text:
AntiPolygraph.org Message Board › Polygraph and CVSA Forums › Polygraph Policy › DOE Rejects NAS Polygraph Report Findings!
Pages: [1] 2 Reply Add Poll Send Topic Print
DOE Rejects NAS Polygraph Report Findings! (Read 30922 times)
George W. Maschke
Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
DOE Rejects NAS Polygraph Report Findings!
Apr 14th, 2003 at 4:26pm
The Department of Energy was required by law to propose by 8 April 2003 modifications of its polygraph policy taking into account the findings of the National Academy of Sciences' polygraph review. DOE's notification of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register today (14 April 2003).
Amazingly, DOE has rejected the NAS's findings and proposes to retain its existing polygraph program without change! The key finding of the NAS report, of course, is that polygraph screening is completely invalid as a diagnostic instrument for determining truth regarding terrorism, espionage, past activities of job applicants, and other important issues currently so assessed by our various federal, state, and local governments.
[Federal Register: April 14, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 71)]
[DOCID:fr14ap03-12]
[Docket No. CN-03-RM-01]
RIN 1992-AA33
Office of Counterintelligence; Polygraph Examination Regulations
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for public
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) publishes a
notice of proposed rulemaking to begin a proceeding to consider whether
to retain or modify its current Polygraph Examination Regulations. DOE
is undertaking this action, among other reasons, to satisfy the
directive of section 3152 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2002 that following issuance of the National Academy of
Sciences' Polygraph Review (NAS Polygraph Review), DOE is to prescribe
regulations for a new counterintelligence polygraph program, whose
Congressionally-specified purpose is ``* * * to minimize the potential
for release or disclosure of classified data, materials, or
information.''
DATES: Written comments (10 copies) are due June 13, 2003.
ADDRESSES: You may choose to address written comments to U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Counterintelligence (CN-1), Docket No.
CN-03-RM-01, 1000 Independence Avenue. SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Alternatively, you may e-mail your comments to: poly@hq.doe.gov. You
may review or copy the public comments DOE has received in Docket No.
CN-03-RM-01 and any other docket material DOE makes available at the
DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room, Room 1E-190, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. This notice of proposed rulemaking
and supporting documentation is available on DOE's internet home page
at the following address: http://www.energy.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Hinckley, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Counterintelligence, CN-1, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-5901; or Lise Howe, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC-
73, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-
Under section 3152(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2002 (NDAA for FY 2002), DOE is obligated to prescribe
regulations for a new counterintelligence polygraph program the stated
purpose of which is ``* * * to minimize the potential for release or
disclosure of classified data, materials, or information'' (42 U.S.C.
7383h-1(a).) Section 3152(b) requires DOE to ``* * * take into account
the results of the Polygraph Review,'' which is defined by section
3152(e) to mean ``* * * the review of the Committee to Review the
Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph of the National Academy of
Sciences'' (42 U.S.C. 7383h-1(b), (e)).
Upon promulgation of final regulations under section 3152, and
``effective 30 days after the Secretary submits to the congressional
defense committees the Secretary's certification that the final rule *
* * has been fully implemented, * * *'' section 3154 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (NDAA for FY 2000) (42
U.S.C. 7383h), would be repealed by operation of law. (42 U.S.C. 7383h-
1(c).) The repeal of section 3154 would eliminate the existing
authority which underlies DOE's counterintelligence polygraph
regulations, which are codified at 10 CFR part 709, but would not
preclude the retention of some or all of those regulations through this
rulemaking pursuant to the later-enacted section 3152 of the NDAA for
FY 2002.
In Part II of this Supplementary Information, DOE reviews
background information useful in understanding the existing statutory
and regulatory provisions applicable to DOE's current
counterintelligence polygraph examination program. In Part III of this
Supplementary Information, DOE discusses its preliminary views with
regard to the relevant factual and policy issues, including DOE's
evaluation of the NAS Polygraph Review which is entitled ``The
Polygraph and Lie Detection.'' That discussion explains why the
Secretary of Energy has approved today's preliminary proposal to retain
the regulations in 10 CFR part 709 as a balanced approach for the
carefully circumscribed use of polygraph examinations as a tool that
appears in current circumstances well-suited to accomplish the
Congressionally-specified purpose ``* * * to minimize the potential for
release or disclosure of classified data, materials, or information''
(42 U.S.C. 7383h-1).
DOE invites interested members of the public to provide their views
on the issues in this rulemaking by filing written comments. With an
open mind, DOE intends carefully to evaluate the public comments
received in response to this notice of proposed rulemaking. DOE will
then consider whether to issue a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking with additional policy options for public comment and
whether it is necessary and timely to hold a public hearing to provide
an opportunity for presentation of oral comments.
II. Background
Consistent with section 3154 of the NDAA for FY 2000, DOE published
a notice of final rulemaking establishing 10 CFR part 709 on December
17, 1999 (64 FR 70975). The provisions of 10 CFR part 709 list the
types of employees and positions that are subject to polygraph
examinations. Under 10 CFR 709.4, the polygraph program applies to all
DOE employees and contractor employees, applicants for employment, and
other individuals assigned or detailed to positions in eight categories
which are discussed in detail in part III of this Supplementary
Information. Employees may request exculpatory polygraph examinations
to deal with unresolved counterintelligence or personnel security
issues. Part 709 also describes the polygraph examination protocols DOE
uses, the policies for safeguarding the privacy rights of employees,
and the requirements that apply to ensure well qualified and well
trained polygraph examiners.
After DOE promulgated 10 CFR part 709, Congress amended section
3154 of the NDAA for FY 2000 by section 3135 in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-398). Section 3135
amended the earlier definition of ``covered persons'' contained in
section 3154 to include assignees, detailees and applicants. The
definition of ``high risk program'' was revised to include programs
using information known as Sensitive Compartmented Information, SAP,
PSAP, PAP, and any other program or position category specified in
section 709.4(a) of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations. Section 3135
amended section 3154(f) to add the terms ``terrorism'' after
``sabotage'' and ``deliberate damage to or malicious misuse of a United
States Government information or defense system'' to the statutory
definition of the scope of a counterintelligence polygraph examination.
Section 3135 also amended section 3154 by adding language that limited
the Secretary's authority to waive the examination requirement.
III. DOE's Proposal To Implement Section 3152(a) of the NDAA for FY
The focal point for analysis of the factual information and policy
considerations relevant to this rulemaking is the Congressionally
stated purpose of the counterintelligence polygraph regulations which
is ``* * * to minimize the potential for release or disclosure of
classified data, material, or information'' (42 U.S.C. 7383h-1(a)).
Given the nature of this directive--as a statement of the purpose of
the program, not as a standard that the program must meet--DOE does not
construe this directive as a mandate mechanistically to construct a
program that takes all steps to protect classified data, materials, or
information, no matter what the countervailing considerations.
Construing the directive in that fashion could lead to absurd results,
potentially requiring DOE to expend so much of its resources on
polygraphs and associated provisions that the program would
significantly detract from DOE's ability to accomplish its national
security mission. At the same time, however, DOE does believe that the
directive signals a Congressional hierarchy in the weighing of various
considerations, pursuant to which DOE must take potential jeopardy of
classified data, materials, or information very seriously in
considering the potential consequences that may flow from how it
constructs its program. DOE has evaluated the question whether to
retain or modify the list of positions currently set forth in its
regulations as subject to polygraph examinations over a five-year
period against this Congressionally-stated purpose so construed.
As noted above, that list is set forth at 10 CFR 709.4. It
includes: ``(1) Positions that DOE has determined include
counterintelligence activities or access to counterintelligence sources
and methods; (2) positions that DOE has determined include intelligence
activities or access to intelligence sources and methods; (3) positions
requiring access to information that is protected within a non-
intelligence special access program (SAP) designated by the Secretary
of Energy; (4) positions that are subject to the Personnel Security
Assurance Program (PSAP); (5) positions that are subject to the
Personnel Assurance program (PAP); (6) positions that DOE has
determined have a need-to-know or access to information specifically
designated by the Secretary
regarding the design and operation of nuclear weapons and associated
use control features; (7) positions within the Office of Independent
Oversight and Performance Assurance, or any successor thereto, involved
in inspection and assessment of safeguards and security functions,
including cyber security, of the Department; (8) positions within the
Office of Security and Emergency Operations, or any successor thereto *
* *'' This list reflects, but is not restricted to, the positions
listed in section 3154 of the NDAA for FY 2000. Consistent with section
3152 of the NDAA for FY 2002, DOE proposes to retain these eight
position categories because in each category there are individuals who
possess or have routine access to classified data, material, or
information that would likely be targeted for acquisition by foreign
powers. DOE has not reached a firm conclusion that all the position
categories on the list should be retained, or that all should be
retained in their current form, but it believes that a sufficient basis
for their retention exists that it is not prepared to propose the
modification or removal of any at this time. DOE accordingly
particularly invites comment on the question whether the list, or any
of the position categories on the list, is overinclusive or
underinclusive, and if so, how and on what basis the list, or any of
the position categories on the list, should be modified.
The list of position categories in 10 CFR 709.4(a) also includes
two categories of individuals who volunteer for polygraph examinations.
There is a category of applicants for employment who opt for the
Accelerated Access Authorization Program (AAAP) (10 CFR 709.4(a)(9)).
These applicants choose to be polygraphed in order to obtain expedited
interim ``Q'' clearances pending completion of field investigations.
There is also a category composed of incumbent employees who volunteer
for so-called exculpatory polygraph examinations to resolve questions
that have arisen in the context of counterintelligence investigations
or personnel security issues (10 CFR 709.4(a)(10).
The NAS Polygraph Review examined the scientific evidence with
regard to the validity of polygraph examinations used for the screening
of applicants for employment and incumbent employees, as well as for
specific-event investigations (which include what DOE calls
``exculpatory polygraph examinations''). The NAS pointed out that the
available scientific evidence is generally of low quality and consisted
of 57 studies of which 53 are specific-event investigations and four
are flawed studies of employee screening. While noting that the
available empirical research has not established the underlying factors
