontation.
Senior diplomatic officials in Jerusalem are increasingly expressing concern that the country's standing in friendly capitals in Europe and even in Washington is sliding, and that the continuous condemnations and defeats in the international arena are taking a toll.
Parallel to the UNHRC's UPR, UN's fact-finding mission into the Israeli settlements appears to have backed a boycott of settlement products for the first time:
The mission, which conducted its probe from Jordan since Israel did not let its members enter Israel or the Palestinian territories, issued a scathing report Thursday, lambasting Israel for intentionally breaking international law and systematically violating human rights of Palestinian men, women and children in order to drive them away from their lands.
"Private companies must assess the human rights impact of their activities and take all necessary steps — including by terminating their business interests in the settlements — to ensure they are not adversely impacting the human rights of the Palestinian People in conformity with international law," the report states.
Headed by French-born human rights lawyer Christine Chanet, the mission calls upon the UN's 193 member states to "ensure that business enterprises domiciled in their territory and/or under their jurisdiction, including those owned or controlled by them, that conduct activities in or related to the settlements respect human rights throughout their operations."
Israel reacted angrily at the report's not-so-tacit encouragement of a boycott.
"The report is so utterly misguided that it steps widely out of line in recommending a boycott that would harm Palestinians and Israelis alike," Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told The Times of Israel. "The authors seem so enraged that they forget they have no authority on such issues, and their hubris leads them to decree as states, rather than opine as individuals."
In a first response, Israel's Foreign Ministry dismissed the report as biased and unhelpful.
"The only way to resolve all pending issues between Israel and the Palestinians, including the settlements issue, is through direct negotiations without pre-conditions," a statement released Thursday read. "Counterproductive measures — such as the report before us — will only hamper efforts to find a sustainable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
The UNHRC has "sadly distinguished itself by its systematically
one-sided and biased approach towards Israel," the statement continued. "This latest report is yet another unfortunate reminder of that."
Once again, the redoubtable Elder of Ziyon has an very well-researched article on the legality – or lack of it – of boycotting the settlements: Isn't it a crime to ethnically cleanse Jews from Judea and Samaria?
But what is interesting is what they demand be done:
Israel must, in compliance with article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, cease all settlement activities without preconditions. In addition it must immediately initiate a process of withdrawal of all settlers from the OPT.
Let's look at the Rome Statute:
Article 7: Crimes against humanity
1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
How is the forcible transfer of Jews away from Judea and Samaria not a crime against humanity?
Even if you say that the Israeli government is guilty of the heinous crime of allowing people to voluntarily move to the land of their forefathers, why are the residents being punished? Isn't this collective punishment? Did they do anything illegal? Geneva only prohibits the "occupying power" to transfer people, it doesn't prohibit the people from doing so voluntarily (more on this below.)
Here is a relevant portion of an article in Opinio Juris by Eugene Kontorovich about some of these points:
Nothing in the text or history of Art. 49 suggests that it becomes illegal for nationals of the occupying power to reside in the occupied territory. People want to read Art. 49 as saying "the occupied territory shall be prohibited to nationals of the occupying power for residence." This is a far cry from what it says. It goes against the GC's humanitarian principles to read it as a restrictive covenant. The precise meaning of transfer – how much government action is required – is undefined by any source I know of, though the Rome Statute's addition of an "indirect transfer" prohibition only underlines how absent such language is from Art. 49(6).The relevant Security Council resolutions only condemn "the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements" (S.C. 446). This seems to support my view.
He is more concise in this more recent article:
When one reads discussions of Israel and 49(6), the only precedents cited are various statements about 49(6) – in the context of Israel. One might conclude that Israel has been the only significant alleged violator in the post-War period. If there were no other arguable 49(6) cases, then this limitation would be natural.
Read the whole thing and bookmark it for use against those who constantly and persistently claim that Israel is illegally occupying its own territory.
To finish off this sad saga, I bring you some bad behaviour on the part of British diplomats who seem to think that the Mandate is not yet over.
The British Foreign Office included Israel on a list of 28 countries whose human rights records arouse concern:
Israel has been featured in a quarterly report on Human Rights and Democracy released by the British Foreign Office on Thursday, alongside serial human rights offenders Iran, Bahrain and Belarus. The foreign office identified the Jewish State as a "country of concern," making a special mention of the recent Gaza escalation, Israeli settlement policy and the Israel government's withholding of Palestinian custom revenues.
You can read the entire Foreign Office report here.
Hadar Sela at The Commentator writes about this report in British diplomats behaving badly:
Although the report does not cite the sources for many of its highly contentious claims, anyone familiar with the situation on the ground will recognise in this report the fingerprints of some of the many politically-motivated NGOs posing as human rights organisations which operate in the region.
The report makes a cursory reference to human rights abuses perpetrated by Palestinians on other Palestinians, but fails to make any serious attempt to tackle the well-documented abuses against women, religious minorities, homosexuals, trade unions and the press in areas under the control of the Palestinian Authority or Hamas.
Most significantly, this report turns a willfully blind eye to the human rights of Israelis. In 2011 alone 676 rockets or mortars were launched by terror factions in Gaza at the one million Israeli civilians living in southern Israel. A further one million Israelis live under the threat of Hizballah rockets stashed under the noses of UNIFIL peacekeepers in Lebanon.
Dozens of Israeli motorists have had rocks or fire-bombs thrown at their vehicles in almost daily incidents during the past year, sometimes with tragic results. Israeli civilians also suffered a variety of other terror attacks in 2011 and numerous attempts were made by Palestinian terror factions to kidnap Israeli soldiers.
However, none of the above apparently merits even so much as a mention as far as the Foreign Office is concerned. Wondering why that would be the case, I called the UK embassy in Tel Aviv and was told that it was the result of "a glitch". Unfortunately, that "glitch" did not prevent the dissemination of the report all over the internet and social media networks.
Read the whole article for a typical example of foreign diplomatic bias against Israel.
Many commentators seem to think that Israel should do more to mend relations with the Palestinians in order to counter the onslaught of lawfare against it. However it doesn't seem as if there is anything Israel can do short of national suicide until the Palestinians accept not only that Israel exists, but that it exists as the homeland for the Jews and that it is here to stay.


text:
Preventing Ticks on People & Pets
Experts predict that natural areas and parks like the Arboretum may host larger than usual tick populations this year. This problem stems from a variety of environmental factors, which have been compounded by a mild winter. Here are some tips to protect yourself:
- Avoid wooded and bushy areas with high grass and leaf litter.
- Walk in the center of paths.
- Wear long pants, long socks, and close-toed shoes if you plan on going off the road or paths.
- Consider pretreating clothing and shoes with an insect repellant containing Permethrin and/or using an insect repellant on your skin containing DEET.
- When you get home, conduct a full-body tick check on yourself, children, and pets. If a tick is discovered, collect the tick for potential testing (to determine if the tick is a carrier of the organism that causes Lyme disease), and consult your doctor immediately.
Dogs are very susceptible to tick bites and tickborne diseases. Keep your dog on a leash.
More Information:
Learn more about ticks from the University of Rhode Island TickEncounter Resource Center.
Read about the science behind the increased tick population.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has guidelines for preventing tick bites.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
New (23set) -Bluetooth Sunglasses With Mic Receiving Call
(23set) Universal Bluetooth Sunglasses Stereo Headset Compatible With
all Smart phone iPhone and android.
Description: For
Bluetooth Stereo Headset Sunglasses With Mic Receiving Calls
Compatible With all Smart phone and other Bluetooth devices.
This Bluetooth Headset Sunglasses is a Perfect Combination of
practicability and fashion.
-It can make you enjoy the freedom of wireless listening and hands-free
-Perfect combination of durable and fashion
-Polarized lenses, offers anti-glare and ultraviolet protection
-Auto switch to phone talking mode when making and receiving calls
with Previous/Next Song control, Volume Up/Down control
-Bluetooth V4.0, support both headset and hands-free profiles
-Built-in rechargeable lithium battery, comes with Mini USB cable
-Not only can answer the call, but also used to listen music.
