text:
EWU 302-08: Conflicts of Interest – Research & Technology Transfer
EWU 302-08: Conflicts of Interest - Research & Technology Transfer
University Operations – Administration
Effective: February 22, 2019 Proponent: Vice President for Academic Affairs
Purpose: This policy prescribes ethical standards for conducting research or technology transfer by employees and students of Eastern Washington University. The purpose of this policy is to comply with and support federal and state laws related to research.
History: This policy is new and replaces chapter 2 of EWU Policy 302-05 (Ethics in Research). It was adopted by the Board of Trustees on February 22, 2019.
Applicability: This policy applies to all faculty, staff, and students of Eastern Washington University and to any persons engaged in research activities conducted under the auspices of the University.
Chapter 1 – General
1-1. Introduction
Eastern Washington University (EWU) encourages participation in externally-funded research and technology transfer projects that carry out its education, research and community service mission. Participation in research and projects funded by grants and contracts is important to encourage the free exchange and development of new ideas, information, materials and technology that may benefit the university, the community and the public at large. At times, external activities may have the potential to affect activities pursued by the university. EWU endeavors to maintain the highest standards of integrity and ethics. This includes the identification and management of actual and potential conflicts of interest that could bias the design, conduct, reporting of results, or sale of research and technology.
1-2. Compliance Requirements
EWU is required to have rules pertaining to conflicts of interest in research and technology transfer by state and federal law. As the recipient of federal grants and contracts, EWU is required by federal law to promote objectivity in research, provide oversight, and manage compliance for all grants and contracts developed and awarded to or conducted under the auspices of EWU. Compliance requirements include, but are not limited to, Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Public Health Service (PHS) regulations on Responsibility of Applicants for Promoting Objectivity in Research for which PHS Funding is Sought (42 CFR Part 50, Subpart F) and Responsible Prospective Contractors (45 CFR Part 94). The PHS regulations also apply to funding obtained from the National Institute of Health.
In addition, the National Science Foundation (NSF) requires EWU to maintain an appropriate written and enforceable policy on conflict of interest, and to manage, reduce, or eliminate all identified conflicts of interest for each award prior to expenditure of award funds.
The Ethics in Public Service Act, chapter 42.52 RCW, requires EWU to have specific conflict of interest provisions for any employee engaged in research, technology transfer, approved consulting activities related to research and technology transfer, or other incidental activities. RCW 42.52.360(2). Under state law, all research and technology transfer must comply with PHS regulations.
Recognizing that each federal awarding agency may have a different policy regarding conflicts of interest, EWU, as a grant recipient, has adopted this policy to comply with 2 CFR 200.112.
The policies and procedures contained herein are designed to address the necessary identification and management of potential conflicts of interest to ensure compliance with both federal and state laws and regulations relating to conflicts of interest.
1-3. Policy
EWU is responsible for ensuring that all faculty, staff, and students who direct or participate in research or technology transfer under the auspices of the university adhere to ethical standards in disclosing, managing, and eliminating potential conflicts of interest in an effort to promote objectivity in research. It is the obligation of all employees and students engaged in research, technology transfer, or consulting activities to comply with this policy and any applicable state and federal requirements.
This policy applies to all research, technology transfer, approved consulting activities related to research and technology transfer, or other incidental activities, at the university regardless of the funding source.
1-4. References
Chapter 42.52 RCW, Ethics in Public Service
EWU Policy 302-05, Ethics in Research
EWU Policy 401-02, Additional or Outside Employment
EWU Policy 901-01, Ethical Standards
EWU Policy 901-02, Appropriate Use of University Resources
EWU Policy 901-05, Nepotism
2 CFR Part 200.112, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards – Conflict of Interest
42 CFR Part 50, Subpart F, Responsibility of Applicants for Promoting Objectivity in Research for Which PHS Funding Is Sought
42 CFR Part 93, Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct
45 CFR Part 94, Responsible Prospective Contractors
National Science Foundation Conflict of Interest Policy, Proposal & Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Chapter IX.A
Chapter 2 – Definitions
Actual Conflict of Interest depends on the situation and not on the character or actions of the individual. For purposes of this policy, a conflict of interest exists when the university, through procedures described herein, reasonably determines that a significant financial interest could directly and significantly affect the design, conduct or reporting of the educational, research, and/or service activities that are funded or proposed for funding.
Financial Conflict of Interest (FCOI) means a Significant Financial Interest that could directly and significantly affect the design, conduct, or reporting of research.
Immediate Family refers to the investigator's parents, siblings, spouse, registered domestic partner, children and any equivalent relatives by marriage. It also refers to any individual who resides on a regular basis in the researcher's domicile.
Institution refers means the entity or organization that applies for or receives federal research funding. In most cases, the institution refers to Eastern Washington University.
Investigator means the project director (PD) or principal investigator (PI) and any other person, regardless of title or position, who is responsible for the design, conduct, or reporting of research or educational activities funded by external sources, or proposed for such funding, which may include, for example, collaborators or consultants. It also includes any employees who fall within this policy's definition of Research Employee.
Investigator's University Responsibilities means an investigator's professional responsibilities on behalf of the university as outlined in the investigator's job description, faculty activity plan, or university policies, such as research, teaching, professional development, or service.
Manage means taking action to address a financial conflict of interest, which can include reducing or eliminating the financial conflict of interest, to ensure, to the extent possible, that the design, conduct, and reporting of research will be free from bias.
NIH refers to the National Institute of Health.
PHS means the Public Health Service, an operating division of the HHS, and any components of the PHS to which the authority involved may be delegated.
PHS Awarding Component means an organizational unit of the PHS that funds research that is subject to this policy.
Potential Conflict of Interest occurs when there is a divergence between an individual's private interests and his or her professional obligations to the university such that an independent observer might reasonably question whether the individual's professional actions or decisions are determined by considerations of personal gain, financial or otherwise.
Research means a systematic investigation, study, or experiment designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge. The term encompasses basic and applied research, as well as product development. Activities which meet this definition constitute research for purposes of this policy, whether or not they are conducted or supported under a program which is considered research for other purposes. For example, some demonstration and service programs may include research activities.
Research Employee means any university officer or employee to the extent that they are engaged in research, technology transfer, approved consulting activities related to research and technology transfer, or other incidental activities. For the purposes of this policy, a university research employee is also an investigator as defined above.
Senior/Key Personnel means the PD/PI and any other person identified as senior/key personnel by the university in the grant application, progress report, or any other report submitted by the university.
Significant Financial Interest (SFI) is:
1. A financial interest consisting of one or more of the following interests of the investigator (and those of the investigator's spouse and dependent children) that reasonably appears to be related to the investigator's university responsibilities. See the definition of SFI exclusions for items that may be excluded from determining whether a SFI exists.
a. Publicly Traded Entities: a significant financial interest exists if the value of any remuneration received from the entity in the twelve months preceding the disclosure and the value of any equity interest in the entity as of the date of disclosure, when aggregated, exceeds $5,000. For purposes of this definition, remuneration includes salary and any payment for services not otherwise identified as salary (e.g., consulting fees, honoraria, paid authorship); equity interest includes any stock, stock option, or other ownership interest, as determined through reference to public prices or other reasonable measures of fair market value;
b. Non-Publicly Traded Entities: a significant financial interest exists if the value of any remuneration received from the entity in the twelve months preceding the disclosure, when aggregated, exceeds $5,000, or when the investigator (or the investigator's spouse or dependent children) holds any equity interest (e.g., stock, stock option, or other ownership interest); or intellectual property rights and interests (e.g., patents, copyrights), upon receipt of income related to such rights and interests; or,
c. Intellectual property rights and interests (e.g. patents, copyrights), upon receipt of income related to such rights and interests.
2. Travel: investigators also must disclose the occurrence of any reimbursed or sponsored travel (i.e., that which is paid on behalf of the investigator and not reimbursed to the investigator so that the exact monetary value may not be readily available), related to their university responsibilities, provided, however, that this disclosure requirement does not apply to travel that is reimbursed or sponsored by a federal, state, or local government agency, an institution of higher education, an academic teaching hospital, a medical center, or a research institute affiliated with an institution of higher education. At minimum, the investigator must disclose the purpose of the trip, identify of the sponsor/organizer, destination, and duration. Per the procedures outlined below, EWU will determine whether additional information is needed to ascertain whether or not a financial conflict of interest exists.
SFI Exclusion. For any research or technology transfer that does not involve the National Science Foundation, the following items may be excluded when calculating whether a significant financial interest exists:
salary royalties, or other remuneration paid by the institution to the investigator if the investigator is currently employed by or otherwise appointed by the institution;
intellectual property rights assigned to the institution and agreements to share in royalties related to such rights;
any ownership interest in the institution held by the investigator, if the institution is a commercial or for- profit organization;
income from seminars, lectures, or teaching engagements sponsored by a federal, state, or local government agency, an institution of higher education as defined at 20 U.S.C. 1001(a), an academic teaching hospital, a medical center, or a research institute that is affiliated with an institution of higher education;
income from service on advisory committees or review panels for a federal, state, or local government agency, an institution of higher education as defined at 20 U.S.C. 1001(a), an academic teaching hospital, a medical center, or a research institute that is affiliated with an institution of higher
For Projects by the National Science Foundation (NSF):
Significant Financial Interest (SFI): anything of monetary value, including, but not limited to, salary or other payments for services (e.g., consulting fees or honoraria); equity interest (e.g., stocks, stock options or other ownership interests); and intellectual property rights (e.g., patents, copyrights and royalties from such rights).
NSF SFI Exclusion. For any research involving the National Science Foundation, the following items may be excluded when calculating whether a significant financial interest exists:
salary, royalties or other remuneration from the applicant organization;
any ownership interests in the organization, if the organization is an applicant under the Small Business Innovation Research Program or Small Business Technology Transfer Program;
income from seminars, lectures, or teaching engagements sponsored by public or non-profit entities;
income from service on advisory committees or review panels for public or nonprofit entities;
an equity interest that, when aggregated for the investigator and the investigator's spouse and dependent children, meets both of the following tests: (a) does not exceed $10,000* in value as determined through reference to public prices or other reasonable measures of fair market value; and (b) does not represent more than a 5% ownership interest in any single entity; or
salary, royalties or other payments that, when aggregated for the investigator and the investigator's spouse and dependent children, are not expected to exceed $10,000* during the prior twelve-month period.
*While current NSF regulations designate a higher threshold of ($10,000) for SFIs than the PHS (NIH) policy, EWU identifies $5,000 as the standard monetary threshold in determining SFI for all funding sources.
Sponsor means the agency or organization providing funding to the university to carry out a program of research, and/or educational or services activities.
Chapter 3 – Responsibilities
3-1. Purpose
EWU seeks to promote objectivity in research, technology transfer, and other sponsored project activities by prescribing standards that protect the design, conduct, and reporting of projects from potential bias posed by conflicts of interest, and including standards for identifying and managing conflicts of interest in compliance with federal regulations and state laws. The intent of this chapter is to outline these standards.
3-2. Institutional Responsibilities
Eastern Washington University will:
a. report and manage any conflicts of interest as required by the sponsor and in accordance with this policy;
b. establish standards that provide a reasonable expectation that the design, conduct, and reporting of research will be free from bias resulting from investigator financial conflicts of interest;
c. maintain an up-to-date enforceable policy that complies with applicable federal regulations;
d. develop and maintain adequate enforcement mechanisms and provide employee sanctions or other administrative actions to ensure compliance;
e. maintain records of all investigator disclosures of financial interests and the university's review of, and response to, such disclosures (whether or not a disclosure resulted in the institution's determination of FCOI) and all actions under this policy or retrospective review, if applicable. Records must be maintained at least six years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report for the project;
f. certify in each application for funding that the university complies with all appropriate sponsor regulations, terms and conditions;
g. designate university official(s) to solicit and review disclosure statements from each investigator planning to participate in or participating in research, provide guidelines to identify conflicting interests related to sponsor funded research and develop management plans that specify the actions that have been and shall be taken to manage FCOI's;
h. inform each investigator of the applicable regulation, university policy on FCOI and investigator's responsibilities regarding disclosure of SFI's;
i. for federally funded research projects and those funders who follow PHS policy, require that each investigator complete FCOI training prior to engaging in research at least every three years, and immediately when: the university revises this policy in a matter that affects the investigator, when the investigator is new to the university, when the university determines the investigator has failed to comply with the university's research policies and/or conflict of interest management plan;
