text:
Return to Transcripts main page
Myanmar Death Toll Could Top 100,000; Game Over For Hillary Clinton?
Aired May 7, 2008 - 22:00 ET
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: A lot of politics ahead tonight, but we begin with breaking news on a disaster that is simply hard to imagine. The death toll once believed to be 10,000 in Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, is now estimated to be 100,000 -- 100,000 men, women and children swept away by a massive cyclone. This is new video tonight of the cyclone as it came through. The new death toll comes from a U.S. diplomat inside Burma. Tonight, a massive global relief effort is under way, but the paranoid and reclusive military government appears to be denying visas to relief agencies, reportedly taking in a limited amount of food and supplies, but trying to keep aid workers out. While that unfolds, as many as a million Burmese now have no place to live. We do have a correspondent on the ground tonight inside Burma. We're trying to establish contact with him. When we do, we will go to him live. Now Hillary Clinton and the question: Is it game over? She failed to win big in Indiana and got hammed in North Carolina. Now she's got a bigger delegate problem than ever, a growing superdelegate problem, a money problem, and she's quickly running out of viable solutions. We have got new details tonight on all of it, including the one commodity she doesn't have a problem with, the will to keep going. The "Raw Politics" now from CNN's Candy Crowley. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Hillary Clinton is gutsy, tireless and in West Virginia. SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: West Virginia is one of those so-called swing states. Democrats need to win it in the fall. I want to start by winning it in the spring. CROWLEY: She wasn't supposed to go to West Virginia today. But then last night the punditry pronounced her toast, and she needed to rewrite the headline. This one reads, not yet. H. CLINTON: So, it's a new day. It's new state. It's a new election. CROWLEY: She leads in West Virginia, so it's not a problem. Most everything else is. Clinton had to lend her campaign more than $6 million recently. And a new e-mail urgently asks for donations. "We have never campaigned with the stakes as high or the time as short -- maybe shorter than she wants. George McGovern, whose ties to the Clintons date back to McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign, has switched his support to Barack Obama. It's worse than that. He called on Clinton to get out of the race. GEORGE MCGOVERN, FORMER DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: It seems that now is the time for us to think seriously about unifying the party behind a single candidate. CROWLEY: McGovern says he talked to Bill Clinton about this, and there was no yelling. She put on her game face. H. CLINTON: Well, I respect him, and he has a right to make whatever decision he makes. I was pleased today to get Heath Shuler's endorsement. CROWLEY: McGovern is a psychological blow, but he is not a superdelegate. Senator Dianne Feinstein is, and she is a Clinton supporter. She told reporters today: (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), CALIFORNIA: I think the race is reaching a point where there are negative dividends from it in terms of strife within the party. (END AUDIO CLIP) CROWLEY: It is a simple sentence and an ominous sign for Clinton. Clinton wants to try to close the delegate gap with Obama. She needs more time while she argues other equations... H. CLINTON: Look, if we had the rules that the Republicans have, I would already be the nominee. CROWLEY: ... and other criteria. H. CLINTON: We should stay focused on nominating the stronger candidate against Senator McCain and who would be the best president. CROWLEY: She met privately today with a group of superdelegates, pushing her case, asking for more time. Though not in that group, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is on board with that. REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I believe that the races must continue. The people should all have the opportunity to speak as long as two candidates wish to compete. CROWLEY: By this evening, Clinton was at a fund-raiser in Washington. Headline? Still standing. H. CLINTON: I am staying in this race, because I believe... (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) H. CLINTON: I believe that I would be the best president and that I'm the stronger candidate against John McCain. Do you know how difficult it is for women to stand up and say we are the best at anything? CROWLEY: Barack Obama picked up another four superdelegates today. His campaign is beginning to put together a fall strategy. (END VIDEOTAPE) COOPER: And, Candy, what are you hearing from superdelegates about what they want Clinton to do? CROWLEY: It's really interesting. They want to give her some space, Anderson. I talked to 10 or so superdelegates, some of them pledged to her, most of them unpledged at this point, who said, listen, she's run this race for a year-and-a-half. We need to give her some space here. If she wants to continue this campaign, we're talking, what, three weeks. I didn't find anyone saying -- I did find one person saying, you know what? It's time. Let's get this done. But most of them said, play it out. We're talking June 3. Let her add up those pledged delegates and then decide. So, I didn't see any major rush to push her out. COOPER: Interesting. Candy, thanks. Now some new answers to the question of: Why? Why won't Senator Clinton quit? What keeps her going? What's in it for her, both in the primary and perhaps in the general election as a running mate? With that, CNN's Tom Foreman up close. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): With the odds of beating Obama looking so bad, with other Democrats wanting her out, with her money running low, why won't Clinton quit? Her husband has offered one answer. BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: My family is not big on quitting. FOREMAN: But there are plenty of reasons to keep running. One, she could catch a break. The uproar over Pastor Jeremiah Wright hurt Obama. If a worse problem emerged, and poisoned his campaign, the superdelegates would almost certainly give her the nomination, especially if she's the last candidate standing. Two, she could trade her exit from the race for a share of the power. It's risky, but some Democratic insiders believe that is in play right now. CNN contributor Carl Bernstein. CARL BERNSTEIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: They think that she will seek the vice presidency and that -- perhaps force Obama to take her, because she will still have some bragging rights, and Obama might have no choice. FOREMAN: And, three, raising money to pay off mounting campaign debts is hard for a wannabe president, but harder for a used-to-be candidate. And as long as she is running: JEANNE CUMMINGS, LOBBYING AND MONEY CORRESPONDENT, POLITICO.COM: It's also possible Barack Obama would help her do that, and that would allow her to exit the scene a little quicker, which might be something he would like to encourage. FOREMAN (on camera): Clinton supporters want her to stay in the race, because she promised she would, and they still believe in her. For the candidate herself, however, the motivation may be much more complex. H. CLINTON: Thank you all. FOREMAN: remember, she fought for health care reform years ago, long after many others said the battle was lost. And she clearly thought, somehow, she could still win. Tom Foreman, CNN, Washington. (END VIDEOTAPE) COOPER: And her supporters say, keep on going. As always, I'm blogging along throughout the hour, along with a lot of sleepy people, who stayed up with us all last night. To join the conversation, go to CNN.com/360. Up next, we're digging deeper with our panel, David Gergen, Joe Klein, and radio talk show host Joe Madison. And, later, John King maps out the options for each candidate at the magic map. And more on our breaking news: the cyclone crisis in Burma -- the death toll now believed to be 100,000 people. So, the question is, how come the government there isn't opening up its borders for relief agencies? We have a reporter inside. We're trying to establish contact him. We will take you there live -- when 360 continues. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) H. CLINTON: I'm staying in this race until there's a nominee, and I obviously am going to work as hard as I can to become that nominee. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Hillary Clinton on the trail today in West Virginia, where she's the heavy favorite in next week's primary. That's true. As a North Vietnamese general famously once said about American military victories in his country, true, he said, but also irrelevant. So, is that the case this time? And, if it is, what are Senator Clinton's options? Digging deeper tonight, CNN senior political analyst David Gergen, radio talk show host Joe Madison, and "TIME" magazine's Joe Klein. His piece inside the upcoming issue is titled "The Game- Changer." David, let's start with you. Clinton met with undeclared superdelegates this afternoon in Washington. She's loaned her campaign more than $6 million, we have learned. Is it over for her? DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, she declared last night that, you know, she wanted -- full steam ahead. And her problem is, she's run out of track. It's just hard to know what path she can pursue that -- that would get her there. There was an interesting shift, I thought, last night in the commentary, Anderson, as -- at -- early in the evening, it appeared she had won Indiana by a fairly substantial margin, and was moving badly in North Carolina. But, as Indiana really tightened up last night, late night, the commentary shift, and there was a real -- there's been a real sense in the last 20 -- or 18 hours or so that it is basically over, that he is the presumptive nominee, and the only issue for her is whether she is going to find ways to -- you know, is it -- whether somebody is going to turn against him, the bottom is going to drop out unexpectedly, which we have no indications of that whatsoever. So... (CROSSTALK) COOPER: Joe Klein, is that what they're hoping for, that something else comes up? JOE KLEIN, COLUMNIST, "TIME": Yes. I mean, in talking to some Clinton supporters, people close to the campaign, they believe that there's more stuff out there, perhaps about the relationship with Reverend Wright. But I remember, in 1992, when Bill Clinton was running, the entire press corps was waiting for the story about Bill Clinton's cocaine use that was going to come out in "The L.A. Times," and it never happened. So, there are always rumors. And, aside from those rumors, I don't see what else she has going for her. COOPER: That's really what it boils down to, unless there's some sort of train wreck in the Obama campaign? KLEIN: Absolutely. I mean, that's what all the math says. That's what everything says. I don't see her winning West Virginia 93-5. COOPER: So, you think it's effectively over for her? KLEIN: I'm not -- it looks that way, but, as people said in the earlier block, it's only three weeks to go. Sooner or later, it will be over. And I think that you can't -- in these sort of situations, remember how adamant John Edwards was about staying in this race until the convention, until the convention, the day before he dropped out? I mean, politicians, until it's certain, are going to give the appearance of certainty. COOPER: We heard, Joe Madison, from Dianne Feinstein today, who expressed -- questioned whether Clinton should remain in the race, even -- when there's an ardent supporter like Dianne Feinstein raising these questions, what does that say? JOE MADISON, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, she was very cautious in her statement. And it was a very measured statement. But I think what it says is that these superdelegates, most are -- have constituents. They know that their constituencies are weary. They're tired of this. COOPER: What are you hearing from your own constituency, from your listeners? MADISON: Well, let me tell you. Let me you what I'm hearing from my listeners. One