that produce the physiological responses observed during polygraph
examinations, and that generalizing from such responses in research
settings to real world settings is hazardous, the NAS nevertheless
concluded that ``* * * specific-incident polygraph tests discriminate
lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below
perfection * * *'' (NAS Polygraph Review at p. 3). DOE is inclined to
accept this conclusion with regard to exculpatory polygraph
examinations under 10 CFR 709.4(a)(10), but given the limitations of
the tool, DOE does not treat the results of such examinations as
conclusive as to truthfulness or mendacity. Accordingly, DOE may follow
up an exculpatory polygraph result with additional investigative
activities if DOE considers that action appropriate. DOE does not now
contemplate any change in this policy.
With regard to polygraph examinations for employee screening under
10 CFR part 709, the NAS takes a significantly different view. Against
the background of what it acknowledges is very sparse evidence, the NAS
is dubious about both the validity and the advisability of such
examinations.
Validity. According to the NAS, the proportion of the employee
population at DOE that poses a major national security threat
(presumably including threats to classified information) is extremely
low. In the NAS's view, screening in a population with a very low rate
of target transgressions will necessarily yield, as a function of how
sensitively the polygraph test is set, either a large number of false
positives or a large of false negatives (NAS Polygraph Review at 4, 2-4
through 2-7, 2-20 though 2-21, and 7-2 through 7-4). On that basis, the
NAS concludes that polygraph examinations are too inaccurate to be used
for employee screening. (NAS Polygraph Review, p.4.)
In reaching its negative conclusion, the NAS acknowledged that a
screening polygraph, even if set to reduce the number of false
positives, will identify true positives who are being deceptive.
Accordingly, DOE does not believe that the issues that the NAS has
raised about the polygraph's accuracy are sufficient to warrant a
decision by DOE to abandon it as a screening tool. Doing so would mean
that DOE would be giving up a tool that, while far from perfect, will
help identify some individuals who should not be given access to
classified data, materials, or information. DOE does not believe
wholesale abandonment of a tool that has some admitted value for that
purpose can be squared with Congress's overall direction to implement a
polygraph program whose purpose is `` * * * to minimize the potential
Advisability. The NAS's main conclusion is that lack of evidence of
validity and accuracy justifies not using polygraph examinations for
screening purposes. In arriving at this conclusion, the NAS also took
into account the expense associated with invalid polygraph results, the
potential loss of competent or highly skilled individuals due to false
positives or the fear of such a test result, and claims of adverse
impact on civil liberties. The NAS also acknowledged but considered
less significant the deterrent effect that the prospect of being
polygraphed could have on employment applicants who are national
security risks. In short, what NAS conducted was a cost-benefit
analysis that (given the nature of the costs and benefits) inevitably
rested in no small part on value judgments made by the NAS. There is
nothing inappropriate about this approach in light of the NAS's mission
and charge.
DOE, however, has a significantly different mission--one that is
intimately involved in science, but directed to a particular end--the
national security of the United States; therefore, not surprisingly,
section 3152 gave the Department a particular charge for its polygraph
program. That charge was not to devise a program based on the NAS's or
the Department's own weighing of costs and benefits based on its own
value judgments. Rather, Congress directed DOE to develop a polygraph
program focused on minimizing the risk of release or disclosure of
classified information. That amounts to a Congressional specification
that the most important cost about which DOE should be concerned is the
risk of release or disclosure of classified information. DOE believes
that Congress's judgment in that regard was reasonable. Given that
DOE's classified information consists in significant measure of
information regarding nuclear weapons of mass destruction, the
consequences of compromise of that information can be profoundly
significant. Those consequences make it sensible for Congress to
conclude that DOE's priority should be on deterrence and detection of
potential security risks with a secondary priority of mitigating the
consequences of false positives and false negatives. Moreover, whatever
may be the importance of other
considerations, DOE believes that at this time, when the United States
is engaged in hostilities precisely in order to address the potentially
disastrous consequences that may flow from weapons of mass destruction
falling into the wrong hands, it is under a particular obligation to
make sure that no action that it takes be susceptible to
misinterpretation as a relaxation of controls over information
concerning these kinds of weapons. For all these reasons, while fully
respecting the questions the NAS has raised about the use of polygraphs
as a screening tool, DOE does not believe it can endorse the NAS's
conclusion that the tool should be laid down.
Perhaps in recognition that its main conclusion was less tenable in
the context of Federal agencies with national security missions
established by law, the NAS went on to conclude in the alternative that
if polygraph screening is to be used at all, it should only be used as
a trigger for follow-up detailed investigations and not as a sole basis
for personnel action (NAS Polygraph Review, p. 5). This alternative
conclusion appears to DOE to be much more compatible with the priority
DOE is statutorily invited to place on minimizing the potential for
release or disclosure of classified information. It is also consistent
with the way DOE currently uses screening polygraphs.
Under DOE's current regulations, neither DOE nor its contractors
may take an adverse personnel action against an individual solely on
the basis of a polygraph result indicating deception (10 CFR 709.25).
If, after an initial polygraph examination, there are remaining
unresolved issues, DOE must advise the individual and provide an
opportunity for the individual to undergo an additional polygraph
examination. If the additional polygraph examination is not sufficient
to resolve the matter, DOE must undertake a comprehensive investigation
using the polygraph examination as an investigative lead (10 CFR
709.15(b)). In DOE's view, this regulatory scheme is consistent both
with the NAS's alternative conclusion and with the statutory priority
on minimizing release or disclosure of classified information.
Therefore, pursuant to section 3152 of the NDAA for FY 2002, DOE today
proposes on a preliminary basis to retain the regulatory provisions in
part 709. DOE invites public comment on its evaluation of the NAS
Polygraph Review with regard to employee screening and on its
assessment that the existing provisions of part 709 are consistent with
the NAS's alternative conclusion.
IV. Regulatory Review
A. National Environmental Policy Act
The proposed rule would retain the existing procedures for
counterintelligence evaluations to include polygraph examinations and
therefore will have no impact on the environment. DOE has determined
that this rule is covered under the Categorical Exclusion in DOE's
National Environmental Policy Act regulations in paragraph A.5 of
appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021, which applies to rulemakings
amending an existing regulation that does not change the environmental
effect of the regulations being amended. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for every
rule that must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
rulemaking will not directly regulate small businesses or small
governmental entities. It will apply principally to individuals who are
employees of, or applicants for employment by, some of DOE's prime
contractors, which are large businesses. There may be some affected
small businesses that are subcontractors, but the rule will not impose
unallowable costs. Accordingly, DOE certifies that the proposed rule,
if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
DOE has determined that this proposed rule does not contain any new
or amended record-keeping, reporting or application requirements, or
any other type of information collection requirements that require the
approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The OMB has defined
the term ``information'' to exclude certifications, consents, and
acknowledgments that entail only minimal burden [5 CFR 1320.3(h)(1)].
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.,
requires a Federal agency to perform a detailed assessment of the costs
and benefits of any rule imposing a Federal mandate with costs to
state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector of $100
million or more. The proposed rule does not impose a Federal mandate
requiring preparation of an assessment under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995.
E. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999, (Pub. L. No. 105-277), requires Federal agencies to issue
a Family Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule that may affect
family well being. This proposed rule will not have any impact on the
autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE
has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
F. Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993) provides for a
review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the
Office of Management and Budget of a ``significant regulatory action,''
which is defined as an action that may have an effect on the economy of
$100 million or more or adversely affect the economy, competition,
jobs, productivity, environment, public health or safety, or state,
local or tribal governments. DOE has concluded that this proposed rule
(10 CFR Part 709) is not a significant regulatory action. Accordingly,
this rulemaking has not been reviewed by the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs.
G. Executive Order 12988
Section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, 61 FR 4729 (February 7,
1996) imposes on executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the
following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity;
(2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and
promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive
Order 12988 specifically requires that executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on
existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard
for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden
reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
Executive Order 12988 requires executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the
relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
H. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, 63 FR 27655 (May 19, 1998), DOE may
not issue a discretionary rule that significantly or uniquely affects
Indian tribal governments and imposes substantial direct compliance
costs. This proposed rulemaking would not have such effects.
Accordingly, Executive Order 13084 does not apply to this rulemaking.
I. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), requires
agencies to develop an accountable process to ensure meaningful and
timely input by state and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have ``federalism implications.'' Policies
that have federalism implications are defined in the Executive Order to
include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' On March 14, 2000, DOE published a
statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation
process it will follow in the development of such regulations (65 FR
13735). DOE has examined this proposed rule and determined that it
would not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
government. No further action is required by the Executive Order.
J. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy, Supply, Distribution, or Use), 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001) requires preparation and submission to OMB of a
Statement of Energy Effects for significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866 that are likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This rulemaking,
although significant, will not have such an effect. Consequently, DOE
has concluded that there is no need for a Statement of Energy Effects.
K. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999
The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44
U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations
of information to the public under guidelines established by each