j. manage investigator discosures of SFIs at the time of application, annually and within 30 days of discovering or acquiring a new SFI;
k. take necessary actions to manage FCOIs of its investigators, including those of subrecipient investigators, develop managment plans and monitor compliance;
l. if the university identifies an SFI that was not disclosed or reviewed in a timely manner, the designated offical shall within 60 days review the SFI, determine if an FCOI exists and implement an interim mangagement plan if needed, and in cases of non-compliance, complete a retrospective review and submit a mitigation report to the sponsor if bias is found;
m. provide FCOI reports to each sponsor as required;
n. subrecipients:
incorporate as part of a written agreement terms that establish whether the FCOI policy of the awardee institution or that of the subrecipient will apply to subrecipient investigators and include time periods to meet SFI disclosure, if applicable and FCOI reporting requirements;
subrecipient institutions who rely on their FCOI policy must report identified FCOIs to the awardee institution in sufficient time to allow the awardee institution sufficient time to report the FCOI to the sponsor and meet reporting obligations;
ensure that subrecipient investigators abide by any management plan that has been adopted to manage a FCOI;
ensure subrecipeint investigators meet FCOI training requirements;
provide oversight of FCOI requirements for subrecipients and consultants.
o. make this policy available on the university's website;
p. prior to expenditure of funds, make certain information concerning FCOI's held by senior/key personnel are publicly accessible on the university's website, or provide written response within five business days of a request, and update information annually and within 60 days of identification of a new FCOI;
q. implement retrospective reviews if a new or non-reported SFI has been identified;
r. notify the sponsor if bias is found through a retrospective review, and submit a mitigation report as necessary.
3-3. Research Employee/Investigator Responsibilities
Each investigator will be held accountable for disclosure of any SFI as defined in this policy to the Office of Grant and Research Development and for compliance regarding any conditions and restrictions imposed by the university in order to manage actual or potential FCOIs.
Each research employee/investigator is responsible for regularly updating their disclosure status to ensure regulatory compliance. Disclosures are required:
a. at the time of application:
If the investigator discloses known SFIs to the university, the designated official will review the disclosure to make a determination of FCOIs and report to the appropriate sponsor as required.
If a proposal is funded:
b. annually, by submitting an updated Financial Conflict of Interest Disclosure form in accordance with university policy;
c. within 30 days of discovering or acquiring a new SFI;
d. within the specific time period designated by the university for a particular award, during the period of award, or as indicated by the sponsor; and,
e. any annual or updated reports required as part of an approved conflict management plan.
3-4. Office of Grant & Research Development Responsibilities
The Office of Grant and Research Development (OGRD) is the primary point of contact for all matters related to this policy. Upon submission, the OGRD will inform each research employee/ investigator of:
a. the applicable regulation(s), policy and their specific responsibilities regarding the disclosure of significant financial interests including updating disclosures as required by the sponsor;
b. require training as determined by each sponsor;
c. designate a person or persons to review and manage the disclosure process;
d. maintain records of all financial disclosures and actions taken to resolve conflicts of interest for six years;
e. manage subrecipient compliance with this policy.
Certification for Externally Funded Projects
Within each proposal submitted for external funding, the OGRD is responsible for certifying to the sponsor that EWU:
a. has an up to date written and enforceable administrative process to identify and manage, reduce or eliminate conflicting interests;
b. shall promote and enforce investigator compliance with this policy;
c. will require all key personnel who meet the definition of investigator at time of submission to file a financial disclosure form, annually if required by the sponsor, and for each investigator who acquires a new SFI, within 30 days of discovery;
d. will manage FCOIs and ongoing reports as required by the sponsor; and,
e. will agree to make information available to the appropriate awarding agency regarding all conflicting interests identified by the institution and how those interests have been managed, reduced or eliminated to protect the research from bias.
Collaborators and Subrecipient Organizations
The OGRD also will take reasonable steps to ensure that any collaborator or subrecipient organization will provide assurances to comply this this policy by:
a. requiring such entities to certify that they have their own policies in place that comply with this policy; or
b. requiring investigators working for such entities to follow the policies of EWU.
Chapter 4 – Conflict of Interest Procedures
4 -1. Preliminary Discussions
Prior to writing a proposal, each research employee/ investigator must consider whether a financial conflict of interest may exist. Review by the unit head or college dean of relevant financial information at an early stage of proposal development may help identify actual or potential conflicts of interest and determine potential conditions to manage or eliminate the conflict of interest.
If the unit head or dean believes that it will be possible to develop and execute, prior to an award, a conflict of interest management plan that will adequately manage or eliminate the conflict of interest, they may endorse the proposal by signing the Financial Conflict of Interest Disclosure form.
Although involving the unit head dean in this preliminary manner is recommended to help expedite proposal processing, an investigator is not required to do so. Alternatively, an investigator may consult informally with the staff of the OGRD or the chair of the Conflict of Interest Review Committee before filing a disclosure, or may simply proceed with the official disclosure process.
4-2. Financial Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Before engaging in research, technology transfer, approved consulting activities related to research or technology transfer, or submitting a proposal for a sponsored project, any university-affiliated investigator must complete must complete a Financial Conflict of Interest Disclosure form and submit a completed for to OGDR. When relevant, the investigator also must include supporting documentation identifying the relevant enterprises and the nature and amount of the investigator's financial interest.
The investigator must identify whether there is any reportable SFI as specified in the Financial Conflict of Interest Disclosure form. If the investigator discloses a SFI, the investigator must also submit supporting documentation outlining the possible conflict to OGDR with the Financial Interest Disclosure form. Supporting documentation should be placed in an envelope marked "Confidential." In addition, the Financial Interest Disclosure form must be signed by the investigator's unit head or dean.
Regardless of whether or not a SFI will be disclosed, an investigator must submit the Financial Conflict of Interest Disclosure form (and enclosures, if applicable) to OGDR before submitting a sponsored research proposal.
If an SFI is being disclosed, the confidential information will remain sealed until a notification of award from the funding agency is received. If a conflict is identified, it must be resolved prior to research beginning or the expenditure of any funds. Confidential information submitted for projects that are not funded will be returned to the investigator unopened or destroyed as requested by the investigator.
4-3. Initial review
Upon notification of award, the Executive Director of the Office of Grant and Research Development will review all Financial Conflict of Interest Disclosure documentation that was completed at the time of proposal submission to determine if an actual or potential conflict of interest may exist and could directly and significantly affect the design, conduct or reporting of the proposed project. The investigator is free to submit updated information that could potentially affect the SFI determination if applicable. If an initial judgement is made that an actual or potential conflict of interest may exist, the Provost's Office will be notified.
4-4. Conflict of Interest Review Committee
If the Executive Director determines an actual or potential conflict of interest exists, the case will be referred to the Conflict of Interest Review Committee. This three-member committee, of which one member serves as chair, will be appointed by the President with nominations submitted by the EWU Academic Senate for a two-year term. The Executive Director will serve as an additional non-voting member.
The committee will develop a Conflict Management Plan, which may include investigation and consultation with individuals that the committee consider necessary and appropriate. The plan will include measures that will reduce, eliminate or effectively manage the conflict of interest. The committee may discuss proposing alternative conditions which may be either more or less stringent or restrictive depending on the situation. The investigator may propose, or the committee may require, one or more of the following as part of the resolution plan:
a. no action beyond disclosure to the university, sponsor, and/or competitor, if appropriate;
b. disclosure of FCOI to:
(i) the academic and professional communities, as well as at presentations and in publications,
(ii) to the sponsor through written notification,
(iii) to participants through informed consent documents when human participants are involved. In determining an appropriate means of disclosure, consideration should be given to whether it should be written and/or oral and to the level of detail;
c. monitoring and oversight of the research by independent researchers either through an in-house quality assurance program or through an outside referee or coordinating center;
d. modification of the research plan to manage concerns of bias by establishing protocols that include actions such as blinding, modifying the scope of the project and setting timetables for the delivery of the product. These modifications would require the approval and cooperation of the sponsor and possibly collaborating investigators at the university and elsewhere;
e. designation of a co-investigator (peer or superior) who has no significant financial interest in the project to assume the lead role on the project;
f. the sale or other divestiture of the significant financial interest in a sponsor or competitor and restrictions on re-investment after the project is completed for an appropriate period to provide for publication and critique of the project;
g. placing interest in escrow for the term of the project and possibly a period beyond the end of the project to provide for publication and critique of the project;
h. severance of other relationships with the sponsor or competitor that create actual or potential conflicts of interests;
i. other strategies that may include variations of options presented, combinations of options, and/or new options not identified herein; and/or,
j. disqualification of the investigator from participation in all or a portion of the research when no other resolution is acceptable to the investigator and the Conflict of Interest Review Committee.
The committee shall recommend to the Executive Director the conditions and restrictions, if any, to be imposed by the university to reasonably manage the actual or potential conflict of interest. The resolution plan shall not include any reduction in an employee's base salary unless the plan also includes a leave of absence from the university. The final decision regarding management of the conflict of interest will be made by the Executive Director with due regard for the committee's recommendations. The investigator shall indicate in writing acceptance of the resolution plan prior to acceptance and expenditure of any funds under the award.
For National Science Foundation (NSF) funded projects only: If the Executive Director determines the imposition of conditions or restrictions would be either ineffective or inequitable, and that the potential negative impacts that may arise from a significant financial interest are outweighed by interests of scientific progress, technology transfer, or the public health or welfare, the university may allow the NSF-supported research, educational, or service activities to go forward without imposing such conditions or restrictions when permitted by applicable regulations.
4-5. Appeals
The Vice Provost for Academic Administration (VPAA) has the ultimate responsibility for reviewing significant financial interest disclosures, determining whether an actual or potential conflict of interest exists, and for determining what actions should be taken by the university to manage any conflict of interest.
Investigators may appeal decisions of the Executive Director to the VPAA. The appeal must be filed in writing and received by the VPAA's office within 14 calendar days of the date the Executive Director issues a written decision. The VPAA should respond to the appeal within 14 calendar days of receipt. The VPAA may affirm, modify, or reverse the Executive Director's determination. The VPAA's decision is final and no further appeal is available.
4-6. Non-Compliance Enforcement
Violations of this policy may result in one or more of the following university actions:
a. suspension of the research until a corrective action plan is approved by the VPAA and has been initiated;
b. completion of a retrospective review of the investigator's activities and a mitigation report submitted to the NIH for PHS funded research;
c. a report of misconduct to the federal Office of Research Integrity in the case of federally funded research;
d. cancellation of the research;
e. transfer of the research to another investigator;
f. PI, staff and/or student dismissal from the university in the case of flagrant noncompliance resulting in bias in the design, conduct, or reporting of the research.
The university shall withdraw an application for funding or a funded project in all cases where the investigator, after the process of appeal, chooses not to comply with the resolution plan adopted in accordance with university policy and if the project cannot otherwise be completed without the services of the investigator.
4-7. Retrospective Review
To ensure compliance, EWU is responsible for keeping each sponsor appropriately informed if the university finds that it is unable to satisfactorily manage a conflict of interest or if the organization finds that research will proceed without the imposition of conditions or restrictions when a conflict of interest exists.
For PHS funded projects or those who follow PHS regulations, the university must complete a retrospective review of the investigator's activities and the project to determine whether any research, or portion thereof, conducted during the time period of noncompliance was biased in the design, conduct, or reporting of research within 120 days of the determination of noncompliance whenever:
an FCOI is not identified or managed in a timely manner, including failure by the investigator to disclose an SFI;
failure by the university to review or manage an FCOI; or,
failure by the investigator to comply with a Conflict Management Plan.
EWU will notify the sponsor promptly and submit a mitigation report if bias is found. The mitigation report will include: key elements of the retrospective review, description of the impact of the bias on the research project, and a plan of action to eliminate or mitigate the effect of the bias.
4-8. Reporting
General Reporting
The university will also submit required reports for SFI disclosure and FCOI in a timely manner as required by each individual sponsor.
Annual Updated FCOI Reporting
All investigators who are subject to a Conflict Management Plan shall provide annual reports in a timely manner to update their status, confirm that there has been no material increase in the nature and amount of the SFI, and that they are complying with the approved Conflict Management Plan. Investigators who do not submit updated reports may be subject to sanctions.
4-9. Recordkeeping
The OGRD shall maintain all records related to this policy. To protect the privacy of those involved, all information gathered under this policy will be maintained in a confidential manner and disseminated only as required by law or as is necessary for internal operations. In the event a proposal is not funded, any related confidential information shall, at the direction of the investigator, either be destroyed unopened or returned to the investigator unopened to the extent permitted by law.
Records for funded projects will be maintained for six years after the projects concludes.