is that, if these superdelegates, somehow, by hook or crook, take this away from Obama, they're going to sit out. They're going to politically disengage. Now, I don't think that's the wise thing to do, but that's exactly what I'm hearing. I'm also hearing... COOPER: Are your -- the people you're hearing this, are you hearing from African-Americans? Are you hearing from... MADISON: Basically African-Americans... COOPER: African-Americans, OK. MADISON: ... who are -- and these are new excited young voters, many for the first time who have registered. COOPER: So, they would sit out -- they would sit out if it was Hillary Clinton? MADISON: Absolutely. (CROSSTALK) MADISON: And I have also heard some older African-Americans say, look, we survived eight years of George Bush. Maybe we can survive four years of McCain, because they're tired of being taken for granted. This is being talked about a lot in barbershops, beauty shops, and around the community. KLEIN: But you hear similar things from older white voters, who are vastly disappointed that Barack Obama has won the nomination, often for the most ridiculous and scurrilous reasons. Obama is going to have some real repair work to do. And the fact that he treated Hillary Clinton and this race with so much respect last night is an important indication of how he's going to go about doing it. COOPER: David? GERGEN: Yes, I think that's absolutely right. I -- we knew in the exit polls yesterday from both Indiana and North Carolina, basically a quarter of the people who were supporting each candidate are saying, if my candidate doesn't win, I'm either going to sit out or vote for John McCain. To get those people back, a couple things have to happen. The rest of the race has to be very positive. And Hillary Clinton was very positive today. She didn't go after Barack Obama personally. And then the exit by the loser, likely Hillary Clinton, has to be very gracious. It has to be one that unites. I do not think they have to form a unity ticket in order to bring people back, but I do think it's critical that there be -- that whoever loses do so graciously. MADISON: And there's a long time between the end of -- I mean, June and August, the end of August. COOPER: It's a lifetime. (LAUGHTER) MADISON: And someone -- a politician once told me overnight can be a lifetime in politics. And I'll tell you what. I used to play football. I used to be a running back. All 11 people on the other side have one goal: Get the guy with the ball. Obama has the ball now. And I think that Hillary Clinton is waiting for him to fumble at some point in time, and she will still be in the game. KLEIN: But to torture the metaphor completely, the clock is running down. There are only a... (CROSSTALK) MADISON: The band is almost there. (LAUGHTER) KLEIN: That's right. MADISON: And the money is running out. KLEIN: The band is marching off the field at this point. (LAUGHTER) KLEIN: I don't know how much worse it can get. (LAUGHTER) COOPER: Well, we hope the crowds are still staying in the stands, at least, to watch us. (LAUGHTER) MADISON: I hope so. COOPER: We're done with this metaphor. We will try to come up with a new metaphor. Coming up, we have more from our panel, digging deeper, later on. Still to come, though, in this hour, we will have more also on the breaking news out of Burma. We're working to establish contact with CNN's Dan Rivers, one of the few reporters on the ground there. We hope to get a live report -- Their death toll, now according to one American diplomat in the capital, 100,000 people. Just unbelievable. First, let's get caught up some of tonight's other headlines with Erica Hill and a 360 bulletin -- Erica. ERICA HILL, HEADLINE NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, the U.S. military says a former Guantanamo detainee from Kuwait carried out a suicide attack on Iraqi police last month. Six people were killed. That man was released from Gitmo in 2005. Six fraternities at San Diego State University suspended after the arrest of nearly 100 people, most of them students, in a drug bust this week. Investigators say some fraternity members openly dealt drugs. That sting operation was prompted by the cocaine overdose death of a sorority member last year. And shocking video of a 2-year-old smoking pot. Cops in Wisconsin just released the cell phone video of the incident. It happened last fall. The boy's mother and two of her friends all pleaded guilty to charges. They were in the room when it apparently happened. Mom, by the way, still has custody of the little boy, Anderson, but she's taking parenting classes. COOPER: Unbelievable. Erica, here's tonight's -- on a far lighter subject, here's tonight's "Beat 360." You can play along at home. Senator Obama is in the photo chatting and eating breakfast with union members in Evansville, Indiana, earlier this week. So, here is the caption from our staff winner, our executive producer Kathleen: "What do you mean, this is not an arugula omelet?" Yes. HILL: Apparently, that does not get the approval from... (CROSSTALK) COOPER: Yes. His face is sort of incredulous in the photo. It's hard to see. You can check it out on our Web site. (LAUGHTER) COOPER: If you can do better, go to CNN.com/360. Send us your entry. We will announce the winner at the end of the program. Coming up next: a closer look at Clinton's slim chances. John King actually breaks it down for us on his magic map. And later, startling revelations about life inside the Warren Jeffs' polygamist empire. A new secret document reveals who really is related to whom. We have new details on the marriages, the kids and the tangled web within the FLDS sect. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) H. CLINTON: Tonight, we have come from behind. We have broken the tide. And, thanks to you, it's full speed onto the White House. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Full speed ahead, that's what Senator Clinton said last night, refusing to give up, sounding convinced and confident she will be the next president. You have to wonder why. Clinton may have lost the momentum last night. She's already running out of money and will never have enough numbers to win the nomination. So, let's look at the math with John King at the magic wall. What is the delegate count now? What's the math on it? JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The math point you just made, Anderson, is the critical point right now. We can show you here the delegate count, Clinton 1,686, Obama 1,842. I want to switch over, though, this way in a way that is much more understandable to people. If you look at where we are so far, this is where we start today. This is the finish line out here in red. For the first time in the campaign, there are more superdelegates left outstanding, those unpledged party leaders and activists, than there are delegates that can be received in the primaries. And Senator Clinton enters these final contests at a huge deficit. Why? Her magic number to clinch the nomination is 339. For Senator Obama, he needs only 183. So, he has a much smaller universe of delegates that he needs. So, even if they split the remaining delegates, which would be something along the lines of this -- and I'm giving Senator Clinton even more than half in this analysis so far -- she gets more than half, he gets a little less than half, he crosses the finish line. That is why the math is so daunting for Senator Clinton at this point. COOPER: Six primary contests -- or six contests ahead, what do they look like for Senator Clinton? KING: Well, the next one up is West Virginia. And one of the reasons she is staying in this race, Anderson, is that this is a state that you would say is built for Senator Clinton. It is on the whitest states in the country. It is 95 percent white. Senator Obama has done well in states where he at least has a modest African-American base -- very small cities, not a big urban state at all, most of the people located along here, Huntington, Parkersburg, Wheeling, down here in Charleston, along the Ohio River. It is one of the oldest states in the country. She has done well with older voters. It is one of the lowest education standards and graduate rates in the country. She's done better with downscale blue- collar workers. If you look at some of the other states on the map, you knew -- even in a place like, say, Indiana you knew Obama had a base in Indianapolis, he had a base up in the Gary area. There was some place for him to start. Even over in a tougher state like Ohio, there are African-Americans in Cleveland and in Columbus. But when you look at West Virginia instead, there is no place on this map -- a couple college towns, where he would have a smallish base -- but there's no place on the map of West Virginia where you would say, aha, there is an Obama base. So, this is a state that is structurally built for Senator Clinton, one of the reasons, despite the obstacles, she's staying in the race for at least another week, and she says beyond. From there, you would go out to these other contests, Kentucky a good state for her as well, Puerto Rico, a state where she believes she would do well because of the Latino vote. But you can see the Obama blue up here when you get into the Plains, and out into the West, Oregon the big prize left out West, that's built for Obama at the moment. So, the math, even if she splits them, that's not good enough in the delegates. She has to do much better than that. COOPER: So, if the map is not in her favor and the math is not in her favor, the argument then goes to the superdelegates, trying to convince them. And what is her argument to the superdelegates? KING: Her argument to the superdelegates is, you want me to go st John McCain, not Barack Obama. This is a map that defaults back to the last election. McCain is in the place of George W. Bush. He won 286 electoral votes, Bush did, against John Kerry. What Clinton wants to say is this, that: Look, I won Pennsylvania in the primary. I can turn Ohio back into the Democratic column and deny the Republicans. I can probably get you West Virginia. I will keep you Florida. I might be able to get you Arkansas. Remember, I used to be the first lady there. And I will put Missouri in play. Clinton says she's a much more competitive general election candidate. What Obama would say is, that's not true. The Obama's counterargument is: Look, I won Pennsylvania. Maybe I won't win Ohio. Maybe Senator Clinton is right. But with a large African- American turnout, I can put Virginia in play. He is confident he can keep Florida. He says he will put Nevada in place, bring all those new young voters out in Colorado. He won the Missouri primary. He thinks he can do well there. So, if you're looking at the argument, if you're a Democratic superdelegate, this is what you're hearing, Senator Clinton saying, look at all the states and the numbers I have put in there, Obama saying, maybe my math at the beginning isn't quite as good as hers, but it's competitive, and I can make it even better. COOPER: It's fascinating stuff, John. Thanks very much. Up next, we're digging deeper with Obama supporter Senator Claire McCaskill and Clinton supporter Congressman Charlie Rangel. All ahead, new information from inside Myanmar, formerly known as Burma. And the numbers are simply staggering, now more than 100,000 feared dead -- a report from CNN's reporter on the ground inside Burma -- coming up. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: Well, Barack Obama widened his lead in delegates last night, while cutting into Hillary Clinton's lead in superdelegates. He's now just 180 delegates short of clinching the nomination. She needs 339 to do the same. Senator Clinton vowing to fight on. And, as Candy Crowley reported earlier, the Obama campaign has already begun to plan their fall strategy against John McCain. We are not there yet, however. Joining me now, Senator Claire McCaskill, co-chair of the Obama national campaign, along with Representative Charles Rangel of New York, a Clinton supporter. Senator McCaskill, you said today that it should Hillary Clinton's decision, and only her decision, to decide when it's time for this race to be over. Do you think, though, she has any chance now of winning the nomination? SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D), MISSOURI: Well, I think it's -- the math is kind of hard to get around at this point. I think we have won the most pledged delegates. We are significantly ahead in the popular vote. We have won the most contests. And there is very little real estate left. So, I think we're in a very good position to win this nomination, but we all have tremendous respect for Hillary Clinton, as a leader, as a campaigner. So, until she says it's over, it's not over. COOPER: Representative Rangel, you say Hillary Clinton has the ability to take a punch and the ability to fight back, and that she should continue to fight on. Why? At this point, what do you see as a possible path to victory for her? REP. CHARLES RANGEL (D-NY), HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: The fact that mathematically that she can win. I have never heard of any contest that, just because you're behind and it looks bad, but you still have a possibility of winning, that you quit. You know, both Senator Clinton and I are from New York. And if the Giants felt that way in going to the Super Bowl, they would be... (CROSSTALK) COOPER: Well, how do you see her possibility of winning, though? Is it inclusive of Florida and Michigan? Is it -- I mean, how do you see the path? RANGEL: I don't know. I don't play those kind of cards. All I'm saying is that, clearly, if she couldn't win at all, she would not be in. And this contest has been so exciting for our country, to have an African-American, to have a woman, a senator from New York. It's inspired our country and the world that this can happen. I don't see any benefits of asking somebody that is used to a rough-and-tumble fight, especially as a Democrat, that they should win. Now, if indeed Senator Obama is on a roll, how is this going to stop anything? But I think we should be able to say that Democrats who want to participate in these states should have the opportunity to say, at this historic time in our nation's history, that they were given the opportunity to participate. It just makes a lot of good sense to me. COOPER: Senator McCaskill, I mean, is there any downside, though? I mean, you say, look, Hillary Clinton has the right to stay in this and you respect her decision. Right now, I mean, there are polls who show roughly half of those who voted for Clinton yesterday in Indiana said they're not going to vote for Obama. There are folks who are voting for Obama who say no way they're going to vote for Clinton. There's a lot of bad blood at this point. Do you have any concerns that, the longer this goes on, the deeper that division goes? MCCASKILL: Well, I think of that depends on the tone of the campaign. And there's no question, Anderson, that there's a lot of passion on both sides right now. But I know one thing. I know the people who feel strongly about Hillary Clinton, they feel even more strongly about the prospect of four more years of George Bush. And, so, I feel comfortable that we will be able to unite. And I think that whoever comes out number two will take that as a very important role to make sure that their supporters gather in, and so we can unify and go forward. COOPER: Do you believe that the tone that we have seen over the last couple weeks in this campaign is going to continue, in terms of the rhetoric between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? MCCASKILL: I think that it would be difficult for the tone to turn very negative at this point. I think Senator Clinton knows that it's a very fine line you walk between... COOPER: Do you not think it's been negative thus far? MCCASKILL: I think it has been too negative so far, but I do think that the superdelegates are watching very carefully. And the one thing I think that would get a lot of superdelegates across the line quickly is if the tone of this campaign turned destructive and very negative. So, I think it's important, going forward, that the kind of tone, frankly, they both struck last night -- I thought they were both terrific last night. And I think, if they continue that tone, we will be fine. COOPER: Congressman Rangel, Hillary Clinton we've learned that she has loaned her campaign again more money, more than $6 million this time around. Does she have the money to keep on going? RANGEL: When you put in $6 million, that's the depth of your commitment. Hey, that's what New York is all about, that's what Democrats are all about. At the end of the day, Republicans have to find out what we're all about. COOPER: So you're making it a positive that she's giving $6 million, or half a million -- $6 million of her own money to her campaign? RANGEL: Well, you can't believe she lacks -- she lacks confidence if she's putting $6 million in the campaign, can you? COOPER: Well, I'll leave it for viewers to decide. Congressman Rangel, thank you. Senator McCaskill, as well. Thank you very much for your time. Senator Clinton's already loaned her campaign millions, as we've talked about. The question is, can she raise enough cash to stay in the race? Our panel weighs in. We're digging deeper next. Plus breaking news. The top U.S. diplomat in Myanmar says the situation is more and more horrendous. That's their words. The death toll now expected to top 100,000 people. We have a first-hand report from our reporter on the ground. And later new secret polygamy documents reveal the bizarre family ties inside the Texas compound, and what it may mean for the investigation. Stay tuned. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Plenty of the pundits have suggested that this party is inalterably divided, that Senator Clinton's supporters will not support me, and that my supporters would not support her. Well, I am here tonight to tell you that I don't believe it. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Senator Barack Obama last night, clearly looking ahead after winning big in North Carolina, a victory that many believed changed the game. Tonight Senator Clinton, while hanging tough, is under growing pressure to end her fight for the nomination. She is refusing to at this point, saying this thing's going on, full steam ahead. We're digging deeper. Joining us again, CNN political analyst and former presidential advisor, David Gergen; radio talk show host Joe Madison; and "TIME" magazine columnist and author Joe Klein. David, Clinton campaign adviser Harold Ickes is apparently warning super delegates that Obama is still an unknown quantity and may be the target of an October surprise if he's the nominee. Joe talked about this a little bit earlier. Do you think the Clintons have something on Barack Obama? Or is this just some sort of a desperate plea? GERGEN: I don't think they have it. They would have played that card by now. And but -- and I think that's -- if they keep pushing these kinds of things, I think that's what's going to make the next few weeks more negative, to go back to Claire McCaskill's point. If they take that tone, there's going to be a lot of anger among Democrats. And I think there would be more pressure for her to drop out. They do not need to go there. They do not need to be sowing doubts about Barack Obama as a human being or, you know, in terms of what he stands for, in terms of what he's all about. They can take him on on the issues. And they can take him on about who has the best chance to win. Perfectly legitimate arguments, perfectly decent reason why she should stay in the race. But they should not go after him personally. I think most Democrats would say that part of the campaign ought to be over. COOPER: Should know is different from would know. Given what you know, Joe Klein, about the way the Clintons run a campaign, the way this campaign has been run on all sides, what do you think is going to happen in terms of the message of Hillary Clinton moving forward? KLEIN: Well, the -- going after Obama on substance is a problem. Because I think she tried with this silly gas tax holiday idea and... COOPER: You wrote about that in "TIME" this week. You think it didn't work for her? KLEIN: No, in fact I think it hurt her. I'll tell you why. The group that wobbly on Obama in Pennsylvania were upper income suburbanites. High-minded, National Public Radio listeners, those sort of people. And they disdain that kind of populists nonsense that Hillary was peddling with this gas tax holiday. And if you look at the results from last night, they came back in areas like the research triangle in North Carolina and in the suburbs of Indianapolis. He solidified his vote. She didn't -- she had the white working-class vote that wants, you know, a gas tax holiday, if indeed they want it. And she wasn't going to win any more votes that way. COOPER: So it came off as pandering? KLEIN: Yes, it came off as pandering, and it made Obama look more solid, more high-minded, more responsible. COOPER: It's interesting, Joe Madison, to hear Charlie Rangel in our last segment saying that, you know, the fact that Senator Clinton had to donate or loan more than $6 million this time around to her campaign, that's a sign of her commitment and her confidence. MADISON: I love Charlie Rangel, but I've got to tell you -- but I've got to tell you, he's right. It does show she's got confidence in herself. But what it doesn't show is that people don't have confidence in her to make that contribution so that she doesn't have to loan herself $6 million. I mean, that -- good try, Charlie. And, you know, he's fun to listen to. But I got to tell you, they ought to -- they ought to pay David for his advice that he just gave the Clintons. I -- the Clintons have tried a lot of things that have upset a lot of people, so I don't put it past them to have an October surprise in May. They shouldn't do it, but I'm not certain they will yield to temptation. I think they -- I'm saying they will yield to temptation. I think they would do it in order to win this. I -- this is the attitude most people have. COOPER: David Gergen said he doesn't think they have anything; otherwise they would have. MADISON: I think most people think, and you'll hear this often, that the Clintons would do anything to win. COOPER: Well, a lot of Clinton supporters would clearly disagree with you on that. But David Gergen, for Barack Obama moving forward, does his message change? I mean, we heard a new speech last night; we heard new emphasis on things. We heard -- I think you said last night, he found his voice. How does that -- what does that mean moving forward? GERGEN: It means very much that he -- I think he now has the luxury of starting to look past Hillary Clinton. If there is this sense of inevitability now, the aura of inevitability that hung around her very early in this campaign has now moved to him. And he now can look forward to the fall and get organized for the fall, which is very -- something he very, very much needs to do. I mean, after all, John McCain is moving for the fall. He's giving these very foundational speeches, whether it's about health care... COOPER: Right. GERGEN: ... or about judges. John McCain is putting in the building blocks of a fall campaign. Barack Obama needs to start moving toward that, too. Because the amount of time he's going to have between June and the convention is going to be so brief. MADISON: And maybe he should start talking about a vice- presidential candidate to fulfill that move towards... CLINTON: Very quickly, any chance Hillary Clinton would be a vice-presidential candidate with Barack Obama? Any chance that Barack Obama would want her? KLEIN: I think that -- I don't think it's impossible. I mean, I think that she adds a lot of domestic policy expertise and a historic rush of women to vote for her. COOPER: David Gergen? Do you agree with that? GERGEN: I think people around him think he will need a food taster if he does that. KLEIN: Two great points. MADISON: ... for the American people at one time. COOPER: Got to leave it there. Joe Madison, David Gergen, Joe Klein, always good to have you on. Thank you. We should mention, Barack Obama will have his first post-primary interview with Wolf Blitzer tomorrow on "THE SITUATION ROOM." Watch that. Up next, breaking news out of Burma. The death tolls rises tonight. Reports of chaos, violence as survivors fight for food. CNN's Dan Rivers, one of the few reporters inside the devastated country. It looks like we've established contact with him. He will join us live next from inside Burma. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: New images of complete destruction, it doesn't EVEN begin to describe the magnitude of THE horror now unfolding in Myanmar, formerly known as Burma. Simply put, the news keeps getting worse. When we first heard about the cyclone, we were given initial reports of 350 people were killed. The death toll climbed, first into thousands, then the tens of thousands. Tonight a USS diplomat fears the number of victims could reach 100,000; 100,000 men, women and children. The natural disaster, the humanitarian crisis, the combined tragedy is only growing by the military junta that controls the country. These military men want the international money, but not the help. Incredibly, shamefully, they're refusing to grant visas to relief workers. It's the same road block for journalists. I've been trying to get a visa to go there for the last couple of days. So far no luck. Fortunately, CNN's Dan Rivers is inside the country, one of just a handful of western journalists to cover the catastrophe. He arrived a short time after the cyclone. What he is seeing is hard to imagine. Take a look. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) DAN RIVERS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A land where funerals and death are at every turn. Some are buried, but many bodies are still lying amid the rubble. And everywhere those haunting hollow faces, the drowned world that feels beyond hope. (on camera) But it's not just people's homes that have been destroyed here. The very infrastructure of Myanmar has taken a severe battering. This is all that remains of a school science laboratory, completely flattened by Cyclone Nargis. The school says it doesn't know what it's going to do. And it still hasn't heard anything from the authorities. (voice-over) This is the school yard. The water was three feet deep, and it's miles from the river. Save the Children estimate that 40 percent of those who have died are children. The classrooms have no roofs. It will be a long time before the lessons can be taught again here. State television has shown aid being distributed by the army, but the need here is immense. So far many foreign aid agencies haven't been able to get their staff and equipment into Myanmar. They say the red tape of this reclusive country is preventing progress. Another crippling problem right now is fuel. This is the line of cars waiting for gas. (on camera) It just goes on and on and on for miles, really, just this never-ending queue, all the way down here. And I guess the people at the back are going to be waiting God knows how long. Hours and hours, you'd think. (voice-over) Here the gas is $1.50 for a gallon, or for four liters, but if you don't want to wait for hours, you can pay the black-market rate of ten times that amount. But it's here in the Irrawaddy River Delta that the real misery and suffering is happening. These people are reaching breaking point. How much longer will they be made to wait before the help they desperately need arrives? (END VIDEOTAPE) COOPER: Dan joins us now. And if it's true that as many as 100,000 people have lost their lives, I mean, have their bodies been collected? Is there -- what kind of relief on the ground in terms of heavy earth-moving equipment or help actually on the ground is there? RIVERS: Well, Anderson, we just haven't seen any evidence of that kind of equipment being used yet. The soldiers are deployed, that's for sure. We've seen them out clearing the roads and so on, but I mean, they are just really lacking the basic equipment here. We haven't seen any sort of evidence of earth-moving equipment, no helicopters from international aid agencies. But what's frustrating is all that stuff is sitting over the border in Thailand ready to go. The U.S. military has got two battleships in the area, in the Gulf of Thailand. They've got helicopters flown into Thai air bases, all ready to come in. But we understand that the Myanmar military junta here just won't allow them to come in. They won't give them the visas. COOPER: And are you seeing the death toll? I mean, are you seeing bodies in the streets still? RIVERS: We've seen, some, yes. I mean, we're sort of pushing through into the -- further on into delta where we're getting reports where we are now, further down the road, of you know, hundreds of body lying, decomposing. It's a pretty terrible situation here. Frankly, these -- a lot of towns, it appears, just are completely on their own. The monasteries are doing a lot. The monks are giving out the small amounts of rice that they have. But because of all this water that's come in with the storm surge, the rice harvest is ruined. A lot of the milling plants to mill the rice and made it edible are without power. So they're in a pretty desperate situation. Water is also in extremely short supply: clean, safe drinking water. There's just not much around here. COOPER: Is there any way to get an accurate death toll at this point? RIVERS: Well, the U.S. senior diplomat, the charge d'affairs here, Charlie De La Rosa (ph), has said that she thinks that it could be as many as 100,000 people that have died. Now at the moment, the official death toll is -- is sort of in the tens of thousands, still. But I mean, frankly, I think the regime here still hasn't got a firm grip on the situation on how many people have died. There are still areas which are pretty inaccessible, so I think it may still be some days before we know, finally and definitively, how many people have perished. COOPER: Dan Rivers, stay safe. Thank you for your reporting. If you want to take action to help the victims in Burma, go to CNN.com/impact. We've got links to news and recoveries and humanitarian efforts. There are also links to organizations that are helping in Burma right now. Next on 360, justified or out of control? Police in Philadelphia caught on tape. We'll let you decide if they're using excessive force or not. Plus a new bombshell from the polygamist compound: a secret document, a list that allegedly details the number of wives and kids of sect members. What it might mean for investigators trying to figure out if any abuse has occurred. Also, pictures from the top of the world, as an Olympic torch boldly goes where no Olympic torch has ever gone before: Mt. Everest. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: Tonight new developments as the story continues to unfold, the custody battle between Texas and the FLDS polygamist sect. Now, the kids are in foster care, but figuring out their real ages and who their parents are has been tough. On May 19, the first of hundreds of cases head to court. Tomorrow night the attorney generals of Utah and Arizona are going to hold a town hall meeting to reach out to polygamist communities in their states. The kids now in custody are just the ones from that Texas compound. But we have new information tonight about a secret document found at the Texas ranch. It's a polygamist family tree, and it may help investigators untangle the very complex web of relationships inside the sect. The latest from CNN's David Mattingly. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Called a bishop's list, this 43-page document was seized in the April law enforcement raid on the Texas FLDS compound and just made public this week. It reveals the reason why child welfare officials say they demanded the removal of 464 children and teens. And here it is: 16-year-old girls listed in black and white as wives to adult men. We showed the list details: names, ages and polygamist relationships to author John Llewellyn, a former polygamist and former investigator for the Salt Lake County sheriff. JOHN LLEWELLYN, AUTHOR, "POLYGAMY'S RAPE OF RACHAEL STRONG": That's probable cause for -- to get a complaint for bigamy. And it will be interesting to see whether Texas does file, eventually, some complaints for bigamy, along with the various child abuse complaints. MATTINGLY: The 2007 list shows heads of 37 households. Twenty- four were polygamist families; 13 were monogamous, husbands with just one wife. The largest family belonged to a 67-year-old man with 21 wives and 36 children. His oldest wife was 79, the youngest just 24. (on camera) But the list is obviously far from a complete accounting of what authorities found at the Texas compound. Five names of underage wives was just the beginning. Texas child welfare officials say out of the 53 girls possibly aged 4 to 17 now in foster care, almost 60 percent of them, 31 girls in all, are either pregnant or already have children. (voice-over) The list also shows where family members lived in 2007. Strangely, a few wives were listed as living in hiding. LLEWELLYN: That means that they have something to hide. And all that's going to do is give more incentive to the authorities to find out why she's in hiding, how old she is. MATTINGLY (on camera): We contacted an attorney acting as spokesman for the Texas sect for our story but did not get a reply. Previously he disputed some of the state's claims that some girls who say they're over 18 are actually younger. In most cases, the bishop's list does not settle this dispute, because it does not clearly match all mothers to all of their children. Many of those answers will have to wait for results of DNA tests and continued questions. David Mattingly, CNN, Atlanta. (END VIDEOTAPE) COOPER: Fascinating. We'll continue to follow that. Erica Hill joins us now with a "360 News and Business Bulletin" -- Erica. ERICA HILL, HEADLINE NEWS ANCHOR: Anderson, in Philadelphia, a police sergeant and five officers pulled from street duty as city officials investigate the beatings of three suspects during a traffic spot. TV news crews shot more than a dozen officers kicking and punching the men. Two of those men were struck at least 20 times. And so much for Econ 101. Despite growing inventories, oil prices hitting another record high today, more than $123 a barrel. The Olympic torch reached the top of the world today. The flame was carried to the summit of Mt. Everest earlier by climbers carrying oxygen masks. That's to help them breathe, of course, in the thin air at the earth's highest point. The climbers removed their masks for the cameras before heading back down. And not an easy feat, of course. COOPER: That's unbelievable. Still ahead tonight, "Beat 360," the winner. Plus Senator Hillary Clinton is short on delegates, money and time. Is the fight really over, or could Florida and Michigan still factor in? The "Raw Politics" when "360" continues. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: I was just doing some blogging. Now on 360, our daily contest -- I hate it when blog -- when TV interferes with the blogging. HILL: It makes it really rough. COOPER: It really does. It's tough. HILL: What's our primary job here? The blog. COOPER: Exactly. So "Beat 360," you know how it works. We -- it's a contest. It's a daily contest. We pit you against our staff to see who -- to see who can come up with the best caption. I'm a little discombobulated. For the picture we post on our blog. HILL: Deep breath. And... COOPER: Tonight's picture shows Senator Obama chatting with union members over breakfast in Evansville, Indiana, on the eve of yesterday's primary. Our staff winner, 360 executive producer Kathleen Friery. Her entry: "What do you mean this is not an arugula omelet?" HILL: Ba-dum ching. COOPER: Tonight viewer winner is Mike. His caption: "Wednesday's breakfast was the first Barack has enjoyed since Pennsylvania. The eggs tasted great, and Hillary was toast." See, a little -- that was actually the headline on the "New York Post" today. To check out the competition it squashed, go to CNN.com/360 and click on the link. Coming up at the top of the hour, the latest from Burma and Hillary Clinton's campaign. Is it over? And if so, what will the end game look like? We've got the "Raw Politics" ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: A lot of politics ahead tonight, but we begin with breaking news on a disaster that is simply hard to imagine. The death toll, once believed to be 10,000 in Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, is now estimated to be 100,000; 100,000 men, women and children swept away by a massive cyclone.