agency pursuant to general guidelines issues by OMB. OMB's guidelines
were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2001), and DOE's guidelines
were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this
notice of proposed rulemaking under the OMB and DOE guidelines, and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
V. Opportunity for Public Comment
Interested members of the public are invited to participate in this
proceeding by submitting data, views, or comments on this proposed
rule. Ten copies of written comments should be submitted to the address
indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Comments should be
identified on the outside of the envelope and on the comments
themselves with the designation ``Polygraph Examination Regulation,
Docket No. CN-03-RM-01.'' If anyone wishing to provide written comments
is unable to provide ten copies, alternative arrangements can be made
in advance with the DOE. All comments received on or before the date
specified at the beginning of this notice, and other relevant
information before final action is taken on the proposed rule, will be
All submitted comments will be available for public inspection as
part of the administrative record on file for this rulemaking in the
DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room at the address indicated in the
ADDRESSES section of this notice. Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR
1004.11, anyone submitting information or data that he or she believes
to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should
submit one complete copy of the document, as well as two copies, if
possible, from which the information has been deleted. The DOE will
make its determination as to the confidentiality of the information and
treat it accordingly.
Lie detector tests, Privacy.
Issued in Washington, DC on April 8, 2003.
Stephen W. Dillard,
Director, Office of Counterintelligence.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE hereby proposes to
amend 10 CFR part 709 to read as follows:
PART 709--POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for 10 CFR part 709 is revised to read as
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2011, et seq., 7101, et seq., 7383h-1.
« Last Edit: Apr 18th, 2003 at 7:41am by George W. Maschke »
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
WWW Twitter YouTube
DOE Press Release
Reply #1 - Apr 15th, 2003 at 8:40am
The Department of Energy has issued a press release regarding its decision to retain without change its existing polygraph regulation:
http://www.energy.gov/HQPress/releases03/aprpr/pr03075.htm
The above press release misrepresents the findings of the National Academy of Sciences' report, The Polygraph and Lie Detection. For example, the DOE press release states:
The NAS's main conclusion is that polygraph testing is accurate enough for event specific investigations but that its costs outweigh its benefits when used for employee screening.
The NAS report does not characterize polygraphy as "accurate enough for event specific investigations." The NAS's "main conclusion" was the following (p. 8-6):
Use in DOE Employee Security Screening Polygraph testing yields an unacceptable choice for DOE employee security screening between too many loyal employees falsely judged deceptive and too many major security threats left undetected. Its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies....
DOE has willfully ignored the main conclusion of the NAS report and continues its misrepresentation of it in its press release:
However, in the alternative, the NAS report also concluded that if polygraph screening is used as a trigger for detailed follow-up investigation, and is not the basis for adverse personnel action, "there are good theoretical reasons to think appropriate procedures of this sort would improve detection of deception."
In the above passage, the DOE quotes the NAS report (from p. 6 of the Executive Summary) completely out of context to give its words a meaning not intended. The quoted passage has absolutely nothing to do with use of polygraph screening "as a trigger for detailed follow-up investigation," and it is apparent that DOE has willfully misrepresented the quoted passage. Here is the quoted text, in context:
The polygraph is only one of many possible techniques for identifying national security risks among federal employees. Other techniques attempt to detect deception from facial expressions, voice quality, and other aspects of demeanor; from measurements of brain activity and other physiological indicators; and from background investigations or questionnaires. Computerized analysis of polygraph records has the potential to improve the accuracy of test results by using more information from in polygraph records than is used in traditional scoring methods. This potential has yet to be realized, however, either in research or in practice.
We considered the potential to increase the capability to identify security risks by combining polygraph information with information from other screening techniques, for example, in serial screening protocols such as are used in medical diagnosis. There are good theoretical reasons to think appropriate procedures of this sort would improve detection of deception, but we found no serious investigations of such multicomponent screening approaches.
In the next paragraph of its press release, DOE repeats its misrepresentation of the NAS report in order to support its decision to ignore its main conclusion (emphasis added):
The notice of proposed rulemaking proposes to retain DOE's existing regulations because they are consistent with the statutory purpose of minimizing the risk of disclosure of classified data and because they are compatible with the NAS's alternative conclusion that polygraph screening, if applied as a trigger for follow-on tools versus as a basis for personnel action, can improve detection of deception. DOE's regulations list eight categories of positions which are subject to mandatory polygraph screening of applicants for employment and employees.
Fair Chance
Joined: Oct 10th, 2002
Re: DOE Rejects NAS Polygraph Report Findings!
Reply #2 - Apr 15th, 2003 at 2:06pm
Dear George,
The spin that the DOD is placing upon the NAS report was not surprising nor unpredicted.
Their foundation of argument that "security cannot be about money (i.e. is the polygraph cost effective?)" nicely distracted from their poor if not outright miserable interpretation of the NAS report. As you have pointed out, it was not about money at all. The NAS stated that pre-screening polygraph was ineffective and further huge amounts of money spent could not increase any likelyhood of polygraph usage becoming more effective.
No wonder the polygraph organizations are howling about this website. They think that they can convince everyone that the polygraph is reliable despite lack of scientific evidence. Anyone who would state that the "emporer is naked" is an extreme threat
The polygraph is a weak and blunt tool in the world of security. Polygraph usage continues to be inappropriate in screening for employment (new and existing) and given an aura of invincibility that directly contradicts the NAS findings and conclusions.
PDD-Fed
I believe it was Mark Twain who said, "The reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated."
PDD-Fed...
Who knows what evil lurks
in the hearts of men?
I must agree with PDD-Fred on this one. It appears that the Federal government is not going to throw away the polygraph any time soon. I'm curious, George et al, what is a possible alternative to the polygraph, besides background investigations, that could be used as a replacement?
With all the vast professional backgrounds that input to this web site, and all of the implied expertise on polygraph, we should be able to offer up a replacement solution to the polygraph (no getting rid of it is not an option in this scenario), or at least offer ways to improve upon it.
It is apparent that the Government does not wish to do away with it, so why not change tactics and work with the polygraph field to create/improve upon the existing system? I believe it was Sun Tzu who said, "Keep Your Friends Close, But Your Enemies Even Closer". What better way then to work together to fix a broken system!
Please don't shoot the question asker on this one!
Reply #5 - Apr 16th, 2003 at 10:16pm
PDD-Fed,
I'm not aware that anyone had reported the death of polygraphy. But the sword of Damocles hangs over its head.
It appears that federal agencies will not voluntarily give up the polygraph so long as widespread public belief in the lie detector continues, and that a legislative solution is needed. Because of DOE's intransigence, there may well be new Congressional hearings into polygraph policy.
As for a replacement for the polygraph, the lie detector has yet to be invented, and the NAS found little reason to believe that additional research would significantly improve polygraph accuracy.
The best way to "improve the system" is for Congress to pass, and the President to sign, a Comprehensive Employee Polygraph Protection Act.
Mark Mallah
Very Senior User
Joined: Mar 16th, 2001
The DOE's spin on the NAS report is Orwellian. It also reflects the mentality of the polygraph process itself, where truth is a malleable concept shaped to fit the examiner's and the institution's prejudices.
Just as an examiner repackages a subject's statements to appear incriminating, the DOE has repackaged the NAS report to appear to support the polygraph.
Does anyone have an idea if we can get Stephen Feinberg or another NAS panel member to rebut the DOE? Given that their report is being used to bolster the polygraph, they might have something to say about that.
I will contact Professor Fienberg and other members of the NAS polygraph panel regarding this. In a recent article by Lisa Friedman, who reports for the Tri-Valley Herald, professor Fienberg remarked regarding DOE's stated plan to continue polygraph screening: "I think this is a misguided policy. It ignores the content of our report, it actually makes erroneous statements about what we concluded and didn't conclude."
I think it would be appropriate for members of the NAS panel to submit a formal response during the Energy Department's public comment period. Senator Domenici, who chairs the Senate committee that has oversight responsibility for DOE, is reportedly waiting to see the public comments before deciding whether to hold hearings on DOE's polygraph policy.
I've also been in touch with some scientists at the national laboratories, and would suggest to all who plan on submitting comments to DOE that they cc or forward their comments to info@antipolygraph.org. We'll publish comments received on AntiPolygraph.org so that they will be readily available for review by members of Congress, their staffs, the media, and other interested parties.
In addition, any who might wish to comment publicly on DOE's plan to continue polygraph screening, but who fear retaliation for expressing their views, may send their comments to AntiPolygraph.org with the request that their name be withheld. For further anonymity and security, comments may be sent through an anonymous remailer and/or with PGP encryption. AntiPolygraph.org's PGP public key is available here.
Dear PDD-Fed,
You quoted one of my favorite lines from Mark Twain.
I know that I did not expect the use of polygraph examinations to stop immediately with the issuance of the NAS report. I did expect the DOE to read and use it in the context which it the report was written. The use of polygraph machines in general for employment screening lends no predictive element to future security breaches. My argument has been that a good professional interrogator would get almost as many confessions by just having a four hour period of cross examination on an applicant or employee. The utility of the polygraph as a tool of law enforcement is given far too much weight and used as a crutch to assign blame if someone goes "bad."
Secondly and most important, if a person "fails" a polygraph examination and I was the government, I would sure as heck want to know why and leave no stone unturned in my investigation especially if the subject is a current government employee. Many have stated that this would cost too much money but I believe that the amount of actual "guilty" subjects would be so small (if non-existent) that the polygraph users would be embaressed to defend their accusations.
I am one of those subjects accused of using countermeasure. My second examiner and the board of review in Washington, D.C., seemed absolutely convinced that I was "not within acceptable parameters".
Almost a year later and after another "roll of the dice" polygraph examination, I am found fully acceptable for employment. My background investigation has been thorough (and from the people I have talked to after their interviews was also very "agressive"). I believe my background examination was agressive because there were still lingering doubts concerning my second polygraph. The polygraph becomes the perfect "pass the buck" tool to escape accountability. This is why so many agencies love it so and refuse to let it go.