text:
El Raja Key Archive Final Update
DVD Label: Final
There are four principal people involved in this massive project and all of us have been busy at it, made more difficult by me being overseas and having to interface via Skype for sometimes 6 hours straight many days in a row as of recent. Those people are: myself, Paul Stormberg of the Collector's Trove, Kevin Maurice and my wife, Nathalie.
Upon receiving the test DVD by FEDEX we have finished:
Going over the 1,100 image files for proper placement within categories and sub-categories, for image quality, and for the ability to print, share and to otherwise test the interface in relation to these. As well Kevin is working on a "cascading view" because some categories open with as many as 60 thumbnail images. This will allow a handy interface for viewing and accessing.
Tonight we finish up on the 200+ pages of file descriptions while fine tooth combing Paul's and my own descriptions of the auctioned and scanned items which started over 10 years ago, this for errors, omissions and possible better wording/changes.
We have all learned quite a lot doing something that none of us have ever done before, and we have been making adjustments to the project as it proceeds due to this.
The date for release keeps changing due to that, so our next, pretty final one is the 3rd or 4th week in August.
In between, know that we are very busy with the many things connected to this and the launch of Three Line Studio.
A New Ethos in Game Design: The Paradigm Shift Originated by Dungeons & Dragons, 1972-1977
To Be Released 2017
http://www.threelinestudio.com/
As many people and communities throughout the Internet are aware I have been steadily adding chapters to a book that I undertook researching and writing 8 years ago, actually now almost 9 years, in fact. It is now approaching 200,000 words and with 20 diagrams; and my projection for its release has been amended several times due to moves (first to Wichita, then to France), the releasing of my DVD Collection (a long project started in Illinois, continued in Wichita and finished in France), and to my marriage to my wife Nathalie Hachet-Kuntz. Though slowed in bringing the book to immediate release due to all of these life-changing and, ultimately, happy life circumstances indeed, I am now on track to finishing it.
This book is a culmination of over 42+ years of being actively exposed to game design and game theory and in combining this with my research to achieve a goal: To discover the true essence of the RPG concept and, moreover, to describe it in scientific terms to allow for its continued expansion in many ways. The book intersects many disciplines, such as game design, game theory, play theory, cognitive science and systems thinking, to name a few. In my estimation I believe that I have achieved my goal; and I am in the process of fleshing out the details of it as gathered through reading and referencing 50+ major texts, over 200 related articles and from my copious notes, a copy of the latter which is being held for me by my close friend and associate, Allan Grohe. I have also had in-depth discussions and readings by me of the ms with Allan Grohe and Jon Hershberger (Black Blade Publishing), Paul Stormberg (the Collectors Trove) and of course my wife Nathalie. I have also extensively sampled its parts for all of the above named and my wife retains a full back-up and is one of the editors assigned to the project.
In essence, this is my grand opus, so to speak. It is not only a culmination but a beginning, just as Arneson's concept was for game history and for the theories he espoused.
My current book (the manuscript is finished and we are about 2 months out, if not sooner, from releasing it) is entitled Dave Arneson's True Genius; and it is not only a send-up to Dave Arneson but is an in-depth study of what Arneson gifted to us: his genius. It is also a shot across the bow for A New Ethos in Game Design, the former being a solid prelude of it that will include samples from this much larger companion work.
With all good news comes a rumor which I am tracking for its origin and that a text similar to mine in kind is now being prepared, this after I recently went public and put myself on the radar at several forums in stating my purpose.
Though just a rumor at present I cannot but now feel delighted, if it has any basis in fact, that someone might join the scientific fray by way of attempting to ride my coat-tails whereas no such wind was in the air prior to my recent announcements. Rumors are what they are, and I also claim no right of way to be the only one to pursue such a course as I have partially described herein; and since science is science and historically it seems that the advantage therein not only lies with the true thinker but sometimes with the hasty doer who would forward a cause based upon ego and denial rather than truth and the patience of a scholar who reads first and then decides upon matters worthy or not of the pen.
Whether folks in this hobby care to notice or even to admit this behavior--and as paraded in the past as fact and not as rumor as in this case--it is pretty entrenched in RPG's history. It derives explicitly from the split between Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, the resultant obfuscation of facts due to out of court settlements, and the continued marginalization of Arneson's real contributions due to that. This attitude has desisted in large part to a norm which is now promoted less virulently but more remotely. "Historians" who do not quote living persons associated with that era have come forward to paper over the past with the "truth". They have their own interpretations based upon non-primary sources, which are the actual people themselves who are excluded from such "scholarship."
My research is based upon my experiences from not only historical texts, my own 42+ years of involvement starting at the pre-dawn on this industry/hobby, as someone who has witnessed the great majority of primary shifts that caused its rise; and by participating with those primary and secondary people--living history--who were there. I have taken the high road of real scholarship in stating facts as I know them to be and have left interpretation aside which has no place in science or history as even provisional truth. Therefore it is of interest in all the many books that have come forth as of recent regarding D&D's and TSR's past that very few primary people from that time period have been asked to participate in their formation, and apparently fewer still are solicited if they do not fit onto a certain narrowly defined output so apparent from these books.
One might ask the whys about this--and many have. To my knowledge there have been countless redirections to myself--and endless other redirections to primary people associated with that history--by secondary people who were being asked primary questions. Of those redirections I can only speak for myself directly: nothing came from them. The secondary source's recommendations to enquire of the primary source, myself in this case, were ignored. In three cases to date my name occurs in the same number of printed works and in many instances. In every case I have not been asked a single question regarding contextual use or to verify such uses as fact. In one case I was not even aware that the book was just about to be released in two weeks time. I can only assume that this form of exclusionary approach holds true for other living persons from that time period who are referenced within these works.
Expediency has no place in scholarship no matter the subject. This sort of careless approach can speak to many outcomes but never to truthful reporting.
There is no doubt that the end-use reader has the final verdict with all such matter, and as often compared to similar works--but that they should be from the very onset given a clear picture based upon equally researched views that are verifiable and attributable and not in the least bit "interpretable" is what defines properly executed research. Minus this we are left with a hodge-podge of interpretations which become voided as opinions.
You have my guarantee that my own works have not, nor will not, proceed along such a marginal course as I have described above. The LGTSA (Lake Geneva Tactical Studies Association) cut their teeth on intensive research time and again and within overlapping and multiple subject areas. It was part and parcel of my own existence as its membered president--now 47 years removed but not forgotten.
Dave Arneson's True Genius: First Major Treatise on Dave Arneson
Place Holder Cover
Three Line Studio is nearing release of the first ever major treatise on David L. Arneson, the genius behind the role-playing craze that started in 1971 in Minneapolis with his group of players and spread like a contagion from 1974 onward through the commercial release of Classic Dungeons & Dragons in 1974.
The manuscript for the work is finished and we are finishing designing the cover and sourcing a layout person.
The work is not the usual history tour so much as it is a tour of Arneson's mind, design philosophies and ultimate systems organization, the latter which busted wide open 2,000 years of game history with his unprecedented systems architecture.
The tentative date for its release is set for 2 months from now; final editing of the ms is now being overseen by Nathalie Hachet-Kuntz (TLS) and Allan Grohe (BBP).
Three Line Studio has one fulfillment agency in the U.S. for distribution purposes and is seeking a second to handle overflow orders for the monograph, which we deem will be brisk. We are currently sourcing a second agent for fulfilling overflow orders. If interested contact us at enquiries@threelinestudio.com for details.
Review copies will be available for established book reviewers in and out of the RPG industry. Use the contact details above if you are interested in reviewing the book and in receiving an advanced copy of it prior to its release.
UPDATE: DVD Project, Book on Dave Arneson, New RPG Adventure
It has been a long and complicated 9 months since I arrived in France and was married to my sweet wife, Nathalie. Setting up a working office, dealing with all of the official governmental requirements of my residency, attending LUCCA, doing business under changed circumstances which was not always conducive for expediency as it was in the States, writing and designing in the face of it all, and the list goes on...
As much as there have been delays, still much has been accomplished. As most of the readers here are aware there are MAJOR changes ahead for this writer. Some are near coming to pass; and I will list a few hereafter.
The RJK DVD Collection is nearly set to go after many delays. The Collector's Trove (Paul Stormberg/Kevin Maurice) is finalizing the matter and I have recent word from Paul of a final release date in a month to 6 weeks. There's some extra content that's been added by me and that is a solid, surprise bonus. I am awaiting a mailing of the DVD to me for review and then after that it goes into production and release. The size, from what I've been told, is 6.8 GB constituting 1100 scanned files. Here's a few prelim image samples of it:
Three Line Studio (link). Nathalie and I have been busy creating our new website. Though it is mostly barebones right now, we a have a product forthcoming listed there, which is a book of linked essays regarding Dave Arneson: "Dave Arneson's True Genius." This is a preliminary shot across the bow for my major forthcoming works, "A New Ethos in Game Design" (due out 2017) and "New Models for RPGs" (due out 2018).
The manuscript for Dave Arneson's True Genius is finished (around 20,000 words) and we intend to release thisbefore the end of the year! VERY EXCITED about this! TLS is currently in the stage of having a fitting book cover design created for it. The one on the website is merely a placeholder cover.
Logo Copyright 2016 Three Line Studio
My RPG Works continue with the Italian republication of Bottle City due out by Mondiversi (Amos Pons) at LUCCA 2016; a new D&D module already written (17,200 words) but of which I cannot speak about as yet other than to say that it derives from something I created for GENCON way in the past... And I have been negotiating with my friends at Black Blade Publishing about some related work and this particular module, all of which takes time. I am full-time in this industry but many who publish and assist have day jobs, so I must understandably wait upon them for final dates and verdicts, etc.
There's much more ahead so that's it for now as it's back to the creative table for me!
*Note that contact information for me can be gained through our website.
Posted by Rob Kuntz at 4:49 AM 24 comments:
A New Ethos in Game Design: The Paradigm Shift O...
Dave Arneson's True Genius: First Major Treatise ...
UPDATE: DVD Project, Book on Dave Arneson, New RPG...