text:
Can Parents Safely Grant Their Children Autonomy Through Technology?
Examples of platforms that are enabling parents to remotely monitor their children's activities and reward good behavior.
After analysis of hundreds of data points collected around the modern family experience and how it is changing, the PSFK consulting team noticed that an array of apps and platforms are helping parents respect their children's desire for autonomy while simultaneously staying in control and setting measurable expectations. In most cases, these platforms work towards encouraging good behavior and instilling life lessons, while offering incentives for keeping up good habits.
Below are the examples we came across in our research that supported the theme 'How Parents Can Empower Their Children's Autonomy Through Technology.'

subset: commoncrawl


text:
|IUPAC name
|Other names
3D model (JSmol)
PubChem CID
|Molar mass
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa).
|verify (what is ?)
|Infobox references
Autoinducer-2 (AI-2), a furanosyl borate diester or tetrahydroxy furan (species dependent), is a member of a family of signaling molecules used in quorum sensing.[1] AI-2 is one of only a few known biomolecules incorporating boron. First identified in the marine bacterium Vibrio harveyi, AI-2 is produced and recognized by many Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria.[2][3] AI-2 arises by the reaction of 1-deoxy-3-dehydro-D-ribulose, which is produced enzymatically with boric acid,[4] and is recognized by the two-component sensor kinase LuxPQ in Vibrionaceae.
AI-2 is actively transported by the Lsr ABC-type transporter into the cell in Enterobacteriaceae and few other bacterial taxa (Pasteurella, Photorhabdus, Haemophilus, Bacillus),[5] where it is phosphorylated by LsrK. Then, Phospho-AI-2 binds the transcriptional repressor protein, LsrR, which subsequently is released from the promoter/operator region of the lsr operon – and transcription of the lsr genes is initiated. AI-2 signalling is also regulated by glucose and cAMP/CRP via the lsr operon. In the presence of glucose, low levels of cAMP/CRP result in almost no lsr operon (lsrABCDFG) expression. Without glucose, cAMP-CRP is needed to stimulate the lsr expression, while LsrR represses its expression in the absence of the inducer, phospho-AI-2. As AI-2 accumulates, more AI-2 is taken in via LsrABCD, phosphorylated via LsrK, and the lsr transcription is de-repressed, enabling even more AI-2 uptake.[6]
Doubts have been expressed regarding AI-2's status as a universal signal. Although the luxS gene, which encodes the protein responsible for AI-2 production is widespread, the latter has mainly a primary metabolic role in the recycling of S-adenosyl-L-methionine, with AI-2 being a by-product of that process.[7] An unequivocally AI-2 related behavior was found to be restricted primarily to organisms bearing known AI-2 receptor genes.[8] Thus, while it is certainly true that some bacteria respond to AI-2, it is doubtful that it is always being produced for purposes of signaling.
- ^ Cao, Jie-Gang; Meighen, Edward A. (1989). "Purification and structural identification of an autoinducer for the luminescence system of Vibrio harveyi". Journal of Biological Chemistry. 264 (36): 21670–21676. PMID 2600086.
- ^ Miller, Stephen T.; Xavier, Karina B.; Campagna, Shawn R.; Taga, Michiko E.; Semmelhack, Martin F.; Bassler, Bonnie L.; Hughson, Frederick M. (2004). "Salmonella typhimurium Recognizes a Chemically Distinct Form of the Bacterial Quorum-Sensing Signal AI-2". Molecular Cell. 15 (5): 677–687. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2004.07.020. PMID 15350213.
- ^ Miller, M. B.; Bassler, B. L. (2001). "Quorum sensing in bacteria". Annual Review of Microbiology. 55: 165–199. doi:10.1146/annurev.micro.55.1.165. PMID 11544353.
- ^ http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iubmb/enzyme/reaction/misc/AI2.html
- ^ Rezzonico, F.; Smits, T.H.M.; Duffy, B. (2012). "Detection of AI-2 receptors in genomes of Enterobacteriaceae suggests a role of type-2 quorum sensing in closed ecosystems". Sensors. 12: 6645–6665. doi:10.3390/s120506645. PMC 3386761.
- ^ Wang, Liang; Hashimoto, Yoshifumi; Tsao, Chen-Yu; Valdes, James J.; Bentley, William E. (2005). "Cyclic AMP (cAMP) and cAMP Receptor Protein Influence both Synthesis and Uptake of Extracellular Autoinducer 2 in Escherichia coli". Journal of Bacteriology. 187 (6): 2066–2076. doi:10.1128/JB.187.6.2066-2076.2005. PMC 1064054. PMID 15743955.
- ^ Diggle, S. P.; Gardner, A.; West, S. A.; Griffin, A. S. (2007). "Evolutionary theory of bacterial quorum sensing: when is a signal not a signal?". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 362 (1483): 1241. doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2049. PMC 2435587. PMID 17360270.
- ^ Rezzonico, F.; Duffy, B. (2008). "Lack of genomic evidence of AI-2 receptors suggests a non-quorum sensing role for luxS in most bacteria". BMC Microbiology. 8: 154. doi:10.1186/1471-2180-8-154. PMC 2561040. PMID 18803868.


text:
They said this could be because farmers are less likely to admit their mental health problems than others and that this could lead to higher rates of depression.
The study in the British Medical Journal's Occupational and Environmental Medicine, called for the health of farmers to be carefully monitored in the aftermath of the foot-and-mouth crisis.
The authors said that witnessing so much death among livestock could give farmers a fatalistic view of their lives.
They also point out that farmers have easier access to guns, poisons and other means of committing suicide.
The researchers from the Department of Psychological Medicine at the University of Wales College of Medicine, in Cardiff, studied 425 farmers from Hereford, Norwich and Preston.
The farmers were quizzed on their mental health and the results were compared to a similar survey of the general public.
Farmers told the scientists they were suffering fatigue, irritability and sleep problems, also suffered by the population as a whole.
Among the farmers, 6% reported having poor mental health, which was lower than the national average.
But 3% of farmers admitted they thought life was not worth living and just under 1% said they had thought of killing themselves.
This statistic surprised report author Dr Hollie Thomas.
"We suggested that possibly farmers might be relatively reluctant to admit to having mental health problems," she said.
She added that when set against the low rates of reported depression farmers were twice as likely as their non-agricultural peers to think life was not worth living.
When compared to other people in rural or semi-rural areas farmers were three times as likely to feel this way.
The report also found that one in 10 farmers said they were suffering financial difficulties and 14% said they had debts they could not meet.
A spokesman for the National Farmer's Union (NFU) said the survey accurately reflected the "depths of misery" suffered by farmers.
"There is not a farmer in the country that cannot name at least one friend, associate or colleague from within the industry who has taken his life because of the concerns they have for the future," he said.
'Desperate situation'
"This research quantifies the depth of misery, broken families and despair farmers are experiencing due to the agricultural crisis.
"It is a measure of the spirit and determination of farmers that the vast majority are battling on despite the dire state of their industry.
"The NFU is committed to its continuing campaign to ensure that everything that can be done is being done to help turn around this desperate situation."
James Morrish from the Rural Stress Information Network said: "Farmers are likely not to admit to depression because many don't know what it is. Also they don't want to let the family down.
"Many have had farms passed down through generations. They feel they mustn't be the first generation that fails."