-Compatible For iPhone/Nokia/HTC/Samsung/LG/Moto/PC/iPad/PSP and other
Bluetooth devices.
-Color: Black Frame + Black lens + Grey lens + Yellow lens.
-Plastic material housing
-Frequency: 2.4~2.480GHz
-Bluetooth V 1.2 compliant
-Transmit power: Class 2
-Support headset & handsfree profiles
-Built-in 200mAh battery
-Talk time: 15 hours
-Standby time: 100 days
-Range of wireless connection: 10 meters
-Operation Temperature:-10-55
-Suitable: With Men's And Women's
-Condition: New in Box
Package Include:
1 Bluetooth Sunglasses
1 Mini USB Cable
1 User Manual
1 Glasses Case
1 Cleaning Cloth
Please View the additional pictures by clicking the "View all photos" tab.
For an explanation on the various condition codes used on Liquidation.com please Click Here


text:
Once and for all Jada Pinkett-Smith shuts down divorce rumors surrounding her marriage to Will Smith...
Jada tells French magazine Gala,
"Every year, a celebrity couple is on the radar. This year, unluckily, it's us! I almost want to say that we should have been expecting it."
"But Will and I know the truth. We are waiting peacefully for when the storm ends."
"These rumours are completely untrue. I'm travelling a lot because of my work, as Will does. And the fact that I'm accompanying our daughter, Willow, on her trips, while Will spends time with our son, Jaden, doesn't make things easier."
"But our way of living hasn't changed. Before the children, we were already away from each other quite often because of our work."
"In general, Will and I take two months of holiday, at the end of the year."
"Right after Thanksgiving, we shut down the curtain and nothing comes to bother our family life until January."


text:
Target PointTarget Point | Contemporary Dining Furniture | Hallway Furniture ( For inquiries on the items shown below, please contact us, providing your address and contact details for an individual quotation. )
Target PointTarget Furniture - Italian Ideas
Target Furniture is an innovative furniture manufacturer based in Italy, which exists for more than fifteen years, creating contemporary collections of tables, beds and chairs. It belongs to the medium price range category, which makes it affordable to majorities. In addition to an optimal balance between price and quality, the brand stands out by interesting design solutions for variety of spaces.
The range of products of the factory is both, classic-style furniture and products that are suitable for the latest style trends. In classic range Target Furniture manufactures beds, bedside tables (cabinets), dining tables, chairs, sofas and shelving system. Modern range has vaster furniture selection for living and dining room, bedroom, office. Also, some furniture pieces such as tables and chairs can be used in cafeterias, restaurants, bars, hotels, offices.
The special attention at the factory of Target Furniture is placed at technology of manual finishing, operational parameters of materials, flexibility and versatility of textile compositions. All of these prove big evolution of the brand at the technical, stylistic and qualitative level. Target Furniture products are exported to the many European countries and the factory is confident that will increase in number of demand for its products. The company strongly believes in its mission to offer modern and functional furniture with Italian design, competitive prices and good services.
Special Offers (15)


text:
And you thought we were only about restaurants and food photography… TastingMenu just launched it's first app! Kitchen Toolkit is several tools in one for the home cook. The app includes a kitchen timer (to remind you when your dish needs to come out of the oven), a unit converter (handy for various recipes with different measurement units than you have at home), and two meat charts detailing the cuts of beef and pork. Think of Kitchen Toolkit as the "Swiss army knife" for the home chef.
Kitchen Toolkit – A Cook's Best Friend, is the first food and cooking related app from TastingMenu and your friends at Jackson Fish Market. It's available today for Windows Phone 7 Series Devices at the Windows Phone Marketplace for only 99 cents.
Download Kitchen Toolkit (You must have the Zune client software installed on your Mac or PC for this link to work.)


text:
Department of Health and Human Services
Participating Organizations
National Institutes of Health (NIH) (http://www.nih.gov/)
Components of Participating Organizations
National Cancer Institute (NCI) (http://www.cancer.gov/)
Title: Cancer Disparities Research Partnership (CDRP) Program: Limited Competition (U54)
Announcement Type
This funding opportunity announcement (FOA) is a reissue of RFA-CA-03-018.
Request For Applications (RFA) Number: RFA-CA-09-502
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number(s)
93.394, 93.395, 93.399
Key Dates
Release Date: October 24, 2008
Letters of Intent Receipt Date: November 22, 2008
Application Receipt Dates: December 22, 2008
Peer Review Date: April/May 2009
Council Review Date: May 2009
Earliest Anticipated Start Date: July 2009
Additional Information To Be Available Date (URL Activation Date): Not Applicable
Expiration Date: December 23, 2008
Due Dates
for E.O. 12372
Not Applicable
Additional Overview Content
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
Part I
Overview Information
Part II Full Text of Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
1. Research Objectives
Section II. Award Information
1. Mechanism(s) of Support
2. Funds Available
Section III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants
A. Eligible Institutions
B. Eligible Individuals
2. Cost Sharing or Matching
3. Other - Special Eligibility Criteria
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Address to Request Application Information
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
3. Submission Dates and Times
A. Receipt, Review and Anticipated Start Dates
1. Letter of Intent
B. Sending an Application to the NIH
C. Application Processing
D. Application Assignment
4. Intergovernmental Review
5. Funding Restrictions
6. Other Submission Requirements and Information
Section V. Application Review Information
1. Criteria
2. Review and Selection Process
A. Additional Review Criteria
B. Additional Review Considerations
C. Resource Sharing Plan(s)
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
Section VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
A. Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award
1. Principal Investigator Rights and Responsibilities
2. NIH Responsibilities
3. Collaborative Responsibilities
4. Arbitration Process
3. Reporting
Section VII. Agency Contact(s)
1. Scientific/Research Contact(s)
2. Peer Review Contact(s)
3. Financial/ Grants Management Contact(s)
Section VIII. Other Information - Required Federal Citations
Part II - Full Text of Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
1. Research Objectives
This funding opportunity announcement (FOA) issued by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) is designed to extend the Cancer Disparities Research Partnership (CDRP) program into its second (and final) implementation stage. This limited competition FOA solicits applications for U54 cooperative agreement awards from the five current recipients of the CDRP Cooperative Agreement Planning Grants (U56). The CDRP U56 awardees represent community-based institutions serving a larger fraction of generally medically underserved, low-income, ethnic and minority populations than most other healthcare institutions. Still, community-based institutions have not been proportionately involved in NCI-sponsored research initiatives pertinent to these underserved populations. The U56-based CDRP program had built the necessary clinical research infrastructure to support the development of partnerships between the awardees and their associated mentor cancer centers, which are actively involved in accrual of patient populations into NCI-supported cancer clinical trials. The transition to the U54 status under this FOA is expected to enable the CDRP sites to maximize the access, accrual, and participation of their targeted minority/underserved populations into NCI-sponsored clinical trials in cancer control, prevention, and treatment.
This FOA is intended to: (a) support transition of some of these pilot CDRP programs from a U56 planning phase into a U54 implementation phase; (b) enable the pilot CDRP sites at community-based institutions to maximize the access and participation of their targeted minority/underserved populations into NCI-sponsored clinical trials in cancer control, prevention, and treatment. The overall goal of this new U54 CDRP program is to: (a) provide and expand the necessary clinical research infrastructure, training outreach and patient navigation and research collaborative capabilities; and (b) to increase minority/underserved patient accrual into NCI-supported cancer prevention, symptom management, and medical/surgical/radiation treatment trials. It is anticipated that, by the end of this second funding period, the impacts made by the CDRP program participants would insure their sustainability by securing additional non-NIH funding for addressing cancer health disparities in targeted communities.