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
"Pants On Fire": Chris Christie Gets Called A Liar
Friday afternoon, Governor Chris Christie, of New Jersey, got called a liar by someone he had called a nothing. At a multi-hour press conference on January 9th, Christie had said that he'd had no idea that his aides and allies had deliberately choked off traffic from the town of Fort Lee for political reasons. Bridget Kelly, his deputy chief of staff, had sent a message to David Wildstein, whom he'd appointed to the Port Authority, that read, "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee"; his former campaign manager was on some of the e-mail and text chains, too, using words like "retaliate." Christie responded by calling himself the victim of a monumental betrayal by very small people. He said that he knew nothing about the closures, and he wanted everyone to know that he hardly knew Wildstein: "Let me just clear something up, O.K., about my childhood friend David Wildstein."
David and I were not friends in high school. We were not even acquaintances in high school…. We didn't travel in the same circles in high school. You know, I was the class president and athlete. I don't know what David was doing during that period of time.… So we went twenty-three years without seeing each other, and, in the years we did see each other, we passed in the hallways. So I want to clear that up. It doesn't make a difference except that I think some of the stories that've been written implied like an emotional relationship and closeness between me and David that doesn't exist.
He also said that he had no desire to even speak to Bridget Kelly again.
One view, at the time, was that Christie couldn't possibly be lying. He had thrown the people who were involved aside too disdainfully; there had been gratuitous slashing. Would he do that if they could contradict him easily? The answer that David Wildstein, at least, is now offering by way of a letter from his lawyer, Alan Zegas, is yes. The letter, first obtained by the Times, takes the form of an insistence that the Port Authority pay Wildstein's legal bills, and says that "Mr. Wildstein contests the inaccuracy of certain statements the governor made about him and he can prove the inaccuracy of some."
Here is one of those statements: "I had no knowledge of this—of the planning, the execution or anything about it—and that I first found out about it after it was over." Zegas writes, however, that "evidence exists as well tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures, during the period when the lanes were closed, contrary to what the governor stated publicly" in the press conference.
Christie's office issued a statement on Friday afternoon in which it said the letter confirmed that the governor had "no prior knowledge" of the closures. To recap the logic there, in the press conference, Christie said that he hadn't known until after; Wildstein's lawyer says there's evidence that he knew during; which Christie's team is presenting as proof that he didn't know before. (The statement also denied the letter's "other assertions.")
We'll have to see the evidence to know if or how Christie lied. But expecting the truth because it would so clearly be foolish for Christie to lie, or for any politician to, is a misguided notion. There have been too many times that it just hasn't worked out that way. The dumb, disprovable lies often have to do with sex. But there are other disorienting impulses, too, like pride and money and Republican primaries.
Money comes up in what is the most interesting passage of Zegas's letter, suggesting even more damaging material than a press-conference lie:
Subsequent to Mr. Wildstein testifying, there have been reports that certain Commissioners of the Port Authority have been connected directly or indirectly to land deals involving the Port Authority, that Port Authority funds were allocated to projects connected to persons who supported the administration of Governor Chris Christie or whose political support he sought, with some of the projects having no relationship to the business of the Port Authority, and that Port Authority funds were held back from those who refused to support the Governor.
The outline of those allegations fits those that the mayor of Hoboken has made, about the pressure on her to approve a deal or lose Sandy reconstruction funds. (The Christie administration has contested them.) But the Zegas letter refers to multiple "projects" and "land deals"; did Christie, before telling the world that he and Wildstein just "passed in the hallways," do a mental accounting of what was said in the corners of those halls?
Christie likes to talk about himself as someone so full of feeling that he can't help but tell the truth; now one question is whether, in the moment, he can remember what the truth is. Is he the sort of politician who gets more disciplined as the stakes get higher, or more reckless—if he ran for President, would the stories he told just get bigger? What may bring Christie down is his own sense that his importance—to the state, the nation, the solar system—is such that he can get rid of a problem just by saying that certain people aren't really his friends. Didn't they already know?
By: Amy Davidson, The New Yorker, January 31, 2014
February 2, 2014 Posted by raemd95 | Chris Christie	| Alan Zegas, Bridgegate, Bridget Kelly, David Wildstein, Fort Lee, New Jersey, Port Authority of NY and NJ, Sandy Relief Funds | 1 Comment
"A Deliberate Coyness": The Farce Of Paul Ryan, Serious Man
Like a phoenix risen from the ashes of Mitt Romney's failed presidential campaign, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is back.
The conservative budget guru is once again being hailed as the Ideas Man who will lead the GOP to electoral salvation. But this time, he's supposedly toning down his idealism a bit and, as is his party in general, putting on a softer, gentler face.
From Politico's Jake Sherman, we hear that Ryan "is sifting through the lessons of his political past to shape a new persona" and, after trying to radically redraw the federal budget toward his conservative vision in the past, now "betting that incrementalism — legislative half-steps toward conservative solutions is the best look for Republicans."
"The brand Ryan is cultivating is deliberate, serious, and aims to be inclusive of other political parties and voters who haven't considered Republicans," he adds.
Ah, there it is, the "S" word: Serious.
Ryan is often portrayed as the lone adult in the room, the man with serious ideas when the rest of Washington is embroiled in partisan sniping. Whether or not he's truly offering sound policy — and there have been many questions on the front — he's incessantly framed as being above-the-fray, concerned only with making Washington work right. In a word: Serious.
The trouble is that the mystique is largely media-crafted. A quick Lexis-Nexis search of U.S. newspapers for "Paul Ryan" and "serious" returned more than 3,000 results from the past year alone.
To be sure, Ryan does offer up a lot of policy proposals, an anomaly in D.C., and especially for a party that has voted to repeal ObamaCare more than 40 times without offering, until now, any semblance of an alternative. Yet his policy ideas don't always hold water. Sometimes, they're deeply flawed.
His previous budget plans were widely criticized for relying on highly suspect data, and for following a formula along the lines of: Cut spending + pixie dust = economic growth.
"If Obama tried to claim that his policies would achieve anything like this," the liberal Paul Krugman wrote of Ryan's 2011 budget plan, "he'd be laughed out of office."
As for Ryan's big new anti-poverty crusade, the details there, too, are suspect. His ideas — placing work requirements on safety-net programs, tax breaks, and so on — are "supply-side policies that don't change the overall level of poverty" says Ryan Cooper in The Washington Post, making them no more than "vague rhetoric and window dressing."
Other thorough assessments of his anti-poverty campaign have been similarly harsh. Meaning, it's not so much that Ryan has changed, but rather that he's tucked his old ideas into new packaging and — voila! — become the serious man once again.
Consider it the Republican rebrand writ small.
Part of Ryan's enduring "seriousness" is actually deliberate coyness, which allows pundits to hang the simple narrative on him. He's deflected questions about his political ambitions with a "Who, me?" shrug, while insisting he's just trying to do his job. It's an effective though farcical facade. Ryan has a knack for shrewdly self-promoting his supposed quiet humility and wonkish credentials. As the economist Jared Bernstein wrote, Ryan "is the classic example of the adage that if you've got a reputation for being an early riser, you can sleep til noon."
To be sure, Ryan did help craft the mini budget compromise that passed earlier this year to avoid another government shutdown. But absolutely no one — okay, maybe Ted Cruz — wanted another shutdown, especially the GOP leadership, considering how badly the last one hurt the party. In that sense, Ryan was merely ensuring the GOP didn't self-immolate once again.
Ryan's big rebrand doesn't prove that he's a "serious" lawmaker. It does, however, prove he's serious about looking serious.
By: Jon Terbush, The Week, January 30, 2014
February 2, 2014 Posted by raemd95 | Paul Ryan, Politics	| Budget, Conservatives, GOP, media, ObamaCare, Poverty, Republicans | 1 Comment
"There's Nothing New About The New Racism": It Is What This Country Was Built On
Let's be clear, there's nothing "new" about "the new racism," the term Suketu Mehta uses to characterize the arguments of Amy Chua and Jed Rubenfeld in reviewing their new book, "The Triple Package." Chua and Rubenfeld's ahistorical and condescending-sounding treatise, which seems primed to satisfy the appetites of salivating marketing departments and morning show producers, argues that three traits — a superiority complex, insecurity, and impulse control — account for why immigrant groups like Asians and Indians thrive in America. Mehta argues that this constitutes a "new racism," where some groups are praised in order to denigrate others — who apparently deserve to fail because they lack these traits.
But isn't this just the same old racism — barely wearing new clothes? Racism has always come in a variety of costumes and cloaks. Put another way: bigotry, intolerance, discrimination and violence can be as covert as they are overt; can owe a debt as much to the seemingly reasonable intellects of academies and legislatures as the Neanderthal ranting of the ugliest segregationists and supremacists.
The umbrella term for these scourges, "racism," is the physical and psychological genocide of generations of stolen people, yes, but it is also the root of modern-day drug policy and the for-profit, institutionalization of millions of black and brown men. It is the privileging of the needs of luxury real estate developers over a commitment to fair, safe, affordable housing. It is a member of Congress shouting "You lie." And it is the wink-wink of the modern-day Republican party insisting that "yes, you built that."
Racism is not, nor has it ever been, "new" — it is what this country was built on. It is as American as apple pie.
To be fair, Suketu Mehta says as much, writing that Chua and Rubenfeld's "The Triple Package" contains within it ideas and conclusions about American achievement that have long been dressed up in other, perhaps more explicitly distasteful — genetic, religious, economic — disguises.
But even calling this slightly new shade, this culture-based argument for achievement, this soft bigotry of the myth of group Exceptionalism, "new" obscures the realities of injustice in America. It assigns to publicity-hungry individuals and pseudoscientists responsibility for a narrow-mindedness that is, in fact, long-established and structural — as political as it is personal. It suggests that there is an "old" racism we have somehow moved beyond. As the Los Angeles Times' Ellen D. Wu says of the model minority myth, it "both fascinates and upsets precisely because it offers an unambiguous yet inaccurate blueprint for solving the nation's most pressing issues."
So let's not call it "new." Let's acknowledge that even if, as Mehta says, the United States thinks it has moved beyond race, many Americans refuse to believe that "race" was ever an issue to move beyond in the first place. Let's not only recognize but thoroughly explore this nation's longstanding, stubborn and self-deluding need to believe that success is based solely — or mostly — on merit, not the more complex, messy stew of opportunity, visibility, class, physical privilege, social capital, psychological stamina, and yes, race, gender, and sexual orientation.
"The Triple Package" is not evidence of a "new racism." It's the same old garbage, in a slightly different, Ivy League-endorsed disguise.
By: Anna Holmes, Time, January 24, 2014
February 2, 2014 Posted by raemd95 | Bigotry, Racism	| Congress, Immigrants, Minorities, Race and Ethnicity, Republicans, Sexual Orientation | Leave a comment
"So Much For Reform": The Only Winners In The Farm Bill Are Farmers And Big Insurance
Late Monday, House and Senate negotiators finalized a bipartisan compromise on the five-year farm bill, a warm-and-fuzzy-sounding Frankenstein-like amalgamation of crop subsidies, food stamps, and various handouts to industries loosely related to agriculture. The 949-page House-Senate compromise, two years in the making, will likely go up for a House vote on Wednesday and a Senate vote next week.
"We've got a bill that makes sense, works for farmers and ranchers and consumers and families that need help, and protects our land and water and our wildlife," Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, tells Reuters.
Stabenow may be correct that the farm bill will make it to President Obama's desk — "it's expected to sail through the House and Senate in the coming days — mostly because lawmakers want to get it over with already," says The Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe. But it's not exactly great for farmers and families that need help or other consumers.
The bill cuts spending by about $23 billion versus current funding levels, with more than $8 billion of that coming from cuts to food stamps, formally called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). It amounts to roughly a $90-a-month cut to 850,000 households. That's far less than the $40 billion in SNAP cuts in the House version, but roughly twice the reduction in the Senate bill.
Another $6 billion comes from combining 23 conservation programs into 13. Other programs being cut include the "Red Meat Safety Research Center." But the biggest supposed saving — $19 billion — is from ending direct payments to farmers (and some landowners who don't actually farm), which cost taxpayers about $5 billion a year.
So that sounds like shared sacrifice, right? Not exactly. Most of the money from the direct payments is being shifted to subsidized crop insurance programs. "It's a classic bait-and-switch proposal to protect farm subsidies," Vincent H. Smith, a professor of farm economics at Montana State University, tells The New York Times. "They've eliminated the politically toxic direct payments program and added the money to a program that will provide farmers with even larger subsidies."
On the other hand, the farm lobby is lining up behind the package. "The bill is a compromise," says Ray Gaesser, president of the American Soybean Association. "It ensures the continued success of American agriculture, and we encourage both the House and the Senate to pass it quickly." The American Farm Bureau Association — the big muscle of the farm lobby, employing 52 Washington lobbyists — urged quick passage of the bill.
The House and Senate conferees also loosened limits on how much individual farmers can receive in subsidies and loans in a given year, to $125,000 per person from $50,000 in the earlier bills. "If what we've heard proves true, the deal will result in virtually unlimited farm program payments continuing to inure to the nation's largest and wealthiest mega-farms," says Traci Bruckner at Nebraska's Center for Rural Affairs.
Chad Pergram ✔
@ChadPergram : Club for Growth on farm bill: It's a "Christmas Tree" bill where there's a gift for practically every special interest group out there..
9:20 AM – 28 Jan 2014
For an in-depth look a the politics of the farm bill, read Molly Ball's excellent article at The Atlantic. Her thesis is that the big losers here are Republicans, since rural Red State GOP stalwarts are feeling betrayed by the intra-party fighting over the bill between the "more urban, libertarian, ideological strain" of the party represented by the Tea Party and the traditional faction that represents rural and farming interests. But it's also pretty clear who the winners are: Farmers and insurance companies.
When America's programs of crop subsidies began during the Great Depression, more than 20 percent of employed workers made their living on farms, earning a third of what Americans pulled in for non-farm work, Ball notes. Now, farmers make up only two percent of the U.S. workforce, and farming households earned $84,400 on average in 2010, 25 percent higher than the national average.
"Farm subsidies are welfare for the well-to-do," argued the Cato Institute's Tad DeHaven and Chris Edwards at The Hill. Farmers booked record profits in 2012, despite severe droughts, thanks largely to federally supported crop insurance. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), taxpayers pick up 62 percent of the average farmer's crop insurance premiums. And the feds pay insurers directly, too, to the tune of $1.3 billion a year.
"In 2012, the Corn Belt's unprecedented drought led to an insurance payout of $18 billion in crop indemnities — $14 billion of it taxpayer-funded," Ball adds. "The insurance companies, in what should have been a terrible year for them, made a profit." This has created a strange coalition that includes Cato and the conservative Heritage Foundation plus liberal groups like the EGW. They disagree on food stamps, she says, but "left and right alike charge that programs billed as a safety net to protect farmers from the vicissitudes of nature are instead an increasingly cushy hammock."
The outlook is mixed for consumers. Efforts to stabilize or boost prices for farmers isn't great for shoppers in the short run — a program to limit sugar imports and domestic production is designed to keep sugar prices artificially high. But new rules will force meat packagers to say where the animal was raised and slaughtered, a boon to label-watchers.
And in the long run, as Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told the Farm Bureau's annual meeting last week, the one percent of Americans who grow the nation's food supply "ought to be celebrated." Their toil lets the rest of the country pursue other work, he said. "The country ought to be reminded of it, and every farmer in this country should be valued, appreciated, and thanked."
I like farmers and am glad when rural America gets the tools it needs to survive. But the Farm Bureau and other members of the farm lobby appears to have gotten their money's worth in this Congress. On the other hand, it's called the farm bill — so it's not exactly a breach of truth in advertising.
By: Peter Weber, The Week, January 28, 2014
February 2, 2014 Posted by raemd95 | Agriculture, SNAP	| Consumers, Farm Bill, Farm Lobby, Farm Subsidies, Farmers, Food Stamps, GOP, Republicans | Leave a comment
"What Republicans Say Versus What Republicans Mean": A Classic Exercise In Political Disguise And Deceit
Now that the State-of-the-Union cameras are off, House Republicans are eager to discard their frozen smiles and return to their jobs of undermining virtually every goal President Obama set out in his speech on Tuesday night. They made that clear in a letter that the top four House officials sent to the president today, which purports to seek agreement on four points in the speech. It actually does quite the opposite.
The letter is a classic exercise in political disguise and deceit. The real aim of House Republicans is to reduce or remove the influence of the federal government in the marketplace and in the lives of Americans. But that's not a usable political motto, since most people — except for the most rigid Tea Partiers or libertarians —still expect Washington to work for their benefit. So to preserve the standing of the Republican Party, its leaders have to make it sound as if they share the public's desire, while concealing their own.
The four leaders — Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the conference chairwoman — wrote that if Mr. Obama truly wants to have "a year of action," as he said in his speech, he can work with them to enact four bills the House has already passed. They all sound lofty until you actually read them, which is the reason the president has no intention of signing any of them.
Skills training. The president wants more training to match up workers and students to the needs of employers, and called on Vice President Joe Biden to oversee reform of existing training programs. The House training bill, passed last March, would actually eliminate many of the best programs, particularly those that involve labor organizations, and would not replace them. Requirements to direct training to low-income workers– the people who need new skills the most — would be dropped. Instead, the bill would freeze funding for seven years and send much of the remaining federal training money to the states, which cannot be counted on to build reliable programs. The bill's real intention is to cut spending and weaken labor.
Natural Gas. The president said he would help businesses build factories that use natural gas, which causes less pollution than coal or oil, while strengthening protection of air, water, and federal lands. The Republican letter says nothing about the environment, but does push a bill the House passed in November to automatically allow construction of gas pipelines if the federal government takes too long to issue permits. Almost all pipelines are approved or disapproved within a year, which is apparently too long for the House's business supporters. The bill's real intention is to remove federal oversight of the pipeline industry.
Workplace flexibility. The president called for better maternity and paternity leave policies, and an end to restrictions on personal time that he said belonged in a "Mad Men" episode. The Republican response is that businesses should be able to choose whether to give overtime or compensatory time to hourly employees. The House bill, passed in May, would remove the worker protection in place since 1938 that requires extra pay for overtime work. Employees would be able to request comp time, but employers wouldn't have to give them time off when requested, and wouldn't have to pay them for comp time that wasn't used. The bill's real intention is to give more power to employers and less to workers.
Medical research. Republicans slashed important research in the sequester — the National Institutes of Health has been cut by $4.2 billion since 2011 — and the president urged that the money should be restored. The letter points to a House bill passed last month that would give $126 million to the N.I.H. over ten years for pediatric research. But it would get that money by eliminating public funding for political conventions. The House is free to stop cutting research and put all the money it wants into the N.I.H. The bill's real intention is to force the political parties to rely on corporations to pay for their conventions, giving businesses far more leverage.
The letter makes no mention of the other popular ideas that Republicans have no intention of approving, including raising the minimum wage, extending unemployment insurance and making preschool universal. The party is on retreat today to come up with disguises for blocking those ideas, too.
By: David Firestone, The New York Times, January 30, 2014
February 2, 2014 Posted by raemd95 | GOP	| Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Environment, Eric Cantor, House Republicans, John Boehner, Kevin McCarthy, Labor, Libertarians, Tea-party | 2 Comments