text:
Dr. James DuBois, St. Louis University, was awarded a contract from the ORI RCR Resource Development Program to create an RCR casebook with case studies and role playing activities. ORI will be releasing the finished casebook shortly via the ORI website.
Below is case study from the Authorship and Publications chapter of the book.
My Lab Boss Puts His Name on My Papers and Proposals
Ana holds a PhD from a prestigious American state university and specializes in the study of pain, its pathways and pain reduction interventions. Though trained in Taiwan, Ana thinks in English, which is her third language after the Khalkha dialect of Mongyol kele and Mandarin. However, she has some difficulty writing scientific papers in appropriate and nuanced English; hence, she typically asks colleagues to review and help edit her writing.
Ana has taken a postdoctoral fellowship at a famous institution with a strong publish or perish culture. Researchers flaunt their publication record and look down on anyone who does not have as many published papers as they do. Ana enjoys giving people ideas and supporting them. In return, she sometimes asks for help with her writing and is happy to acknowledge their assistance in her papers. But when colleagues return her manuscripts with their names included in the list of authors, Ana is stunned. It seems they feel entitled to do this.
Although she feels that others are taking advantage of her, Ana refuses to change. She gains satisfaction by thinking that she is helping to improve science. She says her goal is to be a good scientist, not to fight over who gets to be an author of her work. She feels blessed with an opportunity to work on some of the most intellectually exciting projects and places in the world. She would never do anything to jeopardize this opportunity.
Yet Ana is upset when her lab boss not only puts his name on her work, but also takes a proposal she has prepared for funding by NIH and sends it off under his name–without even discussing that with her. She mentions it to him, and he just looks at her as though she were crazy. However, some administrators within the research institution who have seen the way people take her intellectual property are sufficiently disgusted and urge Ana to think about ways to stop people from stealing her work. Unfortunately, they have no power to intervene directly.
Ana is unsure what recourse she has. She values the opportunity to share ideas with others and get their responses, and is unwilling to do anything that will cut off that rich intellectual interaction. The theft of her ideas seems a minor price to pay for her scholarly environment.
What should Ana do?
Discussion Questions for Facilitators
- What are the standards that apply in this situation?
- What are effective ways in which you could ensure that intellectual property rights are respected?
- What factors may motivate peers and superiors to exploit someone in this way? What kinds of power differentials are operating here?
- What factors are likely to result in persons "stealing" authorship that does not legitimately accrue to them?
- Do authorship practices vary depending on the national culture of the researchers involved? *
- What would be a responsible role for a mentor in guiding this post doc? How might she find supportive mentors?
- How could this post doc arrange her writing and her collaboration with others to better control what happens to the designation of authorship of her papers?
- What risks do exploiters take when they claim authorship that they do not deserve?
- Have you ever had something similar happen to you? How did you deal with it, and what lessons did you learn?
What about the reverse?
I am the PI of a large productive high profile lab, and give my scientists a lot of leeway in developing their projects, choosing their collaborators, and I insist that they work together. This works well for most people- I spend time with those who need the most input, and treat the independent ones more like colleagues. I am proud of the postdocs who leave my lab ready for independence.
About a year and a half ago, my most senior, and most trusted scientist began what one of my more generous colleagues called "premature flight". I had selected her as my protegee, gave her senior authorship on some of our high impact papers, and sent her to meetings to speak in my place. I treated her as a peer and wrote the most glowing letter of recommendation I have ever written when she started applying for academic faculty jobs.
Then I started learning about the manuscripts she was submitting in secret. My lab has a lot of large collaborations, and she was often tasked with overseeing the receipt of heir samples and oversight of their analysis.
The first time, I discovered what she had done on the day that the paper was published- in one of the highest impact journals. She had included herself and one of my graduate students as authors, but did not include me, and did not acknowledge my grants that supported the work. I was stunned.
I contacted the senior author, who said that he was told that she'd done the work outside my lab, the journal, and the granting agency. After a tense few days, the journal published an erratum, which credited me and my grants for support of the work...I did not push for authorship - I still wanted to believe my protogee, who said that she was misled by the senior author.
She's out of my lab now, having, on the strength of her large number of first author papers from my lab, some senior authorships, and my strong support of her application, landed an assistant professorship at an excellent university.
But it hasn't stopped. She has continued to submit papers on data obtained in my lab...5 that I know of. Each time, I have managed to intercede in some way, and warned her to stop doing this.
But just last week, I was told by a friend that he had sent some samples for his very high impact paper to my lab for analysis a couple of months ago, and had not received the results. He had sent them to her, because she was handling this collaboration for my lab. She kept the samples herself and did not tell me they had arrived. She intends to analyze them elsewhere and claim sole credit for the work.
It's difficult to switch from being a supportive mentor to having the expectation of being stabbed in the back at any moment. It's really torn my life apart.
Any comments or advice? I feel like I'm somehow complicit by having given her the skills to steal my work.
Talking 'bout my generation
I've racked up a bit more publishing experience than many of my peers who are going through similar situations but fear reprisal from the "powers that be". So, I'm going to stick my neck out and comment on this on behalf of my generation.
1) I feel that many established PIs fear their "children" will hare off with an idea or paper without taking into consideration the efforts of others in an attempt to be a "famous scientist". Much of this is cultural: my generation of scientists has been put under enormous pressure all of our lives to "succeed" and "be the winner"- not just from our families, but from ourselves. This has given rise to the many cheating scandals that have broken out in USA higher education.
Much of the culture in many highly ranked universities has become toxic- especially in the biomed departments, where huge sums of grant money are at stake. This can be seen in the recent NSF study of which colleges' graduates go on to complete PhDs in science and engineering. My alma mater, Reed College, came in 4th in the nation- despite its adamant stance of never giving information to the US New & World Report for its "college ranking", as this is "counter-productive to the mission of higher education". (See: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13323/#tab4 for the table.)
Education should be a basic human right, not a popularity contest. And Federal money should be reasonably evenly distributed to all the States and universities, not pooled up in a few.
2) There needs to be an office or independent scientist on the thesis committees of all federally funded PhD students. (Yeah, I know, this will cost money. We need to raise taxes & make the budgets transparent to produce higher quality science.) Stony Brook University is fairly insistent upon this. Professors from outside the department have to monitor the progress of the the student as an independent check of the adviser's ability to mentor talented young scientists. I think it might help if there was an official, federal office at which the students can lodge complaints of intellectual property theft.
This is a pervasive problem. I frequently told my grad school buddies and the trick to a happy PhD was to "pick a good PI". A PI who gives you credit when credit is due, and tells you when you are being wrong about something. (One of the most chilling- and yet thrilling- moments during my PhD in photophysics with Prof. Tonge was when he told me during lab meeting, "Well I don't know, Allison; you're the Expert.")
I do tumor diagnostics now. I have seen some stuff in biomedical peer review that I do not like. The problem is systemic, and not isolated to a few "bad apples".
Our nation's PhD students are chosen for the graduate school based on their talent and strong potential. They may be inexperienced, but presumably they are not stupid. The Federal government should at least here the "children" out, and make independent judgements without conflicts of interest. And, it should be given the power to stop this theft when it is proven to exist. -Dr. Allison L. Stelling, https://twitter.com/DrStelling
Two issues
I think there are two issues relevant here -- her "collaboration-strategy" with her colleagues and the behavior of her supervisor, and both are influenced by the overall communication culture in the department.
Regarding the collaboration, if she gets valuable feedback that improve her papers significantly, this is one way to work together. However, it at least partly violates the Vancouver protocol and it seems to be unequal. I would ask whether she can contribute to her colleagues papers in the same way (and get authorship credit). After all, fair is fair, and based on her history she is highly qualified. If this is not the case I would strongly recommend to search for colleagues where the collaboration works both ways (and clarify it upfront). In any case she should focus on learning from the feedback so that she does not need the colleagues feedback in the future.
Regarding the superviser, if she has really written the proposal all by herself and it was her idea/research, then this seems to me a clear cut case of academic fraud. The superviser plagiarized the work of her postdoc, who effectively acted as a ghostwriter. However, it was a scientific product she has created and there are rules for authorship. Perhaps a case could be made for the superviser to be on the submission (if he gave feedback), but in any case, her name should be on it -- and come first. Given that she is in a less powerful position and dependent on the superviser, an ombudsman is probably needed to clarify the issue. The lack of communication is especially troubling.
In any case it seems that rules of authorship are not discussed openly in the department. Neither the collaborators nor the supervisor openly discussed authorship prior to setting their names on Ana's works or replacing her name outright. Perhaps these unspoken rules are known by all in the department and she just did not know them, but an open discussion would probably be needed. Unfortunately, an open discussion is also (nearly) impossible here, as the people higher up in the hierarchy profit by the current (lack of) clear rules. Here I would question whether she needs to better guard her ideas/works and whether the department is really as good as she thinks it is. Giving ideas and advancing science are noble aspirations, but the person who gave the ideas should also get the credit and profit from it. It's a position to qualify yourself and this does not work if others improve their position with your work or outright steal it.
And part of being a scientist, at least in that department, is fighting for your authorship credit and defending your publications against them being stolen by others.
The short-term change could be an upfront discussion about what happens with the manuscript and conditions for authorship *prior* to showing the manuscript to anyone (including her superviser; eMail communication might be helpful here to have a written record).
The long-term question would be: Looking critically with a five to ten year time horizon -- do the current norms/behavior in the department allow her to reach her goals?
Who is the owner of data obtained from a PI's Lab
My points of view regarding this case study
Trainees perform experiments under the direction and with resources obtained by the effort of his/her mentor. A good mentor gives the opportunity to his/her personnel to grow higher and higher. However, Lab and project funds have to be adquired, so the PI has the right to use all data available to support grant applications, when them were obtained in his/her lab. Grant applications and collaborative efforts started by full-time trainees has to be communicated in all instances to the PI and recorded in the lab record notebook (this is material owned by the PI's Lab). PIs, in special in academic setting are usually overwhelmed by administrative duties, therefore record books should be an essential way mentor communicates and fellow mentees' training. Copy of record notebooks should be available to copy by trainees once they are ready to leave the laboratory, but nothing of the data obtained in the former PI's lab should be published or used as preliminary data in proposals without the PI's concent. Concretely, I think preliminary data obtained in the PI's lab belong to the PI, not to the trainee. Trainees should not be able to send a grant application without preliminary data. Usually postdoc possition are full times, hardly they should be able to obtain data from other laboratory without his/her mentor knowledge. Data obtained ina the PI's lab should be used to foster fuerther application for funding. In particular cases the mentor can serve as a mentor in the trainee's application, this should be the middle point and should be a way trainees should use to approach and grow under the PI direction and support.
Training: Postdoc at NIEHS, K99/R00 PI' training at the NIH, PI at OMRF.
Actual position: PI/Academic in Argentina.
In reply to - What about the reverse 5/31/2013
I think you have given your protegee more than enough chances.
The samples are not hers; the work she performed in your lab was through your resources.
It is hard to turn from being supportive to being antagonistic. Ultimately the choice is yours (and I would not judge you), but if it were me I would not stand for this.
It seems that by making her your protegee, you have in essence made her your child. And sometimes parents look the other way. If you can accept the damage she has done to YOU, then it's your call.
However, if it affects other people (e.g. your friend with the samples), then I feel you are obligated to take strong action.
Just my two cents.
My background: Assistant Professor in a mid-tier University (Research medical institution) in the US.
I totally disagree with your
I totally disagree with your point. If the PI does not do any significant work on the manuscript that I got my own research grant, I don't add the PI 's name as a co-authour but I do include the PI name in the acknowledgement for giving some facilityies to complete the work.
In my case, I am hiring by the research institue. My salary was directlty from the research institute that each lab will have a certain amount to hire people (not from the PI "s research project grant). I have the right for writing grant applications on my own without including PI's name. When I applied for the grant, the PI always came to talk to me and mentioned that
"You don't need to pay much attention on your application, you will not get it"
I have worked with many people in the past but none of my boss said such a kind of discouragement like this PI. However, I ignored and went ahead on my application. At the end, I was asked to submit my application by the PI. The PI did some English corrections and told me to add some names as a supporter (not a collaborator). The PI did not propose any idea on my grant application at all. Finally, my project was selected to get the grant from the government. Since then my PI has started telling about the research story of my funded project in various presentations. The PI did not give a credit that the project was from my idea but the PI mentioned that I am the person who is working on the project. Again, I tried to ignore that kind of behaviors. My own goal is to produce something from the research budget that I got from the government.
The project did not go well then I had to change something to make it worked. I met a professor in a conference and he was happy to give me something to try. Then, I tried it and it worked quite well. Although I cannot accept many ways that I have been treated from my PI, I still respect in a role of a PI of a lab. I went to talk to the PI and explained that I will collaborate with that professor on my research project that I got my own research grant. I also told the PI that my experiement did not work well before talking about collaboration. My PI became crazy after knowing the story. Finally, I decided to not collaborate. Later, I changed the new method for the project that I was funded. I talked about it in a group meeting and then the PI went crazy again that I changed the method. Finally, I and my PI had a private talk together. The PI was complaining and yelling at me. I totally made myself claim down when the stopped. I told the PI that ...
"This project is my project. The idea of the project is 100% from me. My role is the principle investigator of the project and only my name is on there. Therefore, it is my responsibility to run and produce something on the project. The 40% of work must be done for this project and I have to use my new technique to complete it" The PI was quiet....
Since I feel that I really be nice enough with the way that I have been treated. Finally, I politely mentioned to my PI to separate between " a group project" and "my own project that I got a research grant'
The first year I worked here before I got grant, I already proposed my research idea to the PI and the work went well. I did everything by myself and finally the PI asked me to add the name of the PI's collaborator on a paper, This person did nothing at all but reading the manuscript because I always send the manuscript to all co-authours before submission. This time, I asked my PI what kind of idea the PI has and wants me to do for a group project. The PI said .......
"It is your job to think about the group research project"
I don't mind if my PI cannot thiknk about the project for the PI's group and I am happy to support for that. Then, I created the second project for the group project and this project also used my own research grant as well. The idea again was 100% from me and I did everything by meyself. Finally, I again was asked to add all research members of the group in the manuscript. Again, I never mind and I let it go because my aim is doing research.
Back to the project that I was granted, all chemicals used in the paper are from my grant. Some equipment was paid by my grant. The workplace already deduced around 30% of my whole grant for an indirect cost. The PI is not interested in my funded project after I changed the new method. Therefore, I decide to not include the PI name in my manuscript. I go for it with my new collaborator. As mentioned above, I added the PI 's name , the lab name, and the research institute name in the acknowledgement for the facility supports.
My mentors told me that above sentense which supports me to publsih ahead without including the PI's name on the project that I got funding.....It seems that there are many PIs of the lab in the market who are really abusive......
What about rules?
Im surprised (but not that much, really) by some statements I read in the previous posts and comments. It seems that some people have clear and seemingly legitimate ideas about who can be the author(s) of a paper, or who can decide what one can do with the data obtained in a lab. But, in the end, those are often nothing but opinion which, though they may be widely shared in some communities, can be questioned by anybody.
Fortunately, there are rules, or principles, governing these issues.
Consider authorship. One post mentions the Vancouver protocol (also known as Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals), which is supposedly enforced buy 1000+ medical journals. These rules make clear that there should be no authorship based solely upon support (financial or otherwise) for a work, as one post seems to suggest by speaking of `pushing for authorship.
Now, as to ownership of data, some things must be clarified. First, there is no copyright on data, because they constitute facts. So they dont belong a priori to the person which has obtained them, contrary to a text, that belongs form the start to its author (or, in certain cases, to the organization/employer).
However, an organization (for instance, a university) can have a policy regarding the handling of data, describing the rights and responsibilities of all parties (students, postdocs, research assistants, PIs, collaborators) in this regard. Research contracts also generally provide clear rules in the matter. But, absent any such policy (and its the case of many universities) the only rules, or guidelines that exist are those of honesty, transparency and good faith. For instance, a postdoc or student could leave with a copy of the data to use them for further analysis, but should certainly inform the PI (and others) of her intent. And any significant support must be acknowledged in the papers (which doesnt mean authorship). But the PI has no formal right to decide unilaterally what one can do with the data. So before taking any action, a PI should check what the rules are, and act accordingly.