Since the enactment of the National Cancer Act in 1971, advances in cancer detection, prevention, and treatment have led to a steady decline in the cancer-related deaths. However, disparities in cancer incidence and mortality still exist as functions of gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic statuses. Men are about 50% more likely than women to die from cancer. The incidences of colon and rectum cancers and of lung and bronchus cancers in Alaska Natives and African American men and women are significantly higher compared with the incidences in other ethnic groups. The death rate from prostate cancer among African-American men is almost twice that in white males. The incidence of cervical cancer in the Hispanic population has been consistently higher at all ages, and African-American women have the highest rate of deaths from cervical cancer. Five-year survival rates by selected sites among populations experiencing the negative consequences of health disparities in the United States (U.S.) (e.g., African Americans, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, Latinos, American Indians, Native Alaskans, and/or those of low socioeconomic status) are lower than the 5-year survival rates of the rest of the population.
Socioeconomic status and cancer. Communities that are characterized by lower socioeconomic statuses for their populations generally exhibit higher cancer death rates. The cancer mortality rates for lung, trachea, bronchus, and pleura for minority males and females differ widely when measured by state economic area. Examples of geographical differences are seen in a pattern of excessive prostate cancer among African American males in the Southeastern U.S., particularly in rural areas. High rates of esophageal cancer in the District of Columbia and in the Coastal area of South Carolina appear to be related to alcohol consumption, tobacco use, and dietary deficiencies.
Risk behaviors and cancer. The significant negative consequences of cancer-related health disparities are also reflected in risk behaviors and health service utilization. These include higher rates of smoking among some populations (e.g., American Indians), strikingly higher rates of obesity among African Americans and Hispanics, and related dietary practices. Similarly, differentials have been documented by age, income, education, and race/ethnicity in these health practices as well as in cancer screening and treatment. Data confirm lower rates of cancer screening and early detection, differential treatment patterns, and greater frequency of a number of chronic diseases with similar risk profiles to cancer. These and many other factors contribute to more advanced disease at diagnosis, lower survival, and higher cancer death rates among certain population groups.
Inadequate access to healthcare and cancer. Due to a lack of screening and delays in accessing adequate healthcare, underserved populations suffer disproportionately from locally advanced cancers such as cancers of the cervix, breast, lung, and head and neck, for which radiation therapy is the primary treatment. Therefore, new pilot programs at community-based hospitals/institutions are needed to develop new strategies/approaches to address these existing cancer health disparities seen through the U.S.
Establishment of the U56 CDRP program. The first stage of the CDRP program (which was initiated in 2002) involved funding of Cooperative Agreement Planning Grants (using the U56 funding mechanism). The goal of that initiative was to get community-based hospitals/institutions to plan and develop strategies for patient accrual to radiation oncology trials, and to reduce the negative consequences of cancer disparities in underserved U.S. populations. The populations targeted by this first funding period for the CDRP (RFA-CA-03-018) were those whose members accessed the health care system primarily when in the advanced stages of their diseases. Because of these delays in obtaining adequate healthcare, radiation oncology usually represents a major component of the cancer treatment.
During the first funding period, the six CDRP awardees used the U56 funding mechanism to establish:
Main goals of the initial U56 funding period. Since 2003, the CDRP U56 awards have allowed the awardees to plan, develop, and implement their cancer disparity programs. Since the initial objective/goal was to increase access and accrual of their targeted populations into primarily radiation oncology focused clinical trials, it became evident that due to the late stage of disease, co-morbidities, etc., the eligibility criteria for accrual were often too restrictive for participation in existing cooperative group clinical trials. In an effort to overcome this accrual barrier at all of the CDRP sites, supplemental funds were earmarked from the NCI's Clinical Trial Working Group initiative to increase participation of minority/underserved patients in NCI cancer clinical trials. This allowed an expansion into surgical and medical oncology clinical trials for at least three CDRP sites, thus boosting the trial availability for many more patients and higher accrual rates.
Specific Research Objectives
Applications submitted in response to this FOA must address all of the following objectives/goals of the U54 implementation phase of the CDRP programs:
Main Requirements
All the CDRP U54 applicants must meet the main requirements defined below.
1. The applicant institution must have the necessary facilities to provide radiation oncology services according to current standards, such as three-dimensional treatment planning and computerized tomography (CT) simulation.
2. The applicant institution must have a level of professional expertise that, at the minimum, includes:
The PI and the "back-up" PI are each expected to contribute at least 10% of his/her time to the CDRP grant effort. A strong rationale must be provided (in the budget justification) for commitment of less than 10%.
3. The percentage of one or more of the target populations (e.g., African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, Latinos, Native Americans, Alaskan Natives, Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders and/or those with low socioeconomic status) which is to be served by the applicant institution must be greater than the state average of that population according to the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau statistics (http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html). These populations must have a greater cancer incidence and/or mortality than the national average according to NCI data (http://seer.cancer.gov). The applicant institution must be a primary provider of care for the population group(s) identified above according to the respective State Department of Health statistics (http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs).
4. If the applicant institution decides to continue the research collaborations with the previously established research investigator institutions, he/she must identify a mentor or consultant from each of the current and future research collaborating institutions involved in their program.
NOTE: The existing relationships that applicants have with their mentor institutions and collaborators under the initial CDRP planning phase must now be converted into research collaborations during the U54 implementation phase. Any changes or additional new partnerships proposed for the U54 partnership should be justified. These collaborating institutions can be either an NCI-designated cancer center or a university-affiliated medical center, health care institutions or freestanding cancer centers that are accredited by:
See Section VIII, Other Information - Required Federal
Citations, for policies related to this announcement.
Section II. Award Information
1. Mechanism of Support
This funding opportunity announcement (FOA) will use the NIH Specialized Center (U54) Cooperative Agreements award mechanism. The applicant will be solely responsible for planning, directing, and executing the proposed project.
This FOA uses "Just-in-Time" information concepts. It also uses non-modular budget formats described in the PHS 398 application instructions (see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html).
This is a cooperative agreement award mechanism. In the cooperative agreement mechanism, the Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) retains the primary responsibility and dominant role for planning, directing, and executing the proposed project, with NIH staff being substantially involved as a partner with the Principal Investigator, as described under the Section VI. 2. Administrative Requirements, "Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award."
This FOA is a one-time solicitation and will not be reissued.
2. Funds Available
The NCI intends to commit approximately $2.55 million in total costs in FY 09, and a total of $9.3 million over a 5-year period to support three to five awards. Future year amounts will depend on annual appropriations.
The total project period for an application submitted in response to this FOA may not exceed 5 years. An applicant may request a project period of up to 5 years with the annual budget requests gradually scaling down as follows. For the first year of the project, the applicants may request a budget up to the level of the final full year of their current CDRP U56 award. Because each CDRP site is expected to work towards complete sustainability after the next funding period, the applicants' requested budgets for years 2 and 3 must be reduced by 20% and then finally capped at $350,000 (total costs) for years 4 and 5, reflecting the basic funding required for maintenance of the clinical trials research staff only.
Because the nature and scope of the proposed research will vary from application to application, it is anticipated that the size and duration of each award will also vary. Although the financial plans of the NCI provide support for this program, awards pursuant to this funding opportunity are contingent upon the availability of funds and the receipt of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.
Facilities and administrative costs requested by consortium participants are not included in the direct cost limitation; see NOT-OD-05-004.
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH
Grants Policy Statement.
3. Other-Special Eligibility Criteria
Resubmission applications will not be accepted through this program.
Applicants may submit only one application.
Since this FOA involves a change in the mechanism from U56 to U54, all applications submitted in response to this FOA will be considered new applications.
Applications will only be accepted from health care institutions, treatment centers, or free-standing cancer centers that are accredited by:
Each applicant CDRP institution may decide to continue their research collaborations with their prior mentor institution/organization established during the U56 planning phase and/or establish new collaborations. Letters of Commitment from all proposed U54 collaborators must be included in the application.
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Address to Request Application
The PHS 398 application instructions are available at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html in an interactive format. Applicants must use the currently approved version of the PHS 398. For further assistance, contact GrantsInfo -- Telephone: (301) 710-0267; Email: firstname.lastname@example.com.
Telecommunications for the hearing impaired: TTY 301-451-5936.
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
Applications must be prepared using the current PHS 398 research grant application instructions and forms. Applications must have a D&B Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number as the universal identifier when applying for Federal grants or cooperative agreements. The D&B number can be obtained by calling (866) 705-5711 or through the web site at http://www.dnb.com/us/. The D&B number should be entered on line 11 of the face page of the PHS 398 form.