text:
LFE includes F-35 for the first time
By Staff Sgt. Staci Miller, 56th Fighter Wing Public Affairs / Published May 09, 2016
F-16s and F-35s from the 56th Fighter Wing fly side by side during a large force exercise April 18-29 at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona. The LFE is the culmination of eight months of training integrating different platforms from different bases utilizing air to air and air to surface tactics.
LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Arizona --
After eight months of intense training, the students of the 310th and 309th Fighter Squadron Basic F-16 Fighting Falcon Course were put to their final test as they joined forces with the F-35 and a multitude of other platforms during their capstone Large Force Exercises April 18-29, at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.
Students integrated with different platforms, some from different bases, all fighting in the same air space at once. They faced up to eight simulated enemy aircraft and utilized air-to-air and air-to-surface tactics. These capstone missions ensure students are ready for their future operational tours.
"These LFEs mark the culmination of eight months of training for the B-Course students," said Lt. Col. William McKibban, 309th FS commander. "Our weapons officers plan for months to make it as realistic as possible with the resources we have available. Every F-16 instructor pilot realizes that, within months, these students will likely be using their skills in operational environments. There is no other option but for each of them to be ready for those responsibilities."
The students were tasked with creating and then executing dynamic and multifaceted mission plans.
"We were presented with very complex problems and with the help of our mission commanders, we were able come up with really good solutions then go out and execute them," said 1st Lt. Robert Kouwe, 310th FS B-Course student. "We planned our mission the day prior to flying the LFE. We had to answer questions like; how do we get a C-17 into a drop zone so they can drop off supplies for a simulated special forces team? Learning how to dynamically solve this problem prepares us for what we'll actually be doing while deployed."
This marks the first time at Luke that the F-35 Lightning II has been fully integrated into the LFEs, allowing students to utilize the fighter's unique and extensive capabilities.
"Our strength here at Luke is that we have 4th generation and 5th generation assets at the same base, so we can truly train how we fight," said Lt. Col. Aaron Jelinek, 61st FS director of operations. "We've been developing this platform and getting more and more capable as we go on. We were able to contribute to the fight over the past two weeks and allow, not only the students, but also instructors to see what this platform is currently capable of right here, right now."
This exercise also allowed students to see first-hand how the F-35 makes solving these dynamic challenges easier.
"The F-35 compliments us with a whole new capability." Kouwe said. "It adds so much situational awareness and the low observability is extremely good."
One of the F-35 pilots involved in the exercise spent the first part of his career mastering the F-16. He now gets to fly next to his old jet and share the capabilties of his new fighter.
"We're able to know what's going on and then pass that information to the F-16s. We provide a bigger picture, more situational awareness, while also utilizing unprecedented stealth capabilities," said Maj. Joseph Walker, 62nd FS B-Flight commander "We're able to go places and take out threats the F-16 traditionally can't or faces a higher risk of failure. We're here to utilize the F-35's strengths while enhancing the F-16's strengths by working together."
Some of the F-16 students had a chance to learn what it's like to execute an LFE with and without the F-35.
"I flew one day with the F-35s and one day without them and it really showed me the benefits of having them with us," Kouwe said. "It gave me confidence knowing that it wasn't just up to us to take care of ourselves, but that we had them watching our backs."
The LFE provided students a realistic training environment that not only showed them what their wingmen in other platforms are capable of but also how to communicate and quickly problem solve when things don't go according to plan.
"Putting all these moving pieces together is something you can talk about all day but until you go and do it and see what can go wrong and then follow up with a solution, there's no other way to simulate it but to actually practice it," Kouwe said. "All pilots think their platform is the best but when you put all the different communities into a mission planning room it forces you to take a step back and admit your limitations and say where and why we need the other platforms."
The LFE furthered the student's development and completed their B-Course training, but it also presented another milestone for the F-35 program at Luke.
"It's a big deal for us," Jelinek said. "Every time we get to go integrate and show off our capabilities, both air-to-air and air-to-ground, it really opens eyes. Everyone sees it on the ramp and they might think it looks pretty cool but it's a whole new story when they're up in the air experiencing what this capability brings."
The first B-Course F-35 student was announced in March and soon the F-35 program will be expanding its training syllabus.
"We've made leaps and bounds since the beginning of the year," said Capt. Ian Osterrreicher, 61st FS chief of scheduling. "We're going to see our syllabus ramp up and we'll be starting to do our own LFEs and next time, we'll be asking the F-16s to support us."
Even with all the milestones and advancements this is just the start for the things to come at Luke and the F-35 program.
"We only have a squadron and a half training fighter pilots," Jelinek said. "Eventually, we're going to have 144 F-35s. If you look out on the ramp and multiply what we have right now by four, that's the capability we're going to have to train tomorrow's fighters."
This fall, Hill AFB, Utah, is going to declare initial operating capability. The extensive training here at Luke, to include integration exercises like LFEs, allows Hill to be ready for this next step.
"We fly more sorties in the 61st FS than any other Air Force fighter squadron," Jelinek said. "With the number of hours we put on these jets, the number of sorties we turn per week, we're able to pass valuable lessons learned to these other bases. We're able to pass any findings we have on how the F-35 performs to operational testers, developmental testers and, most importantly, back to Hill to get them ready for IOC."