The government has a perfect fall back excuse for any bad behavoir in the future. They will go back and review my third polygraph and somehow make it appear that my second polygraph was the "real" polygraph and blame it on bad interpretation of the third polygraph (which in hindsight was really "deceptive").
I wonder how many "not within acceptable parameters" applicants would be denied empolyment if only a background investigtion was used?
Why must a goverment agency hurt its appearence of integrity and reputations of the citizens it protects by blackmarking the future of many applicants only based on polygraph interpretation?
I believe the FBI to be a good organization or else I would have never applied for a position. I hope I can get to a position of influence to stop the inappropriate use of it for employment pre-screening or decrease its permanent blacklisting on applicants.
« Last Edit: Apr 17th, 2003 at 6:06pm by Fair Chance »
I'm Re: DOE Rejects NAS Polygraph Report Findings!
Reply #10 - Apr 17th, 2003 at 7:27pm
I'm curious, George et al, what is a possible alternative to the polygraph, besides background investigations, that could be used as a replacement?
Let's dispose of this argument once and for all:
"The greatest threat to the intelligence product's integrity comes from the tendency of collectors to accept bad sources of information in lieu of none, and of analysts to fill factual holes with their own prejudices."
Angelo Codevilla, "The Urgency of Offensive Counter-Terrorism", FrontPageMagazine.com, 2/13/03
This applies equally to a criminal investigation. Better to have NO source of information than a BAD source, which is what the polygraph is. In other words, better to start the race at the starting line, rather than ten feet behind it.
Getting rid of the polygraph does not require replacing it with something else. The very act of getting rid of it will, by itself, improve the quality of screening investigations.
« Last Edit: Apr 17th, 2003 at 8:04pm by Mark Mallah »
J.B. McCloughan
Joined: Dec 7th, 2001
Reply #11 - Apr 18th, 2003 at 5:37am
I disagree with some of your analysis. The polygraph has been meticulously examined in actual criminal cases and done so more than any other forensic science. Inasmuch as polygraph is one of the oldest and most readily available forensic tests, the amount of data available for analysis is stifling. I opine that neither the NSA's nor any other inquiry has ever shown that polygraph leaves criminal investigators at a disadvantage. To the contrary, the available field research, even when using the Control Question Test (CQT), places polygraph at a level significantly above traditional investigative methods for criminal investigation. Dr. David Lykken himself said he would use the polygraph, if he were a police investigator (most likely a GKT). Most of the disdain toward polygraph found in quotes of notable individuals has been so directed toward specific formats and uses and not all inclusive.
What I regard as the bottom line is does the instrument work adequately for its proposed use and does it do so at a level that is significantly above any past implemented methods? One can argue either side of this and do so in many different facets when it comes to polygraph. However, the polygraph is simply an instrument. The format used with it and its intended use seems to be the major point of content.
Quam verum decipio nos
J.B.,
I think that when Mark spoke of "the polygraph," he was referring to polygraphic "lie detection," and not concealed information (guilty knowledge) tests, which are qualitatively different and seldom used in the United States.
I assume that in your post (except where otherwise indicated) you, too, were speaking of polygraphic "lie detection" when you referred to "the polygraph."
The polygraph has been meticulously examined in actual criminal cases and done so more than any other forensic science.
The amount of peer-reviewed polygraph field research is actually quite small. To the best of my knowledge, only four such studies exist. What forensic sciences have been examined less meticulously than that?
Moreover, I must disagree with your characterization of polygraphy as a "forensic science." As explained in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and in William G. Iacono's article, "Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis," polygraphy has no grounding in the scientific method. The National Academy of Sciences very diplomatically stated as much at p. 8-1 of its polygraph report:
Theoretical Basis The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions. We have not found any serious effort at construct validation of polygraph testing.
Research Progress Research on the polygraph has not progressed over time in the manner of a typical scientific field. It has not accumulated knowledge or strengthened its scientific underpinnings in any significant manner. Polygraph research has proceeded in relative isolation from related fields of basic science and has benefited little from conceptual, theoretical, and technological advances in those fields that are relevant to the psychophysiological detection of deception.
The NAS expressed a similar view somewhat less diplomatically (but quite cogently) in Chapter 1 of its report, where it likened the polygraph community to a shamanistic priesthood. (See the message thread The Cult of Polygraph for a full-text citation of the relevant passage.)
You also write:
I opine that neither the NSA's [sic] nor any other inquiry has ever shown that polygraph leaves criminal investigators at a disadvantage.
The NAS did allow that the polygraph may have some utility for eliciting admissions/confessions. But this is a far cry from saying that any reliance should be put on polygraph chart readings. With regard to utility, the NAS reports states at p. 8-3:
Utility Polygraph examinations may have utility to the extent that they can elicit admissions and confessions, deter undesired activity, and instill public confidence. However, such utility is separate from polygraph validity. There is substantial anecdotal evidence that admissions and confessions occur in polygraph examinations, but no direct scientific evidence assessing the utility of the polygraph. Indirect evidence supports the idea that a technique will exhibit utility effects if examinees and the public believe that there is a high likelihood of a deceptive person being detected and that the costs of being judged deceptive are substantial. Any technique about which people hold such beliefs is likely to exhibit utility, whether or not it is valid. For example, there is no evidence to suggest that admissions and confessions occur more readily with the polygraph than with a bogus pipeline—an interrogation accompanying the use of an inert machine that the examinee believes to be a polygraph. In the long run, evidence that a technique lacks validity will surely undercut its utility.
And with regard to DOE's polygraph program, the NAS warns against attributing to polygraphy a diagnostic value that it does not possess (pp. 8-6 to 8-7):
Danger of Overconfidence Overconfidence in the polygraph—a belief in its accuracy not justified by the evidence—presents a danger to national security objectives. A false faith in the accuracy of polygraph testing among potential examinees may enhance its utility for deterrence and eliciting admissions. However, we are more concerned with the danger that can arise from overconfidence in polygraph accuracy among officials in security and counterintelligence organizations, who are themselves potential examinees. Such overconfidence, when it affects counterintelligence and security policy choices, may create an unfounded, false sense that because employees have appeared nondeceptive on a polygraph, security precautions can be relaxed. Such overconfidence can create a false sense of security among policy makers, employees in sensitive positions, and the public that may in turn lead to inappropriate relaxation of other methods of ensuring security. It can waste public resources by devoting to the polygraph funds that would be better expended on developing or implementing alternative security procedures. It can lead to unnecessary loss of competent or highly skilled individuals because of suspicions cast on them as a result of false positive polygraph exams or because they avoid or leave employment in federal security organizations in the face of such prospects. And it can lead to credible claims that agencies that use polygraphs are infringing on individuals' civil liberties for insufficient benefits to national security.
To the contrary, the available field research, even when using the Control Question Test (CQT), places polygraph at a level significantly above traditional investigative methods for criminal investigation.
The NAS concluded otherwise, stating at p. 8-2:
...There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods.
You continue:
What I regard as the bottom line is does the instrument work adequately for its proposed use and does it do so at a level that is significantly above any past implemented methods? One can argue either side of this and do so in many different facets when it comes to polygraph.
If the polygraph's proposed use were simply as a trick for obtaining admissions/confessions from the naive and gullible, I could agree that it might work adequately for some individuals. But as a diagnostic test for the detection of deception? No way.
Dear J. B.,
Your last line of this quote could very well be the key to my original and biggest heartache of my polygraph exposure. The existing CQT format used in pre-screening is inappropriate at best. Good independent research concerning polygraph is hard to find for I have looked for it. The agency that I applied for uses the CQT format as if it were 100% infallible and ruins many potential careers by using it. I am somewhat irritated that employees within the system are fully accepting of the fact that friendly fire occurs and that is just the cost of "doing business" with that agency.
I do realize that the environment of interrogation can be enhanced by the physical presence of the polygraph and thus obtain some confessions that would not otherwise be gained. I just have a big problem with device and test method which has few studies that are repeatable without constantly having to have qualifiers about the operator.
I have read your discussions concerning GKT methodology. I would at least like this more than what I went through if only for the aspect of needing to do investigation and have specific items of inquiry instead of general fishing expedition as it is currently done.
The pre-screening polygraph assumes guilt until proven innocence. Why cannot law-abiding applicants have the same right as accused criminals to be innocent until proven guilty (and definitely not by pre-screening CQT polygraph being questioned about non-specific incidents)?
At least in this case with the DOE, the NAS specifically is stating that for the intended use of polygraph in pre-employment screening, there is no useful positive security outcome.
Why do they insist on using it?
I can't add much to George's comments, which I do believe very effectively rebuts some of your points.
I generally accept your formulation that the bottom line is whether the instrument works adequately for its proposed use. In other words, ends and means. Does the use of the polygraph (the means) achieve the desired ends (screening out spies, properly identifying criminals, et al.)?
If we just look at polygraph screening, I think the conclusion is clear that this particular "means" has failed to serve, and has actually sabotaged, the desired "ends". Many innocent people have been erroneously screened out (a loss of valuable employees), some investigated, (a waste and diversion), and some guilty people have inflicted tremendous damage (Ames, Montes, Chin, et al.) after "passing" the polygraph and lulling investigators.
So the bottom line is that for the particular purpose of screening, it has been a costly failure.
The other ends for which the polygraph has been deployed as the means deserve a separate analysis.
Forum Jump » Board Index » 10 most recent Posts » 10 most recent Topics Polygraph and CVSA Forums Polygraph Policy «« Polygraph Procedure Share Your Polygraph or CVSA Experience Action Alerts and Announcements Federal Polygraph Lawsuit California Polygraph Reform Initiative The Lie Behind the Lie Detector CVSA and other Voice Stress Analysis Applications Post-Conviction Polygraph Programs Off-Topic Posts Employment Forums (Non-polygraph related) Police, Sheriffs', and Corrections Departments Applications, Hiring, and Employment Federal Law Enforcement Applications, Hiring, and Employment Intelligence Agency Applications, Hiring, and Employment Military Recruitment and Employment Discarded Posts Forum Discarded Posts