The title and number of this funding opportunity must be typed in item (box) 2 only of the face page of the application form and the YES box must be checked.
Specific Guidelines and Modifications for Content of Application. For the application submitted in response to this FOA, follow the standard instructions for the PHS 398 Research Plan (Items 2-5 as per Revision 11/07 of the PHS 398 Table of Contents, previously known as "Sections A-D"), with the following specifications and amendments:
Additional Instructions for Items 4 and 5 of the PHS 398 Research Plan
Item 4: Preliminary Studies/Progress Report (up to 10 pages recommended). The application must include a progress report, which must address progress made in achieving the goals and objectives of the original CDRP application during the current funding period. This section should include the following:
In addition, Item 4 must include the following elements:
Item 5: Research Design and Methods (up to 10 pages recommended). This section will include research plans for the U54 grant period in the following areas:
A. Clinical Research Infrastructure – following an analysis of current CDRP program for strengths and weaknesses, propose modifications to achieve the overall goal of increasing accessibility and eligibility of targeted populations into NCI cancer clinical trials, including but not limited to:
1) Division of Cancer Prevention (DCP) prevention trials;
2) NCI's Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) sponsored cooperative group cancer control, symptom management and treatment trials;
3) CDRP investigator-initiated disparities appropriate clinical trials; and
4) Research with collaborating institution clinical trials, etc. The ultimate goal at the end of next funding period is to acquire the capability to submit a competitive application for funding as a Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) or Minority-based CCOP (http://prevention.cancer.gov/programs-resources/programs/ccop).
B. Investigator-Initiated Clinical Protocols – Applicants considering the design of any investigator-initiated clinical trial to be implemented during the U54 phase must provide a plan for scientific evaluation of the validity and appropriateness of the proposed trial before IRB submission.
C. Community Outreach Activities and Patient Navigation Program – detailed description of modifications, if any, to one or both components of the current CDRP program to increase recruitment of targeted populations into NCI-supported cancer clinical trials.
Letters of Commitment from all proposed collaborating institutions/organizations must be included in the application.
3. Submission Dates and Times
See Section IV.3.A. for details.
3.A. Receipt, Review, and Anticipated Start Dates
Letters of Intent Receipt Date: November 22, 2008
Application Receipt Date: December 22, 2008
Peer Review Date: April/May 2009
Council Review Date: May 2009
Earliest Anticipated Start Date: July/August 2009
Letter of Intent
Prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
Although a letter of
intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a
subsequent application, the information that it contains allows NCI staff to
estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
The letter of intent is to be sent by the date listed in Section IV.3.A.
letter of intent should be sent to:
Rosemary S. L. Wong, Ph.D.
Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis
National Cancer Institute
6130 Executive Boulevard, EPN Room 6016, MSC 7440
Bethesda, MD 20892-7440 (for U.S. Postal Service regular or express mail)
Rockville, MD 20852 (for non-USPS delivery)
Telephone: (301) 496-9362
Fax: (301) 380-5785
Email: email@example.com
3.B. Sending an Application to the NIH
Applications must be prepared using the forms found in the PHS 398 instructions for preparing a research grant application. Submit a signed, typewritten original of the application, including the checklist, and three signed photocopies in one package to:
Center for Scientific Review
National Institutes of Health
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1040, MSC 7710
Bethesda, MD 20892-7710 (U.S. Postal Service Express or regular mail)
Bethesda, MD 20817 (for non-USPS delivery)
Personal deliveries of applications are no longer
permitted (see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-040.html).
Personal deliveries of applications are no longer permitted (see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-040.html).
At the time of submission, two additional copies of the
application and all copies of the appendix material must be sent to:
Referral Officer
Division of Extramural Activities
National Cancer Institute
6116 Executive Boulevard,
Room 8041, MSC 8329
Bethesda, MD 20892 (for U.S. Postal Service Express or regular mail)
Telephone: (301) 496-3428
Fax: 301-402-0275
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
3.C. Application
Applications must be received on or before the application receipt date) described above (Section IV.3.A.). If an application is received after that date, the application may be delayed in the review process or not reviewed. Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the CSR and for responsiveness by the reviewing Institute Incomplete and/or non-responsive applications will not be reviewed.
The NIH will not accept any application in response to this funding opportunity that is essentially the same as one currently pending initial review, unless the applicant withdraws the pending application. However, when a previously unfunded application, originally submitted as an investigator-initiated application, is to be submitted in response to a funding opportunity, it is to be prepared as a NEW application. That is, the application for the funding opportunity must not include an Introduction describing the changes and improvements made, and the text must not be marked to indicate the changes from the previous unfunded version of the application.
Information on the status of an application should be checked by the Principal Investigator in the eRA Commons at https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/.
4. Intergovernmental Review
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental
5. Funding Restrictions
All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. The Grants Policy Statement can be found at NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Pre-award costs are allowable. A grantee may, at its own risk and without NIH prior approval, incur obligations and expenditures to cover costs up to 90 days before the beginning date of the initial budget period of a new or renewal award if such costs: 1) are necessary to conduct the project; and 2) would be allowable under the grant, if awarded, without NIH prior approval. If specific expenditures would otherwise require prior approval, the grantee must obtain NIH approval before incurring the cost. NIH prior approval is required for any costs to be incurred more than 90 days before the beginning date of the initial budget period of a new or renewal award.
The incurrence of pre-award costs in anticipation of a competing or non-competing award imposes no obligation on NIH either to make the award or to increase the amount of the approved budget if an award is made for less than the amount anticipated and is inadequate to cover the pre-award costs incurred. NIH expects the grantee to be fully aware that pre-award costs result in borrowing against future support and that such borrowing must not impair the grantee's ability to accomplish the project objectives in the approved time frame or in any way adversely affect the conduct of the project (see the NIH Grants Policy Statement at https://grants.nih.gov/archive/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/index.htm).
6. Other Submission Requirements and Information
Awardees must agree to the "Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award" in Section VI.2.A "Award Administration Information."
Representatives of all recipients of CDRP U54 Cooperative Agreement Grant Awards will be expected to participate in two Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) meetings and the annual American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) meeting, where the CDRP Program Steering Committee and Program Expert Committee meetings, respectively, are held. Travel funds for this purpose should be budgeted for in the grant application from the applicant institution.
The PI of each CDRP site and research group will serve as a member of the CDRP Steering Committee, and will participate in monthly conference calls. In addition, each CDRP awardee will present its research findings at annual meetings of the steering committee and at no more than three meetings per year. Funds for travel of the PIs and relevant staff to these meetings should be included in the proposed budget.
Awardees must agree to the "Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award" in Section VI.2.A "Award Administration Information."
Appendix Materials
All paper PHS 398 applications submitted must provide appendix material on CDs only. Include five identical CDs in the same package with the application. See https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-031.html.
Do not use the Appendix to circumvent the page limitations of the Research Plan component. An application that does not observe the required page limitations may be delayed in the review process.Resource Sharing Plan(s)
NIH considers the sharing of unique research resources developed through NIH-sponsored research an important means to enhance the value of, and advance research. When resources have been developed with NIH funds and the associated research-findings published or provided to NIH, it is important that they be made readily available for research purposes to qualified individuals within the scientific community. If the final data/resources are not amenable to sharing, this must be explained in Resource Sharing section of the application (see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_faqs.htm).
(a) Data Sharing Plan: Regardless of the amount requested, investigators are expected to include a brief 1-paragraph description of how final research data will be shared, or explain why data-sharing is not possible. Applicants are encouraged to discuss data-sharing plans with their NIH program contact (see Data-Sharing Policy or https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-032.html).
(b) Sharing Model Organisms: Regardless of the amount requested, all applications where the development of model organisms is anticipated are expected to include a description of a specific plan for sharing and distributing unique model organisms and related resources, or state appropriate reasons why such sharing is restricted or not possible (see Sharing Model Organisms Policy and NIH Guide NOT-OD-04-042).