This is a graph showing the heart rates of two individuals during exercise. The heart rates of both patients are within normal limits during exercise. Mabel reached a higher heart rate than Albert during exercise with a peak heart rate of approximately 150.
This graph compares the heart rates of two individuals in response to exercise. On the X axis, time is plotted in minutes with pulse rate on the y-axis. The graph has data from two exercise participants: Albert, a 26 year old former athlete and Mabel a 36 year old office worker, with green and red line charts respectively. At the beginning of the test, the resting heart rates of both candidates were within the normal range, with Albert and Mabel's heart rates of approximately 82 and 60 respectively. The heart rates of both candidates increase by approximately 10 beats per minute during what appears to be an initial 'warm-up' period. Albert's heart rate increased smoothly during the main exercise period, whereas Mabel's heart rate rose more abruptly with a steeper decline thereafter. Peak heart rates of 118 and 150 beats per minute were recorded for Albert and Mabel respectively. This can be explained by the facts that athletes have stronger hearts with a greater cardiac output; thus they require a lower heart rate to deliver the same volume of blood to cells, compared to non-athletic individuals. The higher resting heart rate is atypical, as athletes also generally have lower resting heart rates than non-athletes, however medication or co-morbidities may explain this variation. It would be beneficial to note the exercise performed as well as the time period entailed in better assessing the data.