text:
Choosing an income annuity
Learn how to work through the decision-making process.
Other highlights from this webcast
Stephen Weber: A lot of people like to play this game, which will I die with more money with, if I annuitize or if I invest it myself? And that's probably the wrong game to play when we're talking about something like an income annuity. There are different questions to that, different answers to that, and it's going to depend on markets and a whole bunch of other different things. But the point of an income annuity is not to die with the most money. It's to give yourself a stream of income that's guaranteed to last for life.
Danielle Corey: Steve did touch on an important topic within the answer to that question and this idea of liquidity and access. So folks who are considering an income annuity, it is a tradeoff that you're giving up the liquidity and the access for that guaranteed stream of income. So it's really important that they're comfortable with the remainder of their retirement savings and that that provides them with adequate liquidity in case of emergency and to give them discretionary spending.
Akweli Parker: Excellent point.
Stephen Weber: And to build on that just a little bit more, right, we always think of that as sort of a risk, if you will, of buying an income annuity, right, that you're going to lose access to your portfolio. But I think it is possible to almost flip that on its head and think about the opportunity that is associated with losing access to that money. And it's going to sound, what are you talking about, Steve? That sounds weird. But the idea there being that you've already given that up. It's going to come in as an income stream, and whatever happens down the road… so people are afraid to spend from their portfolios during retirement. It's really hard to spend from your portfolio during retirement. You've built this thing up, you've been a saver your whole life. Every time that you want to take money out, it hurts for a lot of people, because it's the opposite of what they're taught themselves to do their whole life.
Akweli Parker: Right, that's how they built that up.
Stephen Weber: So as a pre-commitment device, you could take a significant piece and say, "This is money I saved so I would have income. This is money that is there to provide income. I'm going to make this decision once. I'm not going to have the ability to not make that decision again in the future. Right, I'm going to give up control of that essentially by pre-committing to giving that up." And now what's the rest of my portfolio? The rest of my portfolio doesn't have to meet that basic income amount, and I can start thinking about what I want to spend on, rather than what I need to spend on. And that changes a little bit the dynamic of what I might need to spend.
So to some extent, of course, everybody wants to have access to their money. It feels hard in the same way, right. Not that many people buy income annuities. One of the reasons people don't buy income annuities is it's hard to part with the money that buys that income stream. But there is a flip side to that which is that you're not bound by the constant decision-making to withdraw small amounts to meet basic needs.
Source: vgbobeisenbrown


text:
Producer Scott Messick, who's executive produced shows such as Shaq vs. and Pros vs. Joes, is developing several shows all centered around Legos, from competitions to docudramas.
Among the series is a docudrama about "three Connecticut-based Lego Masters, who travel the world building massive sculptures for the company out of Legos," and possibly a competition set at Legoland, a theme park, according to Variety.
Although they're developing a film and TV, Messick said that before he met with them, "I don't think they were thinking about reality TV. They were focused on their feature business, but (Lego VP Jill Wilfert) liked the idea of going into reality."


text:
Back Cover Blurb:
Only Killian's bloodline was created with the planet. No other can accept the Seal and no human can carry the seed to bear the Heirs of Aeden.
Killian, King of the Fey, is in love with Marcella Rowan, human and forbidden to his kind. An errant Angel, seeking revenge, awakens creatures thought long dead or mythological. Marcella's life in danger and against the Divine Council's orders, Killian saves her from death—by claiming her as his soulmate. As earthly and other-earthly creatures polarize toward good or evil, Marcella and Killian must survive the forces driving them apart. Only their love can unite the worlds of magick and mundane. Only their love can force their peoples to put aside bigotry, jealousy and fear to overcome the evil tearing the earth apart. Only the magick they make together can repopulate earth's garden in Aeden.
Sheila R Polansky/ Raven Raye
Broken Prophecy--2010 FFL winner/2011 DoD winner
Broken Prophecy--2010 FFL winner/2011 DoD winner


text:
Power Plays and Capacity Constraints: The Selection of Defendants in World Trade Organization Disputes
Recommended Citation
Power Plays and Capacity Constraints: The Selection of Defendants in World Trade Organization Disputes, 34 J. Legal Stud. 557 (2005)
This paper examines the relationship between the wealth and power of states and their ability to participate fully within the World Trade Organization's system of dispute resolution. Two alternative hypotheses are considered. The power hypothesis predicts that politically weak countries will refrain from filing complaints against politically powerful states for fear of costly retaliation. The capacity hypothesis predicts that low-income states will tend to complain about behavior by high-income states because the latter offer a higher expected return. We test these two hypotheses and find considerable support for the capacity hypothesis and no support for the power hypothesis. We conclude that poor states behave differently than their rich counterparts because they lack the financial, human, and institutional capital to participate fully in the dispute resolution system.