(c) Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS): Regardless of the amount requested, applicants seeking funding for a genome-wide association study are expected to provide a plan for submission of GWAS data to the NIH-designated GWAS data repository, or provide an appropriate explanation why submission to the repository is not possible. A genome-wide association study is defined as any study of genetic variation across the entire genome that is designed to identify genetic associations with observable traits (such as blood pressure or weight) or the presence or absence of a disease or condition. For further information, see Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained in NIH Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies, NIH Guide NOT-OD-07-088, and https://grants.nih.gov/grants/gwas/.
Section V. Application Review Information
1. Criteria (Update: Enhanced review criteria have been issued for the evaluation of research applications received for potential FY2010 funding and thereafter - see NOT-OD-09-025).
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process.
2. Review and Selection Process
Applications that are complete and responsive to the FOA will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by an appropriate peer review group convened by the National Cancer Institute and in accordance with NIH peer review procedures (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/peer/), using the review criteria stated below.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will:
The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
goals of NIH supported research are to advance our understanding of biological
systems, to improve the control of disease, and to enhance health. In their
written critiques, reviewers will be asked to comment on each of the following
criteria in order to judge the likelihood that the proposed research will have
a substantial impact on the pursuit of these goals. Each of these criteria will
be addressed and considered in assigning the overall score, and weighted as
appropriate for each application. Note that an application does not need to be
strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact
and thus deserve a meritorious priority score. For example, an investigator may
propose to carry out important work that by its nature is not innovative but is
essential to move a field forward.
Significance: Does this study address an important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge or clinical practice be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
In addition, specific to this FOA. Does this application address important cancer-related health disparities problem(s) in their targeted population? In particular, what has been and will be the effect of the proposed studies on addressing cancer-related health disparities in their targeted population? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will the proposed collaborative undertaking advance scientific knowledge?
Approach: Are the conceptual or clinical framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, well reasoned, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?
In addition, specific to this FOA:
A. Progress Report:
B. Future Research Plans. Has the applicant analyzed the current CDRP program to determine areas of strengths and weaknesses? Does their research plan adequately address/propose implementation of new strategies or modification of current procedures for overall improvement of program efficiency, effectiveness, and its likelihood for sustainability and eventual application to become a CCOP or MB-CCOP at the end of the U54 phase?
Innovation: Is the project original and innovative? For example: Does the project challenge existing paradigms or clinical practice; address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in the field? Does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools, or technologies for this area?
Investigators: Are the investigators appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and other researchers? Does the investigative team bring complementary and integrated expertise to the project (if applicable)?
In addition, specific to this FOA. Are the qualifications and experience of the collaborating investigators adequate to provide strong programmatic (e.g., scientific) and administrative leadership? Are the qualifications and experience of other key personnel of the applicant and the mentor partners adequate to successfully implement and achieve the objectives of the U54 activities proposed? Do letters of commitment from their research collaborators support the priorities and objectives of the plan for the collaborative partnership?
Environment: Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Does the proposed work take advantage of the unique features of the scientific environment or employ useful collaborative arrangements? How would resource/infrastructure provide long-term stability to the activities of the partnership? Is there evidence of institutional support?
In addition, specific to this FOA. Core Resources. Does the Telesynergy® telemedicine resource provided in the U56 planning phase been effectively and efficiently used to support their proposed research activities to achieve the goals of its application? Is each specialized resource justified as essential for the conduct of proposed research? Are the qualifications of the IT manager adequate?
Additional Review Criteria
In addition to the above criteria, the following items will continue to be considered in the determination of scientific merit and the rating:
Protection of Human Subjects from Research Risk: The involvement of human
subjects and protections from research risk relating to their participation in
the proposed research will be assessed (see the Research Plan section on Human
Subjects in the PHS 398 instructions).
Inclusion of Women, Minorities and Children in Research: The adequacy of plans to include subjects from both genders, all racial and ethnic groups (and subgroups), and children as appropriate for the scientific goals of the research will be assessed. Plans for the recruitment and retention of subjects will also be evaluated (see the Research Plan section on Human Subjects in the PHS 398 instructions).
Care and Use of Vertebrate Animals in Research: If vertebrate animals are to be used in the project, the five points described in the Vertebrate Animals section of the Research Plan will be assessed.
Biohazards: If materials or procedures are proposed that are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, determine if the proposed protection is adequate.
2.B. Additional Review Considerations
Budget: The reasonableness of the proposed budget and the requested period of support in relation to the proposed research. The priority score should not be affected by the evaluation of the budget.
2.C. Resource Sharing Plan(s)
When relevant, reviewers will be instructed to comment on the reasonableness of the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources. However, reviewers will not factor the proposed resource sharing plan(s) into the determination of scientific merit or priority score, unless noted otherwise in the FOA. Program staff within the NCI will be responsible for monitoring the resource sharing.
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award
Not Applicable.
Section VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons.
If the application is under consideration for funding,
NIH will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant. For
details, applicants may refer to the NIH
Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards,
Subpart A: General.
of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any
costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These
costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award
costs. See Also Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions.
formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be
provided to the applicant organization. The NoA signed by the grants management
officer is the authorizing document. Once all administrative and programmatic
issues have been resolved, the NoA will be generated via email notification
from the awarding component to the grantee business official (designated in
item 12 on the Application Face Page). If a grantee is not email enabled, a
hard copy of the NoA will be mailed to the business official.
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General (https://grants.nih.gov/archive/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/index.htm) and Part II Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities (https://grants.nih.gov/archive/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/index.htm).
The following Terms and Conditions will be incorporated into the award statement and will be provided to the Principal Investigator as well as to the appropriate institutional official, at the time of award.
Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award
The following special terms of award are in addition to, and not in lieu of, otherwise applicable OMB administrative guidelines, HHS grant administration regulations at 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92 (Part 92 is applicable when State and local Governments are eligible to apply), and other HHS, PHS, and NIH grant administration policies.
The administrative and funding instrument used for this program will be the cooperative agreement an "assistance" mechanism (rather than an "acquisition" mechanism), in which substantial NIH programmatic involvement with the awardees is anticipated during the performance of the activities. Under the cooperative agreement, the NIH purpose is to support and stimulate the recipients' activities by involvement in and otherwise working jointly with the award recipients in a partnership role; it is not to assume direction, prime responsibility, or a dominant role in the activities. Consistent with this concept, the dominant role and prime responsibility resides with the awardees for the project as a whole, although specific tasks and activities may be shared among the awardees and the NIH as defined below.
Throughout these Terms and Conditions of Award, the Cancer Disparities Research Partnership (CDRP) refers to all individual CDRP awardees. All the awardee institutions, principal investigators (PDs/PIs) and other key personnel (including collaborating investigators and institutions) must agree to collaborate on the goals of the CDRP Program and adhere to these Terms and Conditions of Award.
2. A.1. Awardees and Principal Investigator Rights and Responsibilities
The PD/PI(s) will have the primary responsibility to define objectives and approaches, and to plan, conduct, analyze, and publish results, interpretations, and conclusions of their studies. The PD/PI(s) assume(s) responsibility and accountability to the applicant organization officials and to the NCI for the performance and proper conduct of the NCI-CDRP program supported by the U54 in accordance with these terms and conditions of the award. The PI and Co-investigators are expected to contribute at least 10% of his/her time to the CDRP grant effort. A strong rationale must be provided (in budget justification) for commitment of less than 10%.
Specific rights and responsibilities will include the following:
2. A.2. NIH Responsibilities
A designated NCI Program Director acting as a Project Scientist will have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below. The NCI Project Scientist will not attend peer review meetings of renewal (competing continuation) and/or supplemental applications. If such participation is essential, these individuals will seek NCI waiver according to the NCI procedures for management of conflict of interest.
A Program Official may also have substantial programmatic involvement (e.g., as a Project Scientist or Coordinator). In that case, the individual involved will not attend peer review meetings of renewal (competing continuation) and/or supplemental applications, or will seek NCI waiver.