text:
/*
 * To change this license header, choose License Headers in Project Properties.
 * To change this template file, choose Tools | Templates
 * and open the template in the editor.
 */
package org.yagamipaul.timetracker.listeners;

import javax.swing.JTree;
import javax.swing.event.TreeSelectionEvent;
import javax.swing.event.TreeSelectionListener;
import javax.swing.tree.DefaultMutableTreeNode;
import javax.swing.tree.TreeSelectionModel;
import org.slf4j.Logger;
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;

/**
 *
 * @author JeanPaul
 */
public class TimeTrackerTreeSelectionListener implements TreeSelectionListener {

    private static final Logger LOG = LoggerFactory.getLogger(TimeTrackerTreeSelectionListener.class.getName());

    @Override
    public void valueChanged(TreeSelectionEvent e) {

        JTree tree = (JTree) e.getSource();

        TreeSelectionModel selection = tree.getSelectionModel();

        Object userObject = ((DefaultMutableTreeNode) selection.getSelectionPath().getLastPathComponent())
                .getUserObject();

        LOG.debug("Selected element {}", userObject);

    }

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Home Mobiles
Nokia phone is set to return
Changes in 2020 smartphones
Google leaked the design and pricing of its new phone itself
Motorola new Moto G8 smartphone with 3 cameras
Nokia phone is set to return |Another classic Nokia phone is set to return. HMD Global is also set to roll back another Nokia Classic phone in 2020. HHM Global's chief product officer, Jeho Sarawakis, announced this in a tweet. In a tweet captioned with adidas shoes, he wrote: "This is the fourth year I have bought new shoes for CES and MWC and it seems to be a great year, adidas Limited Edition. Shoes have been discovered and this means we can introduce a new and original Nokia phone. ' In a tweet, he used the Chinese New Year hash tag with Origin Nokia, which is launching January 25, and indicates that this old phone may be introduced in the new format. The phone will also be placed in the Mobile World Congress, which starts on February 24. It is not yet clear which Nokia Classic phones can be re-introduced. Earlier, HMD Global has introduced new features from 2017 to date Nokia 3310 Nokia 8110 Forge and Nokia 2720 Philip Four G phones. HMD Global is also working on the manufacture of various smartphones in addition to the classic phones. Previously, the company was expected to introduce an updated version of Nokia 9 Pureview in February, but now it is said that Nokia 9.2 will be introduced in the third or fourth quarter of this year.
Alexandar John
Have you been charging a smartphone battery to wrong?
Nokia 5G phone likely to launch on March
Lebanese prime minister scandal
The longest migratory bird in the world