text:
By Tina Kosikowski
Try this on for size with the nativist nearest you: native-born America gives jobs to "illegal aliens." According to the Embassy of Mexico and Carlos Rodriguez, candidate for the 28th Congressional District of California, evidence argues AGAINST the myth that so-called illegal aliens steal jobs from "real" Americans. If anything, the opposite is true…
The Embassy of Mexico goes into detail.
Myth: Undocumented immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans.
REALITY: Undocumented Immigrants differ from U.S. citizens in their economic sectors and occupation.
Among unauthorized immigrants in the labor force, 30% are service workers and 21% are construction workers. An additional 15% are production and installation workers. Two-thirds (66%) of unauthorized immigrant workers are employed in these three broad categories; by contrast, only 31% of U.S.-born workers perform those jobs […]
Undocumented immigration is sensitive to labor market demand. Immigrants are more likely to work in seasonal activities, such as agriculture, which suffer the largest job losses during downturns. Therefore, the size of the immigrant population changes in response to economic downturns or expansion […]
Immigration is not the cause of today's high unemployment rates. In fact, reliable estimates show that immigration levels —both undocumented and applications for H-1B visas for high-skilled professionals— have fallen along with the economic downturn […]
Carlos Rodriguez, candidate for the 28th Congressional District of California, put it into perspective.
Myth debunked: Illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans.
Truth:There is very little overlap between American jobs and immigrant work. The vast majority of the undocumented population speak little English, are low skilled, are uneducated and secure the worst paying jobs. By contrast, only 7% of the American labor force has less than a High School diploma and the cities with the highest unemployment rates are in the Midwest, that coincidentally have the lowest rates of immigration.
Bottom line: An English speaking American who has taken advantage of all this country has to offer does not compete with undocumented workers for the same jobs. Immigrants have always come to do immigrant work.
Even the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco weighs in on the Effect of Immigrants on U.S. Employment and Productivity:
The effects of immigration on the total output and income of the U.S. economy can be studied by comparing output per worker and employment in states that have had large immigrant inflows with data from states that have few new foreign-born workers. Statistical analysis of state-level data shows that immigrants expand the economy's productive capacity by stimulating investment and promoting specialization. This produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker. At the same time, evidence is scant that immigrants diminish the employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers.
The Embassy of Mexico, Mr. Carlos Rodriquez, and the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco did NOT arrive to these conclusions over heated debate. Authoritative, verifiable information and research support these truths. I LOVE comments and opposing view points. If you decide to share yours in opposition to the premise of this post, please be prepared to cite your sources and stick to the facts!


text:
Extinction is more likely on the edge
The world is losing its biodiversity, but it's not losing it in a particularly uniform way. Some places are losing it faster, and some places are losing it slower. North America, for example, has had only one native mammal go extinct since European colonization: the sea mink. Certain parts of the tropics are losing their wildlife a lot faster. It turns out that one of the patterns that drives the speed of extinction is geometry.
That's according to a new study published yesterday in the journal Nature Communications. A group of American and Czech researchers led by Yale University biologist Petr Keil describe the two primary ways by which conservation biologists estimate species loss. The "species-area relationship," or SAR, is calculated by comparing the size of a given landscape and the number of species found within it, while the "endemics-area relationship," or EAR, compares the size of a given landscape and the number of species confined to it. When asking how many species are lost when a certain area is lost, both methods can yield inaccurate estimates.
That's because areas lost can either be functionally identical to, or different from, those neighboring areas that remain. Perhaps a certain kind of monkey prefers to nest in one area but forage in another, but is fairly flexible in terms of its diet. If it lost the part of the forest where it feeds, the monkey might just survive. If it lost the parts of the forest where it nests, then it might not. In addition, it isn't entirely clear what ecological role small-scale plots play in coming together to comprise larger landscapes.
Keil and his team noted that habitats can be lost in different spatial or geometrical patterns. Is extinction more likely if habitats are lost from the edge of a landscape toward the center or if they're lost starting from the center? What if habitat loss is not quite so orderly, but more random? To find out, the researchers created four theoretical models that combined the geometry of habitat loss with species extinction, then compared them to bird, mammal, and amphibian distributions in nine real world regions to see which was most useful at predicting the impacts of habitat loss. In particular, they wanted to challenge an argument made by researchers Fangliang He and Stephen P. Hubbell in Nature that "species–area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from habitat loss."
What Keil's group found was that the SAR method sometimes gave higher estimates of biodiversity loss than the EAR method, but also sometimes gave lower estimates. And that depended on the arrangement of species ranges within the landscape in question.
Of greater importance to those who aren't just biogeography theory wonks, the researchers also discovered that extinctions are more likely to occur when landscapes are destroyed from the outside edge towards the center (such as in sea level rise) than if habitats are lost in the reverse direction (such as in urban sprawl). And the geometrical direction of habitat loss actually played a stronger role in determining the loss of species richness than the overall area lost. In other words, a little habitat loss on the edge of a region was worse for biodiversity than more habitat loss towards the center.
Of course in the real world, habitat loss never proceeds in such an orderly manner, and at this point habitat loss is a reality we have to contend with and plan for rather than a trend that can be reversed. Still, understanding the nuanced ways in which habitat loss leads to species loss is critical for land managers, conservationists, and urban planners, as they assess the potential impacts of human development against a background of climate change. – Jason G. Goldman | 18 November 2015
Source: Petr Keil, David Storch & Walter Jetz. (2015). On the decline of biodiversity due to area loss. Nature Communications, 6, 8837. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms9837.
Header image: Vlad Ozerov / shutterstock.com
A caffeine fix for heavy metal cleanupOctober 14th, 2016
What's smothering coal? Not the EPAOctober 13th, 2016
The unappreciated brilliance of ratsOctober 12th, 2016
Dam greenhouse gas emissions really add upOctober 11th, 2016
Foreign investors' land deals in Africa could heighten water conflictOctober 7th, 2016


text:
ACCENT-DMC is always looking for talented individuals who seek a career in destination management. Please submit your resume using the form below. This is a dynamic business!
You can also download the AOA Employment Application here and mail it to email@example.com.
You can also submit your information to our Office Manager at firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Quadcopters – or 'small drones' as they are also known – are enjoying a meteoritic rise in popularity. One brand in particular appears to have made a name for itself in the market. Just like 'GoPro' for many people has become synonymous to action camera, 'DJI Phantom' increasingly seems to be the first and indeed only quadcopter that comes to mind.
The Phantom is a small aircraft with four propellers, a built-in flight controller with gyroscopes, compass and GPS and a matching white remote control which works at a range of up to one kilometer. DJI is currently offering the second generation of its Phantom, available without camera and in 'Vision' and 'Vision Plus' models, which respectively add a high definition camera and a high definition camera with gimbal. Prices range from about 550 euros for the regular Phantom 2 to about 1150 euro's for the Phantom 2 Vision with gyroscopically stabilized gimbal.
Hardware.Info caught up with DJI Innovations PR Manager Michael Perry to talk about the success of the current products and to see if we can get a glimpse of what DJI Innovations has in store for the coming generations of Phantom quadcopters.


text:
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — A judge in Puerto Rico has ordered a diocese to provide state prosecutors with all confidential documents related to an ongoing sexual abuse probe.
The ruling issued Monday resolves a lawsuit that the Diocese of Arecibo recently filed against the island's justice secretary arguing that it should not have to release additional information to prosecutors. The diocese had said it sought to protect the identity of those who made the allegations and that it had already provided sufficient information.
The diocese has defrocked six priests accused of sex abuse, and prosecutors are investigating at least 11 other priests in the U.S. territory facing similar accusations. At least four dioceses are being investigated.
The ruling gives the diocese two weeks to turn over the information.
Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.


text:
Well, it looks like I couldn't resist this wedding blog thing after all…
Welcome. If anyone is reading, hello. If not…well it's just me and you blog!
I'm a wife of exactly 4 weeks and 2 days. A newly-wed. A former fiancé and has-been bride.
Throughout the wedding planning process, I didn't keep a blog. I was too busy reading them. In fact I've spent the last 2 years poring over the keyboard, devouring online images and soaking up the endless beautiful, creative ideas. I found the wedding planning process totally enjoyable and discovered a new world of amazing things that went way beyond the poofy white dresses, bad bridesmaid dresses and cookie-cutter weddings.
And now here I am, wanting a blog after-the-fact. There's a few reasons for this:
- Because I have all of these images saved in my hard-drive, that will otherwise never see light of day again. I want to put them in one place... to tell the story of how our gorgeous wedding day came to be.
- Because maybe one day, a bride will search for a rustic wedding.. and my blog will help her plan as so many helped inspire me!
- Because 4 weeks after my wedding, I'm not sick of it all yet. I'm not ready to give up looking at beautiful details. That's not to say I'm not ready to move on from the wedding planning process. I feel relieved that the day is over and fulfilled our dreams.. But I'm not ready to put away the blogs yet. Wedding planning has offered a creative outlet that I haven't had in a long time. And I've realised just how much I love and need a little creativity in my life! It's got me contemplating new hobbies, new career opportunities, and it's got me wanting to share it all with the nameless faceless people of the internet. Or maybe just creating a diary for myself. Either way.. I'm easy. J


text:
Tim Jones, the longtime leader of North Shore Rescue, was posthumously inducted into Simon Fraser University's Athletics Hall of Fame on Monday.
Jones, considered a local hero after rescuing thousands of people stranded on the North Shore Mountains over his more than 30 years of volunteer work, was also once a SFU Clan football player.
Jones is the second inductee into the Terry Fox Honorary Inductee category, and the first nominee after Fox himself.
"He embodied what Terry Fox was all about — service to his fellow man," said SFU athletic director Milt Richards. "He was a fantastic player and was drafted by the Toronto Argonauts. Even as a collegial player, he always put other people first."
After Jones' death on Jan. 19 of a cardiac arrest during a training exercise on Mount Seymour, a memorial fund was established in his name. The Tim Jones Memorial fund has raised $243,000 to date, said Doug Pope, a search manager with North Shore Rescue.
Jones had previously raised more than $1 million to fund the team's work, and introduced helicopter-based longline rescue protocols to the team.
Pope said Jones was gearing up to launch a Legacy Fund for North Shore Rescue in the hope of raising $6 million.
The cost to run North Shore Rescue is approximately $450,000 annually, said Pope.
"We're excited the fund has grown this much in a short time, and especially that people are doing it in the memory of Tim," said Pope.
About 200 people attended Monday's Clan Athletics Hall of Fame ceremony. Jones' son Curtis, who is also a member of North Shore Rescue, accepted the award on his father's behalf.
Others inducted into the Hall of Fame this year include Harold Willers (track and field), Sara Maglio (soccer), Eugene Gyorfi (swimming and diving), Ed Sernoski (wrestling), Andrea Schnider (basketball), and Jim Jardine (football).
Men's basketball coach Stan Stewardson and Dr. Jack Taunton were inducted in the builder's category, and the 2001-02 women's basketball team, SFU's first Canadian Interuniversity Sports Champions, was also inducted.