The main NCI responsibilities pertinent to CDRP program include the following activities:
2.A.3. Collaborative Responsibilities
A. The Program Steering Committee (PSC). The NCI Project Scientist and the PD/PIs of the CDRP awards will be responsible for forming a Program Steering Committee (PSC), the main governing board of the CDRP program. The PSC will make strategic decisions with regard to goals and research implementation, including the establishment of shared resources and the development of collaborations within the CDRP.
2.A.4. Arbitration Process
disagreements that may arise in scientific or programmatic matters (within the
scope of the award) between award recipients and the NIH may be brought to
arbitration. An Arbitration Panel composed of three members will be convened.
It will have three members: a designee of the Steering Committee chosen without
NIH staff voting, one NIH designee, and a third designee with expertise in the
relevant area who is chosen by the other two; in the case of individual
disagreement, the first member may be chosen by the individual awardee. This
special arbitration procedure in no way affects the awardee's right to appeal
an adverse action that is otherwise appealable in accordance with PHS
regulations 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D and HHS regulations 45 CFR Part 16.
3. Reporting
Awardees will be required to submit the Non-Competing Continuation Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Reporting by U54 research awardees
In addition to the standard information about research accomplishments (as required by the PHS 2590 instructions, https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/2590/phs2590.doc#_Toc186430767, Section 2.2.6 "Progress Report Summary"), U54 research project awardees will be required to include in their PHS 2590 Reports information on:
A final progress report, invention statement, and Financial Status Report are required when an award is relinquished when a recipient changes institutions or when an award is terminated.
encourage your inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the
opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants. Inquiries may fall
into three areas: scientific/research; peer review; and financial or grants
management issues:
1. Scientific/Research Contacts:
Rosemary S. L. Wong, Ph.D.
Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis
National Cancer Institute
6130 Executive Boulevard, EPN Room 6016, MSC 7440
Bethesda, MD 20892-7440 (for U.S. Postal Service regular or express mail)
Rockville, MD 20852 (for non-USPS delivery)
Telephone: (301) 496-9362
Fax: (301) 380-5785
Email: email@example.com
2. Peer Review Contacts:
Referral Officer
Division of Extramural Activities
National Cancer Institute
6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8041, MSC 8329
Bethesda, MD 20892-8329 (for U.S. Postal Service regular or express mail)
Rockville, MD 20852 (for non-USPS delivery)
Telephone: (301) 496-3428
Fax: (301) 402-0275
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
3. Financial or Grants Management
Alice Wong
Office of Grants Administration
National Cancer Institute
6120 Executive Boulevard, Room 243P, MSC 7150
Bethesda, MD 20892-7150
Rockville, MD 20852 (for non-USPS delivery)
Telephone: (301) 496-9312
Fax: (301) 496-8601
Email: email@example.com
Section VIII. Other Information
Required Federal Citations
Use of Animals in Research:
Recipients of PHS support for activities involving live, vertebrate animals must comply with PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/PHSPolicyLabAnimals.pdf) as mandated by the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/hrea1985.htm), and the USDA Animal Welfare Regulations (http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm) as applicable.
Human Subjects Protection:
Federal regulations (45CFR46) require that applications and proposals involving human subjects must be evaluated with reference to the risks to the subjects, the adequacy of protection against these risks, the potential benefits of the research to the subjects and others, and the importance of the knowledge gained or to be gained (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm).
Data and Safety Monitoring Plan:
Data and safety monitoring is required for all types of clinical trials, including physiologic toxicity and dose-finding studies (phase I); efficacy studies (Phase II); efficacy, effectiveness and comparative trials (Phase III). Monitoring should be commensurate with risk. The establishment of data and safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) is required for multi-site clinical trials involving interventions that entail potential risks to the participants (NIH Policy for Data and Safety Monitoring, NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not98-084.html).
Sharing Research Data:
Investigators submitting an NIH application seeking $500,000 or more in direct costs in any single year are expected to include a plan for data sharing or state why this is not possible (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing).
Investigators should seek guidance from their institutions, on issues related to institutional policies and local IRB rules, as well as local, State and Federal laws and regulations, including the Privacy Rule. Reviewers will consider the data sharing plan but will not factor the plan into the determination of the scientific merit or the priority score.
Policy for Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS):
NIH is interested in advancing genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to identify common genetic factors that influence health and disease through a centralized GWAS data repository. For the purposes of this policy, a genome-wide association study is defined as any study of genetic variation across the entire human genome that is designed to identify genetic associations with observable traits (such as blood pressure or weight), or the presence or absence of a disease or condition. All applications, regardless of the amount requested, proposing a genome-wide association study are expected to provide a plan for submission of GWAS data to the NIH-designated GWAS data repository, or provide an appropriate explanation why submission to the repository is not possible. Data repository management (submission and access) is governed by the Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained in NIH Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies, NIH Guide NOT-OD-07-088. For additional information, see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/gwas/
to Research Data through the Freedom of Information Act:
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 has been revised to provide access to research data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) under some circumstances. Data that are (1) first produced in a project that is supported in whole or in part with Federal funds and (2) cited publicly and officially by a Federal agency in support of an action that has the force and effect of law (i.e., a regulation) may be accessed through FOIA. It is important for applicants to understand the basic scope of this amendment. NIH has provided guidance at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/a110/a110_guidance_dec1999.htm. Applicants may wish to place data collected under this funding opportunity in a public archive, which can provide protections for the data and manage the distribution for an indefinite period of time. If so, the application should include a description of the archiving plan in the study design and include information about this in the budget justification section of the application. In addition, applicants should think about how to structure informed consent statements and other human subjects procedures given the potential for wider use of data collected under this award.
Sharing of Model Organisms:
NIH is committed to support efforts that encourage sharing of important research resources including the sharing of model organisms for biomedical research (see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/model_organism/index.htm). At the same time the NIH recognizes the rights of grantees and contractors to elect and retain title to subject inventions developed with Federal funding pursuant to the Bayh Dole Act (see the NIH Grants Policy Statement https://grants.nih.gov/archive/archive/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/index.htm). All investigators submitting an NIH application or contract proposal, beginning with the October 1, 2004 receipt date, are expected to include in the application/proposal a description of a specific plan for sharing and distributing unique model organism research resources generated using NIH funding or state why such sharing is restricted or not possible. This will permit other researchers to benefit from the resources developed with public funding. The inclusion of a model organism sharing plan is not subject to a cost threshold in any year and is expected to be included in all applications where the development of model organisms is anticipated.
Inclusion of Women And Minorities in Clinical Research:
It is the policy of the NIH that women and members of minority groups and their sub-populations must be included in all NIH-supported clinical research projects unless a clear and compelling justification is provided indicating that inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects or the purpose of the research. This policy results from the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (Section 492B of Public Law 103-43). All investigators proposing clinical research should read the "NIH Guidelines for Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-001.html); a complete copy of the updated Guidelines is available at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_amended_10_2001.htm. The amended policy incorporates: the use of an NIH definition of clinical research; updated racial and ethnic categories in compliance with the new OMB standards; clarification of language governing NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials consistent with the new PHS Form 398; and updated roles and responsibilities of NIH staff and the extramural community. The policy continues to require for all NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials that: a) all applications or proposals and/or protocols must provide a description of plans to conduct analyses, as appropriate, to address differences by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic groups, including subgroups if applicable; and b) investigators must report annual accrual and progress in conducting analyses, as appropriate, by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic group differences.
Inclusion of Children as Participants in Clinical Research:
The NIH maintains a policy that children (i.e., individuals under the age of 21) must be included in all clinical research, conducted or supported by the NIH, unless there are scientific and ethical reasons not to include them.
All investigators proposing research involving human subjects should read the "NIH Policy and Guidelines" on the inclusion of children as participants in research involving human subjects (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/children/children.htm).
Required Education on the Protection of Human Subject Participants:
NIH policy requires education on the protection of human subject participants for all investigators submitting NIH applications for research involving human subjects and individuals designated as key personnel. The policy is available at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-039.html.