Accessories include: beautiful log, decorative stone and rock options. burner and windguards, remote control and Spark Assist for Millivot Valve.
*Manual Valve Systems are shipped as Propane, NG conversion office is included with burner.


text:
Charles Jeffrey Schwertner (born May 29, 1970) is an American  orthopedic surgeon and politician from Georgetown, Texas. He has served in the Texas State Senate since November 6, 2012, after having represented House District 20 in the Texas House of Representatives for a single term beginning in January 2011. He is a Republican.

As a member of the Texas Senate, Schwertner serves as chairman of the Senate Committee on Business and Commerce. He is currently a member of the Senate Committees on Education, Finance, State Affairs, and the HHS Transition Legislative Oversight Committee. Schwertner also chairs the Sunset Advisory Commission, a 12-member body of legislators and public members that periodically reviews function and operations of more than 130 state agencies.

Schwertner was named one of the "Worst Legislators" in Texas  by Texas Monthly magazine in 2015 and 2017 calling him "mean-spirited and insecure" and citing an incident where he "silenced an abortion rights witness by slamming his gavel down so hard that it broke the glass tabletop of his desk."

Efforts to reform the Texas electric grid
In 2021, Senator Schwertner passed SB 3 to substantively reform the Texas power grid in the aftermath of a series of major winter storms that left many Texans without power for several days. These changes included requiring the weatherization of critical power generation, natural gas, and electrical transmission infrastructure; instituting an emergency alert system to notify Texans about extended power outages; and reforming the electric market to increase generation capacity and improve the reliability of the state's power grid.

Importantly, SB 3 also formalized the Texas Electric Reliability Council to "enhance coordination and communication in the energy and electric industries in this state." As part of its duties, the Council is tasked with overseeing the Texas Electricity Supply Chain Security and Mapping Committee. The Committee is directed to develop and update a Texas-wide power supply chain map for use during a disaster and to enhance emergency preparedness and response.

Recognizing the need for more accountability and oversight at the Public Utilities Commission, Schwertner also passed SB 2154, which expanded the number of commissioners from three to five and added new eligibility requirements for commissioners.

Expanding gun-owner rights
In 2021, Senator Schwertner sponsored HB 1927, also known as the "constitutional carry" law. The law  allows anyone who can legally own a firearm to carry it – in a holster – in public, for the first time since Reconstruction. HB 1927 doesn't change eligibility for gun ownership; the law still requires that an individual be at least 21 years old and can not have served a sentence for a felony or family violence within the last five years. The law also adds some other misdemeanors to the list for those who want to carry, including assault causing bodily injury, deadly conduct, terroristic threat, and disorderly conduct with a firearm. Texas is now the 20th state to pass a "constitutional carry" law.

Schwertner also passed SB 19 to prohibit corporations that discriminate against the firearms industry from obtaining contracts with Texas governmental entities. According to Schwertner, this bill was authored in response to reports that banks were refusing to grant loans to businesses in the firearms industry.

Allegations of lewd texting
On October 8, 2018, the University of Texas at Austin hired Johnny Sutton, a former federal prosecutor, to investigate claims that Schwertner sent sexually-explicit text messages to a female graduate student and whether such harassment could be a violation of Title IX, a federal  civil rights law.

A message from Schwertner's LinkedIn account sent to the graduate student said: "Hope you're getting my texts I sent to you." The student responded: "Please stop the inappropriate texts, it is unprofessional." The student also received  text messages from an Austin area number that matched a business card belonging to Schwertner. These messages included: "Sorry. I really just wanted to fuck you," "This is Charles," "Send a pic?" and "Hello? Want to just use LinkedIn? Or my main cell?". Schwertner also sent a photograph that was identified as his penis.

Schwertner's lawyers told investigators that the senator had shared the username and password for his LinkedIn account with a third party, whom Schwertner knows but would not identify. The summary says that an attorney for that party "did not disclose the third person's relationship" with Schwertner and did not reveal why the messages were sent. That attorney also would not disclose the third party's identity, but claimed the individual sent the messages without Schwertner's prior knowledge and "signed an affidavit attesting to the truth of his or her statements."

The University of Texas ultimately concluded its investigation of Schwertner, stating that the "available evidence does not support a finding" that he had violated university policy or Title IX.

The two-page executive summary says that Schwertner "refused to meet with" the investigating attorney and that "[Schwertner] has access to information that could allow a more definitive conclusion to this matter, but [Schwertner] is unwilling to share that information, and the University lacks authority to compel him to cooperate more fully."

Ross Ramey of the Texas Tribune wrote: "The problem is that the investigation at UT didn't reach any final conclusions. The investigator couldn't prove Schwertner was at fault, but also couldn't prove he was not. There is no evidence here to clear his name. In that way, it's as though no investigation had taken place; Schwertner is in the same fix he was in after the allegations were known and before Johnny Sutton, a former U.S. attorney who is now in private practice, started digging around."

Following the controversy, Schwertner's wife filed for divorce on January 30, 2019.

DWI Allegations
On February 7, 2023 Schwertner was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated in Austin, Texas, according to Travis County, Texas records.

Election history

2018

2014

2012

2010

References

1970 births
Living people
Republican Party Texas state senators
Republican Party members of the Texas House of Representatives
People from Georgetown, Texas
American surgeons
21st-century American politicians
Politicians from Tuscaloosa, Alabama

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


2. (Eccl.) See Portionist, 2.
1. A scholar at Merton College, Oxford, who has a certain academical allowance or portion; — corrupted into postmaster. Shipley.
2. (Eccl.) One of the incumbents of a benefice which has two or more rectors or vicars.
(Por"tion*less), a. Having no portion.
(Port"land ce*ment") A cement having the color of the Portland stone of England, made by calcining an artificial mixture of carbonate of lime and clay, or sometimes certain natural limestones or chalky clays. It contains a large proportion of clay, and hardens under water.
(Port"land stone") A yellowish-white calcareous freestone from the Isle of Portland in England, much used in building.
(Port"land vase`) A celebrated cinerary urn or vase found in the tomb of the Emperor Alexander Severus. It is owned by the Duke of Portland, and kept in the British Museum.
(Port"last) n. (Naut.) The portoise. See Portoise.
1. The quality or state of being portly; dignity of mien or of personal appearance; stateliness.
Such pride is praise; such portliness is honor.
1. Having a dignified port or mien; of a noble appearance; imposing.
2. Bulky; corpulent. "A portly personage." Dickens.
(Port"man) n.; pl. Portmen An inhabitant or burgess of a port, esp. of one of the Cinque Ports.
(Port*man"teau) n.; pl. Portmanteaus [F. porte-manteau; porter to carry + manteau a cloak, mantle. See Port to carry, and Mantle.] A bag or case, usually of leather, for carrying wearing apparel, etc., on journeys. Thackeray.
(Port"mote`) n. In old English law, a court, or mote, held in a port town. [Obs.] Blackstone.


text:
YOUNG HOCKEY UMPIRES RECEIVE A GUIDING HAND WITH GRANT
Hockey New England Junior Convenor Peta Deiderick, left, umpire Harry Lye, Northern Tablelands MP Adam Marshall and Hockey New England President Peter Lye at the Hockey New England Turfs.
THE region's young hockey umpires will get a confidence boost in the whistle-blowing world with news of some grant funding delivered by Northern Tablelands MP Adam Marshall.
Armidale-based Hockey New England will use a $1,638 NSW Government grant to mentor and guide some of its up and coming junior umpires.
Mr Marshall said the association had between 400 and 500 juniors playing in the New England competition and training up and retaining umpires from a young age was critical to the sport.
"As in any sport, if you don't have umpires you can't play games and Hockey New England recognises that and is out to attract junior players to the umpire ranks," Mr Marshall said.
"Anyone who has ever umpired a sport knows it can be confronting and intimidating, even if you haven't got supporters on the sidelines who can sometimes be noisy or vocal.
"This grant will allow for very young umpires to be supported when they're umpiring by having older umpires beside them.
"The mentors will be mostly teenagers and they'll be with them to give them more confidence and guide them in the interpretation of rules and hand signals.
"This mentoring program will pave the way for those juniors to continue to umpire as they get older, and that will provide for a good pool of senior umpires later on."
Hockey New England President Peter Lye said the grant funding was a good win for the sport and he was grateful for the helping hand from the government's Local Sports program.
"Junior hockey is going gangbusters, we've got more players and more teams in the Under 9s, Under 11s and Under 13s and we look to use young players a couple of years older than those games to umpire," Mr Lye said.
He said hockey numbers had grown with more school teams as well and junior players coming from areas like Walcha and Guyra to play in the Armidale competition.
Mr Lye told Mr Marshall that like all sports attracting umpires could be difficult and many couldn't find enough people to do the job, especially at senior levels.
"If we don't have junior umpires coming through the ranks then we're in trouble when it comes to senior levels."

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Даніел Велес (9 грудня 1983) — пуерториканський плавець.
Учасник Олімпійських Ігор 2008 року, де в попередніх запливах на дистанції 100 метрів брасом посів 33-тє місце і не потрапив до півфіналів.