With six Best in Class and 83 Gold Awards, Spain led the two top categories at the 2017 edition of the New York International Olive Oil Competition, which announced its results last Thursday.
The European country came in second in the number of Silver Awards, with 38, and was the second-winningest country in the total award count after Italy.
Spain's performance at this year's competition shows a remarkable step forward even compared to its impressive results in previous editions.
In 2016, 78 awards were won by Spanish olive oil producers, five more than in 2015. This year, Spain totaled 110 awards.
The award-winning Spanish producers contacted by Olive Oil Times agreed that Spain — which produces around 60 percent of the world's olive oil — is changing its production path from quantity to quality. This constant and somehow relatively recent switch, they point out, has proved crucial.
And within the context of a challenging campaign which led to a drop of almost 30 percent in global olive oil production, they see their performance at the fifth edition of the NYIOOC as a success.
"It's all about the approach you take. There are plenty of producers in Spain, of course, but, from humility, we thought that the only way to differentiate our oils is by making the best product we were capable of," said Eliseo Población, sales manager at Oleo de Quirós. Its Pago de Quirós olive oil, produced in Spain's central province of Toledo, won a Best in Class award in the category of Northern Hemisphere organic robust.
"We have competed at the NYIOOC I think since the first edition of the competition as we believe that the American market is very important for the Spanish producer. And of course, we understood this is the most important award in order to achieve this recognition," Población added.
Rafael Alonso, the representative of Oro del Desierto, an estate in Almeria's desert — one of the aridest places in Europe — agreed. His organic coupage earned a Best in Class Award in the category of North Hemisphere organic medium while the producer's organic robust Picual also won a Gold.
"Since a few years ago, Spain has led some rankings. This does not mean Spain has better oils than other countries, but we have oils that are as good as ones from any other origin. Spain has traditionally been a country of production, and it still is. We produce more than half of the world's olive oil. But we have managed to move a step forward. Now we don't have to make only quantity but quality," Alonso told OOT.
"So this is an important prize because in New York competitiveness is high. This recognition helps us to promote our product. We are very happy," he said.
Sixty-five percent of the 168 entries from Spain were recognized in New York, the world's largest and most prestigious olive oil competition, during a press conference streamed live. Spain had the highest rate of success among the main contenders.
Italy also had an outstanding winning rate of 63 percent for its 198 entries.
"This year it has been tougher than the previous ones as there have been more entries. However, we had our best performance this year. So for us, this is a wonderful recognition for the hard work that is involved in the process of making high-quality olive oils," said Juan Ignacio Valdés, president of La Olivilla, an estate placed in the village of Quesada, south of Jaén's Sierra Cazorla.
La Olivilla's Dehesa de la Sabina oil was named Best in Class for the North Hemisphere, organic, monovarietal, medium intensity category.
When asked what makes his oils special, Valdés links its quality to the particularities of the place his olive trees grow and the way they are cultivated.
"We think that olive oil is a bit like wine. In the wine world, the terroir concept is mentioned very often: the influence of the soil and the way trees are grown. We believe that those factors have a huge influence in our oils.
"We use protectionist, biodynamic and conservationist techniques in our fields. So, as we have improved our fields, we see that our oils are increasingly harmonious and with more personality," Valdés explained to OOT.
The jury of the NYIOOC, composed of 15 members coming from every producing region in the world, analyzed 910 olive oils from 27 countries. The samples were meticulously blind tasted.
The awards were announced to over 200 representatives of every branch of the olive oil industry.
"We don't go to every competition in the world. We go to those we consider to be fairer and we think the New York competition is one. So the fact that we have been awarded for four years in a row with four Gold Awards makes us very proud. Furthermore, this has been a difficult year in terms of production. So we value this very much," said Borja Adrián, the commercial director of Málaga's Finca La Torre, winner of four organic, monovarietal Golds.


text:
Володимир Тарасович Сакалов ( 28 жовтня 1954, Жовті Води, Дніпропетровська область) — український футболіст, нападник.

Життєпис
Першою професіональною командою стала «Буковина». За п'ять сезонів забив за чернівецький клуб в українській зоні другої ліги 42 голи. Найкращий бомбардир турніру 1978 року — 19 забитих м'ячів. Срібний призер чемпіонату УРСР 1980 року.

Наступні три роки виступав у першій лізі. У першому сезоні захищав кольори «Карпат», а після ліквідації клубу перейшов до іншої львівської команди — СКА «Карпати». Всього в першій лізі провів 85 матчів, 23 голи.

Останні два сезони грав у складі івано-франківського «Прикарпаття». В останні роки перекваліфікувався у захисника.

1986 року входив до тренерського штабу охтирського «Нафтовика». Наступні три роки працював у «Буковині» начальником команди.

Досягнення
 Віце-чемпіон першості УРСР (1): 1980
 Найкращий бомбардир чемпіонату УРСР (1): 1978 (19 голів)

Статистика

Примітки

Посилання
 Профіль на сайті Ukr-Football.org.ua
 Профіль на сайті Footballfacts.ru

Українські футболісти
Радянські футболісти
Футболісти «Буковини» (Чернівці)
Футболісти «Карпат» (Львів)
Футболісти СКА (Львів)
Футболісти «Спартака» (Івано-Франківськ)
Уродженці Жовтих Вод

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
package io.apiman.common.util;

import org.junit.Assert;
import org.junit.Test;

import io.apiman.common.util.ApimanPathUtils.ApiRequestPathInfo;

public class ApimanPathUtilsTest {

	@Test
	public void testParseApiRequestPath() {
		ApiRequestPathInfo path = ApimanPathUtils.parseApiRequestPath(null, "application/json", "/OrgId/ApiId/VER/path/to/thing");
		Assert.assertEquals("OrgId", path.orgId);
		Assert.assertEquals("ApiId", path.apiId);
		Assert.assertEquals("VER", path.apiVersion);
		Assert.assertEquals("/path/to/thing", path.resource);

		path = ApimanPathUtils.parseApiRequestPath(null, "application/json", "/OrgId/ApiId/VER");
		Assert.assertEquals("OrgId", path.orgId);
		Assert.assertEquals("ApiId", path.apiId);
		Assert.assertEquals("VER", path.apiVersion);
		Assert.assertEquals(null, path.resource);

		path = ApimanPathUtils.parseApiRequestPath(null, "application/json", "/OrgId/ApiId/VER/");
		Assert.assertEquals("OrgId", path.orgId);
		Assert.assertEquals("ApiId", path.apiId);
		Assert.assertEquals("VER", path.apiVersion);
		Assert.assertEquals("/", path.resource);

		path = ApimanPathUtils.parseApiRequestPath("VER", "application/json", "/OrgId/ApiId/path/to/thing");
		Assert.assertEquals("OrgId", path.orgId);
		Assert.assertEquals("ApiId", path.apiId);
		Assert.assertEquals("VER", path.apiVersion);
		Assert.assertEquals("/path/to/thing", path.resource);

		path = ApimanPathUtils.parseApiRequestPath("VER", "application/json", "/OrgId/ApiId");
		Assert.assertEquals("OrgId", path.orgId);
		Assert.assertEquals("ApiId", path.apiId);
		Assert.assertEquals("VER", path.apiVersion);
		Assert.assertEquals(null, path.resource);

	}

}


The spacious, airy lobby in this predominant business hotel now serves tea and coffee along with a surprisingly comprehensive range of pastries and savouries. Not only that, the menu changes slightly, depending on the time of the day. From 3 pm to 5 pm is when the lounge is busiest. From 11.30 pm onwards, you can order a liqueur and a crépe as a post-prandial indulgence. Though, there is a fairly large variety of coffee available, it is tea that is the focus here, as well as the lip-smacking accompaniments!


text:
actions [:deploy, :rollback]
default_action :deploy

attribute :deploy_to, :kind_of => String, :name_attribute => true, :default => node[:interactivespaces][:master][:deploy][:deploy_to]
attribute :version, :kind_of => String, :default => node[:interactivespaces][:version]
attribute :keep_releases, :kind_of => Integer, :default => 5
attribute :current_path, :kind_of => String, :default => "#{node[:interactivespaces][:master][:deploy][:deploy_to]}/current"
attribute :shared_path, :kind_of => String, :default => "#{node[:interactivespaces][:master][:deploy][:deploy_to]}/shared"
attribute :user, :kind_of => String, :default => "#{node[:interactivespaces][:master][:deploy][:user]}"
attribute :group, :kind_of => String, :default => "#{node[:interactivespaces][:master][:deploy][:group]}"
attribute :symlinks, :kind_of => Array, :default => node[:interactivespaces][:master][:deploy][:symlinks]
attribute :restart_command, :kind_of => String, :default => node[:interactivespaces][:master][:deploy][:restart_cmd]
attribute :restart_after_deploy, :kind_of => [TrueClass, FalseClass], :default => true
attribute :tmp_dir, :kind_of => String, :default => node[:interactivespaces][:master][:deploy][:tmp_dir]
attribute :rollback_on_error, :kind_of => [TrueClass, FalseClass]

attr_accessor :exists


Well, we had the gall to invoke the gods of spring in our last post and they rewarded us by dumping six inches of fresh snow on Berlin. The city just might be in for a white Easter. Rather than hide from it, I donned my snow boots, grabbed my camera, and headed out to Potsdam's Sanssouci to wander around the palace gardens for the day.
The ponds and streams were frozen over and the side trails were covered in deep powder. The deserted back trails and snow-frosted hedges felt eerily reminiscent of the final scene in The Shining. A bit creepy, but very scenic. We've been to Sanssouci a dozen times, but this was definitely a different take on one of greater Berlin's best attractions.
How odd to get so much snow at this time of year in Berlin! It does look lovely, though!
Global warming is obviously a ruse perpetrated by freedom haters.
And for those of you who are less clued in to Laurelle's humor. Severe cold snaps are very much in line with global warming predictions.
Very pretty b&w photography though ….
Love the photos of Potsdam in winter. I've only ever been in summer when it was sweltering hot, but looks like it's equally pretty with some snowfall. The b/w is great!
For those keeping track, it was indeed a white Easter.