Human Embryonic Stem Cells (hESC):
Criteria for federal funding of research on hESCs can be found at http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp and at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-005.html. Only research using hESC lines that are registered in the NIH Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry will be eligible for Federal funding (http://escr.nih.gov). It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide in the project description and elsewhere in the application as appropriate, the official NIH identifier(s) for the hESC line(s) to be used in the proposed research. Applications that do not provide this information will be returned without review.
NIH Public Access Policy Requirement:
In accordance with the NIH Public Access Policy (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-033.html) investigators must submit or have submitted for them their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts that arise from NIH funds and are accepted for publication as of April 7, 2008 to PubMed Central (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/), to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after publication. As of May 27, 2008, investigators must include the PubMed Central reference number when citing an article in NIH applications, proposals, and progress reports that fall under the policy, and was authored or co-authored by the investigator or arose from the investigator's NIH award. For more information, see the Public Access webpage at http://publicaccess.nih.gov/.
for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information:
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issued final modification to the "Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information", the "Privacy Rule", on August 14, 2002. The Privacy Rule is a federal regulation under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 that governs the protection of individually identifiable health information, and is administered and enforced by the DHHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
Decisions about applicability and implementation of the Privacy Rule reside with the researcher and his/her institution. The OCR website (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/) provides information on the Privacy Rule, including a complete Regulation Text and a set of decision tools on "Am I a covered entity?" Information on the impact of the HIPAA Privacy Rule on NIH processes involving the review, funding, and progress monitoring of grants, cooperative agreements, and research contracts can be found at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-025.html.
URLs in NIH Grant Applications or Appendices:
All applications and proposals for NIH funding must be self-contained within specified page limitations. For publications listed in the appendix and/or Progress report, internet addresses (URLs) must be used for publicly accessible on-line journal articles. Unless otherwise specified in this solicitation, Internet addresses (URLs) should not be used to provide any other information necessary for the review because reviewers are under no obligation to view the Internet sites. Furthermore, we caution reviewers that their anonymity may be compromised when they directly access an Internet site.
Healthy People 2010:
The Public Health Service (PHS) is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of "Healthy People 2010," a PHS-led national activity for setting priority areas. This FOA is related to one or more of the priority areas. Potential applicants may obtain a copy of "Healthy People 2010" at http://www.health.gov/healthypeople.
Authority and Regulations:
This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance at http://www.cfda.gov/ and is not subject to the intergovernmental review requirements of Executive Order 12372. Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. The NIH Grants Policy Statement can be found at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/policy.htm.
The PHS strongly encourages all grant recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and discourage the use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of a facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the PHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.
Loan Repayment Programs:
NIH encourages applications for educational loan repayment from qualified health professionals who have made a commitment to pursue a research career involving clinical, pediatric, contraception, infertility, and health disparities related areas. The LRP is an important component of NIH's efforts to recruit and retain the next generation of researchers by providing the means for developing a research career unfettered by the burden of student loan debt. Note that an NIH grant is not required for eligibility and concurrent career award and LRP applications are encouraged. The periods of career award and LRP award may overlap providing the LRP recipient with the required commitment of time and effort, as LRP awardees must commit at least 50% of their time (at least 20 hours per week based on a 40 hour week) for two years to the research. For further information, please see: http://www.lrp.nih.gov.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
Office of Extramural
Research (OER)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Maryland 20892
Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS)
Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.


text:
ann1037 — Announcement
New Mode for VLT's NACO to Image Exoplanets
6 July 2010
An international collaboration of astronomers has recently commissioned a new observing mode for the NACO adaptive optics instrument attached to ESO's Very Large Telescope (VLT) on Paranal. The new capability counteracts the effects of diffraction of light very close to a bright star, enabling astronomers to see very faint nearby objects.
The prime example of the kind of objects that can be searched for with the new VLT observing mode, called the Apodising Phase Plate (APP), are Jupiter-like gas giant planets that could be lurking around Sun-like stars in our galaxy. The new mode enables astronomers to search for planets closer to the star than has been previously possible.
As a demonstration of the power of the APP technique, a team led by Matthew Kenworthy, Sascha Quanz, and Michael Meyer have confirmed the recent detection of the giant exoplanet around the star Beta Pictoris (eso1024; led by A.-M. Lagrange, Grenoble), adding precious information on the orbit and nature of the planet.
"We were very excited to see such a clear detection of the Beta Pictoris planet," says Sascha Quanz, lead author of a paper in preparation describing the detection. "This new 'coronagraphic' capability proved itself on the second night of the commissioning run, simultaneously demonstrating its ease of use and the ability to image planets near their host stars."
"Our ability to confirm the fantastic new results concerning Beta Pictoris was a tremendous boost for the APP effort. We look forward to seeing many astronomers exploiting this new capability on the VLT," adds co-author and Principal Investigator of the APP Michael Meyer.
Commissioned and tested at the ESO VLT in April 2010, one of the unique properties of the new mode is that it does not require any special alignment with the target star, making it simple to use for other astronomers at the VLT. The theory of this type of coronagraph was developed by Johanan Codona (Steward Observatory, University of Arizona) and initially tested by Kenworthy.
"Many other coronagraphs use two optical components working together to suppress the starlight from a target star," says Kenworthy. "The APP uses only one optical component, which makes it simple to use for sensitive exoplanet searches very close to the star."
Its ease of use will enable the detection not only of exoplanets, but of other faint extended structures around young stars and quasars.
The team includes Matthew Kenworthy (Leiden Observatory), Sascha Quanz and Michael Meyer (ETH Zurich, Institute for Astronomy) Markus Kasper (ESO Garching, Germany), Rainer Lenzen (Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, Heidelberg, Germany), Julien Girard (ESO Santiago, Chile), and Philip Hinz (Steward Observatory, Tucson Arizona, USA).
Sascha P. Quanz and Michael R. Meyer
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH)
Phone: +41 44 633 28 30, +41 44 633 44 50
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.com
Matthew Kenworthy
Sterrewacht Leiden, The Netherlands
Phone: +31(0)71 527 8455
Email: email@example.com
Markus Kasper
Garching, Germany
Tel: +49 89 3200 6359
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Henri Boffin
ESO, La Silla, Paranal and E-ELT Press Officer
Garching, Germany
Tel: +49 89 3200 6222
Cell: +49 174 515 43 24
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
About the Announcement


text:
As I explained last year, Chinese food is the traditional Jewish meal for Christmas. Typically combined with a movie, on Christmas Jews go out to a Chinese restaurant when others are opening presents, going to church, and having a big meal.
One of my favorite Chinese food memories is visiting the tic-tac-toe playing chicken in New York's Chinatown.
Off in an arcade was — yes! — a chicken who would play tic-tac-toe. And it never, ever lost.
The chicken always got to go first and then people who had deposited the requisite number of coins for the privilege of playing the chicken would go next
When I would go to Chinatown with my family, we went into a hole in the wall place that had some menu items advertised on big sheets of paper with Chinese lettering on it. That was the way to get a great meal. Then we usually picked up something at a Chinese food market or bakery and stopped by this amazing arcade.
By the way, we didn't get our Christmas Chinese food in Chinatown. It wasn't that close to home and would have required driving through a lot of traffic. But my memories of Chinese food, kindled by Christmas, are linked to the tic-tac-toe playing chickens.
But there is no tic-tac-toe playing chicken in Chinatown anymore.
According to a 2009 story in the NY Daily News, Lily, the last tic-tac-toe playing chicken, went to a farm in 1998. It explains:
According to a story in the New Yorker from 1999, chickens were trained in Hot Springs Arkansas, by Animal Behavior Enterprises, started by Keller and Marian Breland, both psychologists. After Keller's death, Marian married animal trainer Bob Brailey. Dr. Marian Bailey was one of B. F. Skinner's earliest graduate students.
The article casts this as a rescue of Lily, but I think the bird might have really liked the attention it got in the arcade.


text:
April 18, 2010
Don't Fight It
8 comments:
- laura k said...
Thanks for the laugh. We all need it.