Посилання
 Даніел Велес на Olympedia.org
 Даніел Велес на Sports-Reference.com

Примітки

Народились 1983
Плавці та плавчині на літніх Олімпійських іграх 2008
Випускники Університету штату Північна Кароліна
Плавці США
Плавці брасом


text:
Q: unable to get the IP,Mac, and other network info using (Get-VMHost).NetworkInfo I am using powerCLI verion 5.5, and I wrote the following script:-
Get-VMHost |Export-Csv -Path c:\test.csv -NoTypeInformation –UseCulture

I got info for the vmhost such as used memory, build, state ,cpu spped,  etc. but for the networkinfo section inside the generated .csv file I got "localhost" instead of the VMHost network info. so I wrote another script as follow to get the ip,mac and other netwrk info:-
(Get-VMHost).NetworkInfo | Export-Csv -Path c:\test2.csv -NoTypeInformation -UseCulture

but I got these info only , where I can not get the IP,MAC of the VMHOst :-
VMHostId    VMHost  VMKernelGateway VMKernelGatewayDevice   ConsoleGateway  ConsoleGatewayDevice    DnsAddress  DnsFromDhcp DnsDhcpDevice   DomainName  HostName    SearchDomain    VirtualSwitch   PhysicalNic ConsoleNic  VirtualNic  Uid IPv6Enabled ConsoleV6Gateway    ConsoleV6GatewayDevice  VMKernelV6Gateway   VMKernelV6GatewayDevice ExtensionData   ExtensionData2
HostSystem-ha-host  ******.intra    172.16.20.1                 FALSE           localhost       VMware.VimAutomation.ViCore.Interop.V1.Host.Networking.VirtualSwitchInterop[]   VMware.VimAutomation.ViCore.Interop.V1.Host.Networking.Nic.PhysicalNicInterop[] VMware.VimAutomation.ViCore.Interop.V1.Host.Networking.Nic.HostVirtualNicInterop[]  VMware.VimAutomation.ViCore.Interop.V1.Host.Networking.Nic.HostVirtualNicInterop[]  /VIServer=root@****************:443/VMHost=HostSystem-ha-host/VMHostNetwork=/   FALSE                   VMware.Vim.HostNetworkInfo  VMware.Vim.HostNetworkSystem

so can anyone advice how I can get the network info the vmhost ? and should this be done as a separate script or I can do this inside my original script Get-VMHost ??

A: You'd probably want to use the Get-VMHostNetworkAdapter cmdlet.
In particular, using the -VMKernel switch to only get the host's management interfaces.
Something like this:
Get-VMHost <hostname> | Get-VMHostNetworkAdapter -VMKernel

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Koyo 7032CDF bearing find reliable in Mauritania are widely used in industrial drive, agriculture, compressors, motors and generators, construction, industrial fan, industrial transmission and other fields. Koyo 7032CDF bearing find reliable in Mauritania can ensure high quality for more than 80% raw material of Koyo 7032CDF bearing find reliable in Mauritania provided by the steel plant.
Explorer series bearing of Koyo 7032CDF bearing find reliable in Mauritania are better than any brand bearings currently in bearing performance , lifetime, design, and the use of performance. Explorer series bearings of Koyo 7032CDF bearing find reliable in Mauritania have more advantages ,such as higher meet rated , lower noise, reducing warranty costs greatly, increasing running time of the machine.
Eric bearing limited company can not only provide customer high quality 7032CDF NACHI bearings, but also best service of 7032CDF NACHI can be offered.


text:
As a 24-year-old reporter Rick MacArthur wanted a magazine, so his father bought him one called Harper's. This was 1980 and the title was folding, but the magazine had been around since 1850, making it the second oldest publication to be continuously published, and thus, definitely one worth saving. Thirty years later, MacArthur is the publisher of a once again struggling Harper's, and the subject of a fascinating New York Times piece today about the recent and sudden firing of editor Roger D. Hodge.
"We are going through a crisis," Mr. MacArthur told his staff recently. The magazine, a rare nonprofit publication funded by MacArthur's foundation, is floundering and adjustments must be made to save the historic title. In what is reported as a "rambling 40-minute monologue," MacArthur laid out the the issues: "readership was down 35,000, newsstand sales were plummeting, the only direct-mail piece that seemed to work was 20 years old." And, worst of all, irrelevancy: "the mainstream media is ignoring it to death," he said.
And so he took rash action, firing Hodge, "in a five-minute conversation as Mr. Hodge was finishing his breakfast croissant." Brutal, and now public, but will it really address the issues at the core of the Harper's stasis, not the least of which is an archaic, rickety brand with little to no appeal for a new generation of reading and writing intellectuals?
The article also mentions that MacArthur "makes much" of his own editorial experience, despite his role as publisher, and some "wonder whether he plans to take a larger editorial role." A few ideas for improvement are mentioned: working closely with advertisers, a commitment to "muckraking," and so on, though MacArthur and the magazine's new editor, Ellen Rosenbush, said "that they did not plan 'any big changes here.'" But, maybe it's about time the changes increased in scale?
Editorial Shake-Up as Harper's Tries to Stabilize in a Downturn [New York Times]
Harper's MagazineHarpersNew York Times


text:
Q: Eclipse, compile a 32-bit project for 64-bit settings I have been workin' on a Java project with Eclipse on my 32-bit Windows Xp pc. This project relates to another C++ project, developed with Visual Studio 2008, through Java Native Interface (JNI).
Now I have moved my projects on a 64-bit Windows 7 pc.
The compilin' of the C++ project on Visual Studio is alright, but if I try to compile my Java project on Eclipse, that's what I get:

Exception in thread "Thread-3" java.lang.UnsatisfiedLinkError:
  C:\Users\Desktop\temp\BioTesi\BioCpp.dll: %1 is not a valid Win32 application

I think that the problem is that the project is set for a 32-bit architercture, while now it does not "know" that it's workin' on a 64-bit architecture.
How could I set, on Eclipse, the fact "This project must be compiled 64-bit way"?
Thank you very much

A: There is no 64-bit setting for Java projects, but you run the compiled project in a 64-bit JVM or 32-bit JVM. 64-bit JVM needs 64-bit DLLs and 32-bit JVM needs 32-bit DLLs.

A: inside: Run Configurations... -> Arguments (tab) -> Programa Arguments -> Type '-d64'
By this way you're telling Eclipse to Emulate programs in 64bit


text:
Investing in Oklahoma!
Father's Day Should Be Year-Round!
By: Pat Potts
Last month's newsletter contained an article on all the positive things dads can do to nurture and stimulate their children from infancy. Family Father's Day remembrances brought home for me the critical role dads play in influencing expectations of girls and boys in the kind of person they will become and the kind of mate they will choose later in life. Those of us who grew up in a safe and secure home with parents who protected us were truly blessed!
However a study by UNICEF indicated that some 275 million children worldwide are not so fortunate. They are exposed to violence in the home. Domestic violence causes lifetime damage not just to the spouse who is victimized but also to the children who see, hear or live with the threat.
The younger the child, the greater the negative impact. Their brains are undergoing the most formative times of their lives. Both cognitive and behavioral development can be impaired impacting later ability to interact positively with others, to build trusting relationships and to concentrate and focus. Thus failure to successfully relate to others or learn, impacts their future. And the cycle of dysfunction continues.
Our society seems caught up on a kind of toxic macho violence behavioral pattern. We see violence on TV, in video games, and movies as the way to solve problems. Yet instead of ending troubles, it merely builds more. Peaceful problem solving can be taught - perhaps most effectively by fathers.
In Oklahoma we have more than our share of trauma producing events that add to kids fears for personal safety. The number of child victims of abuse and neglect had increased by 62.2% in 2015 in comparison to the number of victims in 2009.
These 'ACE' adverse childhood experiences impact children's mental health and resilience. Yet Oklahoma is diminishing investment in the parent education and support, educational development, and physical and mental health services that help prevent and overcome such experiences.
That degree of support cannot be replaced by corporate and foundation funding, nonprofit programs and faith based organizations. The gap and need are too great. Still, it behooves each of us to find ways to support evidence-based programs that give our children of promise a chance to realize their potential. We can afford to do no less!
Dates & Data
OKCEO Advisory Meeting
Potts Family Foundation Conference Room
655 Research Parkway
State of the School Event (OKC Chamber of Commerce)
National Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum
1700 NE 63rd St.
PFF Board Meeting
655 Research Parkway, Suite 500A
OK Early Childhood Coalition Annual Conference
The Skirvin Hotel
1 Park Ave
Kids Count Conference
University of Central Oklahoma, Nigh University Center
100 N University Dr.
37th: Oklahoma's rank on overall child well-being derived from Economic Well-being, Education, Health, and Family and Community.
Source: 2016 Kids Count Data Book
61: Percent of mothers with children under age 3 who are working today.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015
31: Percent of Oklahoma children under age 3 who are maltreated compared to the national average of 27%.
Source: Zero To Three, Oklahoma State Baby Facts 2015
43: The number of children that died as a result of abuse or neglect in 2013.
Source: Child Welfare League of America, Oklahoma's Children 2015
Infants' Laughter Can Be A Learning Aid
By: Ann Lukits from The Wall Street Journal
Making Infants laugh can help them learn complex skills, a study in Cognitiona and Emotion suggests. The Study found that 94% of infants who laughed at an adult performing a humorous demonstration involving a makeshift tool mastered the action immediately or after a few tries. That compared with 19% of infants who watched the same demonstration but didn't laugh and 25% of controls given a serious demonstration.
Positive emotions, such as laughter, can trigger the release of dopamine and endorphines in the brain, compounds associated with pleasure and mood that can also impact learning, the study suggests. Laughing babies may also have higher social skills that enable them to easily interact with others in different situations, the researchers said.
Too Small To Fail
By: Nicholas Kristof from The New York Times
First, a quiz: What's the most common "vegetable" eaten by toddlers?
Answer: The french fry
The same study that unearthed that nutritional tragedy also found that on any given day, almost half of American toddlers drink soda or similar drinks, possibly putting the children on a trajectory toward obesity or diabetes.
But for many kids, the problems start even earlier. In West Virginia, one study found, almost one-fifth of children are born with alcohol or drugs in their system. Many thus face an uphill struggle from the day they are born.
Bear all this in mind as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump battle over taxes, minimum wages and whether to make tuition free at public universities. Those are legitimate debates, but the biggest obstacles and greatest inequality often have roots early in life:
If we want to get more kids in universities, we should invest in preschools.
High Quality Early Learning Settings Depend On A High-Quality Workforce
By: The U.S Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Education
Today, in many families across the U.S., both parents are working, and more mothers are working now than a generation ago. This, combined with an increased understanding of the connection between high-quality early education, brain development, and school readiness, have contributed to increased demand for high-quality, affordable child care and other early education programs.
A high quality early education experience depends on a high-quality workforce of early educators. How we value and support those early educators as a nation – through access to higher education, professional development and commensurate compensation – has direct implications on their ability to do their difficult and important job well.
Community Development With Smart Start
By: Margie Marney and Megan Tyler
Smart Start Oklahoma, in partnership with the Potts Family Foundation and the Oklahoma Champions for Early Opportunities (OKCEOs), met at Crossroads Head Start in Shawnee on Wednesday, June 8th to kick off a community-based effort to strengthen partnerships with the business community in Pottawatomie County. Rita Pine, Coordinator for Smart Start Pottawatomie County, will work with local business leaders Chuck Mills of Mills Manufacturing Co. and Dennis Morris with State Farm Insurance agency to spearhead engagement efforts with the business community in Shawnee and surrounding areas to increase awareness of the importance of investing in Oklahoma's youngest citizens. The effort will seek to encourage businesses to consider supporting OK 25 by 25 in the four focus areas (health and wellness, in-home support visits, high-quality childcare and literacy-numeracy and social emotional development programs) and investing in these local programs aimed at instilling working environments and support for young families with children. For more information or to join the effort, contact Rita Pine at 405.214.4323 or at RitaP@crossroadsyfs.com.
Literacy:
By: Amy Emerson from Tulsa Educare
Stethoscopes, syringes, exam table, children's books.....if it seems like one of these things doesn't belong, then let me tell you about Reach Out and Read Oklahoma! Oklahoma currently has about 250 medical providers who are taking advantage of the well-child checkup, as early as birth, to talk to parents about the importance of early literacy, while giving the family a brand new, developmentally appropriate book. As part of the training to become a Reach Out and Read provider, physicians, nurses, office staff and PA's are learning effective ways to weave the message of how to enjoy books at home into conversations about safety, nutrition and school readiness, while children eagerly point to pictures in the book and demonstrate that even from very young ages, they are ready to learn from those around them.
To read "The Elephant In The Clinic", click here.
25 By 25 Metrics Committee
By: Craig Knutson
An integral part of the 25 By 25 initiative revolves around the importance of metrics and process accountability. We want to be among the top 25 states, by 2025, as it relates to a key metrics. We can't raise our current rankings until we have a set of metrics that are: meaningful to our demographic; have a history of being collected overtime; are collected annually; can be sourced, including date/time; and can be compared to the other 49 states.
The 25 By 25 Metrics Committee was formed and met in early May. It is comprised of a number of public and non-profits agencies and organizations, including the PFF. The group includes representatives from: State Agencies (DHS, Health, OHCA, Mental Health), Oklahoma Child Care Resource and Referral Association, Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy, OUHSC, OSU, Sunbeam Family Services, Chickasaw Nation, Office of Quality and Accountability, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Oklahoma Receives $1.75 Million From The U.S. To Boost Dental Care
By: Paula Burkes from The Oklahoman
The federal government Thursday announced it will award $1.75 milliion to five Oklahoma health centers to serve more patients and expand integrated oral health care services.
Award recipients include Oklahoma City's Variety Care Inc.; Morton Comprehensive Health Services Inc. in Tulsa; Caring Hands Healthcare Centers Inc. in McAlester; Fairfax Medical Facilities Inc. and Stigler Health & Wellness Center Inc. Each will receive $350,000.
Terry Smith Leaves Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy
By: Margie Marney
We wanted to let our followers know that one of PFF's and OKCEO's major working partner leaders, Terry Smith CEO with OICA, will be leaving this position. The Board of Directors of OICA respectfully announced that Wednesday June 30th will be CEO Terry Smith's last day with the Institute.
During his time with OICA Terry has helped strengthen and solidify OICA as a leading organization for child welfare and advocacy in Oklahoma. We appreciate his partnership with PFF and OKCEOs as a member of the OKCEO Advisory Committee and his contributions of information to the PFF Board and as an advocate for Oklahoma children and families with the OKCEOs. We are encouraged that he will still be working for the children of Oklahoma in his new capacity as Deputy Director of the Office of Juvenile Affairs. We wish you the best in all your future endeavors Terry!
"Inside The Brain" Summary
From the introduction of Inside the Brain, by Ronald Kotulak: "When it comes to building the human brain, nature supplies the construction materials and nurture serves as the architect that puts them together. The recent discovery that early childhood experiences physically shape the infant brain – thereby determining its calculating powers and emotional equilibrium – is profoundly changing the way we think about the intellectual needs of children."
Numeracy in Early Childhood:
More Than Just Counting To Ten
By: Paula Gates from Sunbeam Family Services
Many parents can remember fondly that proud moment when their two year old recited their numbers "1-10" to their grandparents or that anxious moment on a kindergarten assessment meeting when the teacher asks the child to count as high as they can.
Much of our understanding about math and young children revolves around simple number recital. However, it is a more accurate picture if you ask the two year old the difference between a 3 and a 7, or if you ask the Pre-K child which is more, 20 or 40? The concept of math, or numeracy is so much more than a string of random symbols put together!
Oklahoma's Ranking For Well-Being of Children Improves, Report Finds
By: Mike Averull from Tulsa World
Oklahoma moved up two spots in an annual national report that ranks states on child well-being. The state ranks 37th in the 2016 Kids Count Data Book released by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. That's an improvement from 39th the last two years and a change from 36th and 40th the years prior. The rankings are based on 16 indicators in four domains: economic well-being, education, health, and family and community.
"I think we've known that these numbers are heading in that direction. We've been making progress, even in challenging times," said Terry Smith, CEO of the Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy. "There has been a lot of work done that has made a difference."
Oklahoma Business Roundtable and Potts Family Foundation
The Oklahoma Business Roundtable and the Potts Family Foundation developed a solid early childhood development (ECD) relationship over five years ago as two of three founders of the Oklahoma Champions for Early Opportunities, or OKCEOs. The other founding member is Smart Start Oklahoma. The OKCEOs are comprised of business and civic leaders, primarily from the private sector, who recognize that early childhood development is a significant economic, social, and workforce issue. There are seven members of OBR who are currently members of the OKCEOs; there is no cap to the number we would accept.
No Fadeout. Lasting Effects.
Click on the picture above to open the video "No Fadeout. Lasting Effects." from The Heckman Equation.
Their video highlights the benefits to children who receive high quality early childhood education, and refutes critics' claims that gains fadeout. The vast body of research shows that high quality early childhood education has lasting effects for disadvantaged children. Children arrive at school ready to learn and build upon early skills development.
Family Friendly Business Practices (FFBP)
By: Linda Turner
Often times when talking about Family Friendly Business Practices to business leaders, the first thought in people's minds is "Flex-Hours". And for a lot of companies, the thought of allowing Flex Hours in the workplace is somewhat impractical and unfavorable for the financial success.
There is more to FFBP than just Flex Hours, much, much more. Because the window of opportunity to make a big change in a child's life is so small, the first five years, we all should be working on figuring out ways to make the most of that opportunity. Being a CEO of an organization puts that person in a place to make a true difference in helping employees understand that those first five years cannot be recaptured, and must be considered the most precious time in the development of the child's future.
Copyright © 2016 Potts Family Foundation, All rights reserved.