- April 18, 2010 at 3:53 PM
- andy said...
yes good post.
on another note...i came over here to share this...my cousin just shared it...
david foster wallace interview.
you may have seen it but hey...
- April 18, 2010 at 4:55 PM
- Noah said...
- April 18, 2010 at 5:14 PM
- laura k said...
So we have two Andys now. Can't remember what I'd Do Him Andy's avatar is, if anything.
- April 18, 2010 at 5:30 PM
- allan said...
I have seen that, thanks. I saw it when it was one big undownloadable file. Now it's in 10 YouTube sized chunks! Woo-hoo!
I see why it never ran. You'd go nuts editing that thing with all of DFW's stop and starts and facial contortions!
There is a great short bit in there about why he thinks music is played everyfuckingwhere you go. Drug store, car repair shop, doctor waiting room, piped outside onto the sidewalk outside of stores ...
- April 18, 2010 at 5:32 PM
- wardo said...
Hopefully this cartoon will snap us out of this skid. I'll take anything at this point.
- April 18, 2010 at 6:38 PM
- SoSock said...
I keep visualizing the doctor on "Lost in Space" wringing his hands and saying "Oh, woe is me. Woooooe is me!"
- April 19, 2010 at 5:01 AM
- Pokerwolf said...
There's a very easy way to get Sox fans to stop complaining about an early season skid. Tell them the truth. Honestly, if they keep it up, they'll sound like Yankees fans.
- April 19, 2010 at 2:33 PM


text:
Cart 0Shopping Cart
The Emmi-Ultrasonic Team
To achieve your goals our professional Emmi-Ultrasonic staff can be contacted anytime. Our customer service for questions and suggestions is available by phone +49 (0)6105-40 67 94 or send us an email to the firstname.lastname@example.com
Your Emmi-Ultrasonic Team: Stjepan Bijuklic, Sabrina De Leon, Markus Gerhardt, Sabrina Sumann, Matthias Tribula, Claudia Zwahr und Alexander Chwalek.
Emmi-Ultrasonic Team - After all, your success is our success.


text:
ET Pro is a mod specifically targeted at competition play, with features specifically designed for administration of competition servers. ET Pro has been chosen as the official tournament mod for STA, TWL, CAL, Clanbase, and ESL. The official IRC channel for ET Pro is #etpro on irc.freenode.net The ET Pro development team would like to extend thanks to the following who contributed significantly to the development of 2.0.0, without their help ET Pro would not be where it is today! ]eVe[LT_Winters, Skrappa[DSA], and STA League for 'keeping the faith' The players of clan [BoD] and =EFG= for testing and valuable input Clan [FuN] for hosting ET Pro servers in the UK Lot-Blue, Lot-Warpath, and everyone at TWL who helped with testing and bug reports Clan |NE| for managing to always break stuff in astonishing ways ikkyo for help with 1337 shader tricks fretn for help with multiview zinx for fixing the fireteam4 shader digibob for being teh silleh Activision for supporting our ET
No reviews were found matching the criteria specified. We suggest you try the review list with no filter applied, to browse all available. Join now to share your own content, we welcome creators and consumers alike and look forward to your comments.


text:
Let's do some trash talking.
How do four bags of groceries turn into six bags of trash?
Let's do some trash talking.
How do four bags of groceries turn into six bags of trash? The laws of physics don't seem to apply. I know that the empty cereal boxes and cracker containers do not contract even though their contents have been consumed. Similarly, cans and bottles also retain their physical dimensions. But what about the cellophane-wrapped goods like bread, which disappears and leaves only .0001 of an inch of cellophane? Doesn't that help reduce the physical size of the trash? Surely, there must be some simple explanation for the imbalance in my kitchen import-export ratio.
I am painfully aware of this discrepancy when I take my usual truckload of trash to the recycling station, aka the dump. The rules of recycling are very specific: Protons in this bin, electrons in that one. Neutrons can be deposited in the Dumpster, but they cannot be bundled or tied with string. But, seriously, one can spend 20 minutes walking from barrel to bin along recyclables row separating green glass from brown glass.
Also, many of the recyclers I see when the transfer station opens at 7 a.m. on a Saturday all sport gray hair. Why are these guys there so early? Is it because "sleeping in" for a baby boomer means not getting out of bed until 5:30? I seem to fit right in with the boomers in their tennis shoes and blue jeans. Soon, I'll be watching "Matlock" reruns and calling those 800 numbers to buy the 21-CD set of music from the 1960s. (Why do 90 percent of the TV offers have an Atlanta address?)
Next Saturday I'm thinking of wearing a pair of straight-legged tapered jeans with a golf shirt and a corduroy sports jacket and high stepping in a pair of moccasins tied with rawhide. No one would notice because they are trapped like trilobites in amber in their own "Jurassic Park" of fashion.
Unlike the other boomers at the dump, however, I can still back my truck up without using the side mirrors. I'm very proud of my mobility and happy that I can swing an arm over the passenger seat, look over my right shoulder and guide my truck into the grass and branches area without requiring signalmen or rear-deck TV camera.
But back to the bulk. About 30 years ago, trash compactors were all the rage. I don't know why that brilliant idea turned to compost but I suspect safety may have been an issue. Crushing cans and plastic containers that split into sharp shards was a problem for some of the early compactors. And contrary to the early doctrine of Earth Day, compactors were used to squash objects that should have been recycled. Many people were tossing paper, rock, and scissors in their compactors and creating one congealed mega-mass.
Now, the recycling areas have railroad car sized dumpster-compactors that could crush a limousine into a 3-foot cube. But if you were to follow the instructions for these, the only things you would throw into them would be lettuce and other garden greens. Everything else is recyclable.
None if this helps me with my Big Bang universe of trash. I guess I should take the time and cut up all the cardboard boxes, flatten the cans and recycle everything including dust. Then, I could turn on the "Matlock" marathon.
Peter Costa is a senior editor with Community Newspaper Company. His book, "CostaLiving: Laughing through Life," a collection of his humor columns, is available at amazon.com and at Barnes & Noble bookstores.


text:
MIAMI — Kara Adanalian of Fresno, CA, took top honors in the Del Monte Fresh "Find Your Inner Chef" competition, besting runner-up Karen Gulkin of Greeley, CO, in a cook off held at the Miami Culinary Institute, here.
"The cook off event was as exciting to witness as it was to judge the entire span of the contest from launch to today's cooking competition," said Dennis Christou, vice president of marketing, North America, for Del Monte Fresh, based in Coral Gables, FL. "We're amazed at each finalist's culinary skills and at their creativity in using specific ingredients such as our Del Monte fresh fruits and vegetables during this intense competition."
Christou told The Produce News that the goal of the contest was to try to get fresh fruits and vegetables more integrated into everyday life.
"Consumers want ideas about how to use fresh fruits and vegetables, so we thought this would be a great idea to introduce people who regularly use them," he said. "At Del Monte, we are trying to become more relevant to consumers, and this contest was a way to do that, and it was extremely successful. We hope to build on this in the future."


text:
National Christian Foundation - Smart Christian giving since 1982: that's the simple concept behind The National Christian Foundation (NCF). Founded in 1982 by Larry Burkett, Ron Blue, and Terry Parker, NCF and their nationwide network of Local Christian Foundation (LCF) affiliates have granted more than $4.8 billion to over 30,000 churches and ministries worldwide.
For more information, go to the website.


text:
GALILEO provides content-rich nonfiction, text complexity tools, and a robust collection of informational texts to engage your students and help them become career- and college-ready.
For resources to help you support your students' learning, see our list of Elementary Educator Resources.×
GALILEO is Georgia's Statewide Virtual Library, available through schools, public libraries, and higher education institutions. GALILEO Elementary features subscription-only resources that are purchased by the State of Georgia specifically for your elementary-aged student. Unlike most websites found in a Google or Internet search, resources in GALILEO are age-appropriate, credible, and authoritative.
A password is required for access to licensed GALILEO resources from home. Ask your school media specialist or librarian for the current password, which changes four times a year. No password is needed to access from school networks. See the GALILEO Access Policies for more information about the password change schedule.×