text:
Dean Pappas, anti-war and civil rights activist who helped plan the 1968 Catonsville Nine raid
By Frederick N. Rasmussen
Dean Pappas, who assisted in the planning for the 1968 Catonsville Nine draft board raid, died Nov. 4. ((HANDOUT))
Dean Pappas, an antiwar and civil rights activist and teacher who assisted in the planning for the 1968 Catonsville Nine draft board raid, died Saturday of pancreatic cancer at his Mount Washington home. He was 78.
""When I came to Baltimore in 1967 to join the antiwar movement, Dean was one of the first people I met," said Brendan Walsh, a former seminarian and co-founder of Viva House with his wife, former nun Willa Bickham.
"He believed the Vietnam War had to be resisted and he was a great teacher, and for me, was a key person in the antiwar movement," Mr. Walsh said. "He had a great mind and a great way of relating to you."
"Dean was absolutely one of a kind, who taught physics but also taught life," said Tom Buck, an English teacher and Friends School colleague. "He was very political, and politics were very important to him. He was a movement kind of guy."
The son of Mitchell Pappas, an office worker, and Christine Pappas, a bookkeeper, Constantine Pappas was born in New York City and raised in Queens, N.Y.
[Most read] Former Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh among those seeking clemency from President Trump »
Mr. Pappas, who was known as Dean or Dino, and never used his birth name, was a 1957 graduate of Jamaica High School.
After earning a bachelor's degree in physics in 1961 from Yale University, he moved to Baltimore, where he enrolled at the Johns Hopkins University and obtained a master's degree in physics.
Mr. Pappas abandoned the pursuit of a doctorate in physics at Hopkins to focus full-time on the civil rights movement, fair-housing issues, and working against the military junta that ruled Greece from 1967 to 1974.
He taught physics at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, the Park School, and part-time at Coppin State University and the University of Maryland Eastern Shore before joining the Friends School faculty in 1988.
An adjunct at the Maryland Institute College of Art, he also exhibited his sculptures in faculty exhibits.
[Most read] Dante Barksdale, 'heart and soul' of Safe Streets, is shot to death Sunday in Baltimore, officials say »
Mr. Pappas became a leader in the Baltimore antiwar movement during the Vietnam era and founded the Baltimore Defense Committee and Teachers Against the War in Vietnam.
"The 1967 march on the Pentagon was the first mass civil disobedience the antiwar movement engaged in," Mr. Pappas told The Baltimore Sun in a 1987 interview. "For a lot of us, it was our first taste of tear gas.
"In Baltimore, there wasn't much of a student movement against the war. The main antiwar activity came out of the religious community led by such as Philip Berrigan," he said.
A highlight of Mr.Pappas' antiwar activities was helping to plan the raid May 17, 1968, to destroy the files of Selective Service Local Board No. 33 in Catonsville. The raid was carried out by nine men and women, including the Rev. Daniel Berrigan and his brother, Phillip, a Josephite priest.
"Dean made the napalm that was poured on the draft files," Mr. Walsh said.
[Most read] A county-by-county look at how to make a coronavirus vaccine appointment »
"I got the press there, the Berrigans asked me to do that," recalled Grenville B. Whitman, an activist who at the time represented the Peace & Freedom News.
"He was also highly involved in the leading the demonstrations as a result of the Catonsville Nine activities. We worked closely on that," said Mr. Whitman, a former Charles Village resident who now lives in Rock Hall on the Eastern Shore.
"He organized consciousness-raising activities in Baltimore once the Catonsville Nine trials started," said Donna Poggi Keck, an antiwar and women's movement activist, who lives in Charles Village. "He had people come and speak that were national figures, like the Rev. William Sloane Coffin."
"There was no special significance to Catonsville," Mr. Pappas told The Sun in a 2010 interview. "It was just a target of opportunity."
Two years earlier, he told the newspaper that he had abandoned the tactics of 1968.
[Most read] Trump farewell planned for Wednesday morning at military base ahead of Joe Biden's oath of office »
"I think that Phil and company [spending] the last 20 years smashing nose cones on missiles and getting thrown in jail was a waste of time," he said. "I hate to put it that way, but I don't think it did much to advance the cause."
"I first met Dean in 1964 when he was teaching, and we got involved in the Poll Tax Project," said Mr. Whitman. "We got volunteers to go to polling places, and we collected money for SNCC [the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee] and we collected $1,00,0 which was a lot of money. Dean helped me the most in organizing the project."
"He was very much a leadership person who made a rather striking presence. He was large and blond and had no trouble speaking in front of a crowd. He was very courageous," Mr. Whitman said.
"His leadership qualities were outstanding and he was such a really nice man," Ms. Keck said. "He was a person able to argue without belittling his opponent or demonizing them. He reached out and tried to make connections."
In the late 1970s and continuing into the early 1980s, Mr. Pappas wrote a column, "From the Left," for the Baltimore City Paper. Subject matter included local, national and international issues, as well as Orioles baseball.
[Most read] Baltimore City Public Schools to begin vaccinating 500 teachers and staff a week »
Mr. Pappas later founded the People's Free Medical Clinic and a coffeehouse and food cooperative in the Waverly area. He was active in the New American Movement and Democratic Socialists of America and worked tirelessly for peace in the Middle East.
"His activism continued on for decades," Ms. Keck said.
"He was a great keeper of left-wing actions," Mr. Whitman said,. "After the war was over, we drifted apart, but we remained friends, and he continued to speak out."
"If you wanted to kill a physics class, just ask Dean about the Catonsville Nine, the Vietnam War or the trade movement; he'd go on for a full 45 minutes," Mr. Buck said with a laugh. "He was very outspoken, and you just couldn't help but love him."
The Morning Sun Newsletter
Get your morning news in your e-mail inbox. Get all the top news and sports from the baltimoresun.com.
At Friends, Mr. Pappas founded the Chess Club and the Senior Work Project in 1994.
"The Senior Work Project helped seniors counter senior slump," said Heidi Blalock, Friends School's communications director and a Hampden resident. "He'd find places for them to go. They would shadow a surgeon or an FBI agent or go to a car repair shop.
"He had a big, bold personality and had so much love and was passionate about his students and his work," she said. "He lived his values, and because this is a Quaker school, he represented the founder of Quakerism George Fox's quote, 'Let your life speak.' ''
Mr. Pappas, a former Charles Village resident who later moved to Mount Washington, retired in 2008. In retirement, he became a student in Towson University's OSHER adult education program and had to cancel teaching his Great Ideas in Science course after being diagnosed with Stage 4 pancreatic cancer in August 2016.
Plans for a memorial service are incomplete.
The Very Rev. Van H. Gardner, dean of the Episcopal Cathedral of the Incarnation for more than two decades, dies
Dr. Samuel L. Myers Sr., economist and former president of Bowie State University, dies
He is survived by his wife of 34 years, Claudia Leight, a retired Morgan State University counselor; a son, Dr. Alexi Pappas of The Bronx; and a brother, James Pappas of Port Lucie, Fla. An earlier marriage ended in divorce.
William Sloane Coffin, Jr.


text:
var onDeviceReady = function() {
    log("deviceready...");
    document.getElementById('btnList').addEventListener('click', onClickList, false);
    document.getElementById('btnAll').addEventListener('click', onClickAll, false);
    document.getElementById('btnAllNMF').addEventListener('click', onClickAllNMF, false);
    document.getElementById('btnAllSmall').addEventListener('click', onClickAllSmall, false);
    document.getElementById('btnStruct').addEventListener('click', onClickStruct, false);
    document.getElementById('btnSingle').addEventListener('click', onClickSingle, false);
    document.getElementById('btnClear').addEventListener('click', onClickClear, false);
    log("deviceready... OK");
};

var onUnzipperError = function(msg) {
    log("Unzipper error! " + msg);
    alert("Unzipper error! " + msg);
};

var execute = function(mode, args, onSuccess) {
    log("Invoking unzipper with mode " + mode + " ...");
    var srcPath = document.getElementById('inpSrc').value;
    log(srcPath);
    var dstPath = document.getElementById('inpDst').value;
    log(dstPath);
    Unzipper.createEvent(mode, srcPath, dstPath, args, onSuccess, onUnzipperError);
    log("Invoking unzipper with mode " + mode + " ... done");
};

var onClickList = function() {
    var onSuccess = function(msg) {
        log("Success listing ZIP entries");
        var jsonObject = JSON.parse(msg);
        var items = jsonObject.files.items;
        for (var i = 0; i < items.length; ++i) {
            log(items[i]);
        }
    };
    var mode = 'list';
    var args = JSON.stringify({});
    execute(mode, args, onSuccess);
};

var onClickAll = function() {
    var onSuccess = function(msg) {
        log("Success unzipping all entries");
        var jsonObject = JSON.parse(msg);
        var items = jsonObject.files.items;
        for (var i = 0; i < items.length; ++i) {
            log(items[i]);
        }
    };
    var mode = 'all';
    var args = JSON.stringify({});
    execute(mode, args, onSuccess);
};

var onClickAllNMF = function() {
    var excludeExtensions = [
        ".aac",
        ".flac",
        ".m4a",
        ".mp3",
        // ".mp4",
        ".oga",
        ".ogg",
        // ".webm",
        ".wav"
    ];
    var onSuccess = function(msg) {
        log("Success unzipping all non media entries");
        var jsonObject = JSON.parse(msg);
        var items = jsonObject.files.items;
        for (var i = 0; i < items.length; ++i) {
            log(items[i]);
        }
    };
    var mode = 'allNonMedia';
    var args = JSON.stringify({ 'excludeExtensions': excludeExtensions });
    execute(mode, args, onSuccess);
};

var onClickAllSmall = function() {
    var maximumFileSize = 16384; // dummy to test: 16 KB
    log("Maximum file size: " + maximumFileSize);
    var onSuccess = function(msg) {
        log("Success unzipping all small entries");
        var jsonObject = JSON.parse(msg);
        var items = jsonObject.files.items;
        for (var i = 0; i < items.length; ++i) {
            log(items[i]);
        }
    };
    var mode = 'allSmall';
    var args = JSON.stringify({ 'maximumFileSize': maximumFileSize  });
    execute(mode, args, onSuccess);
};

var onClickStruct = function() {
    var extensions = [
        ".htm",
        ".html",
        ".nav",
        ".ncx",
        ".opf",
        ".smil",
        ".txt",
        ".xhtml",
        ".xml"
    ];
    var onSuccess = function(msg) {
        log("Success unzipping all structure entries");
        var jsonObject = JSON.parse(msg);
        var items = jsonObject.files.items;
        for (var i = 0; i < items.length; ++i) {
            log(items[i]);
        }
    };
    var mode = 'allStructure';
    var args = JSON.stringify({ 'extensions': extensions });
    execute(mode, args, onSuccess);
};

var onClickSingle = function() {
    var entry = document.getElementById('inpEntry').value;
    log(entry);
    var onSuccess = function(msg) {
        log("Success unzipping single entry");
        var jsonObject = JSON.parse(msg);
        var items = jsonObject.files.items;
        for (var i = 0; i < items.length; ++i) {
            log(items[i]);
        }
    };
    var mode = 'selected';
    var args = JSON.stringify({ 'entries': [ entry ] });
    execute(mode, args, onSuccess);
};

var onClickClear = function() {
    document.getElementById('txtInfo').innerHTML = "";
};

var log = function(msg) {
    document.getElementById('txtInfo').innerHTML = msg + "<br/>" + document.getElementById('txtInfo').innerHTML;
};

document.addEventListener('deviceready', onDeviceReady, false);
//onDeviceReady();

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


THE most favourite pastime of toddlers is catered for with this all-rounder 'move-it' collection. Children can transfer and cart all manner of things to their hearts content with this variety of carrying receptacles. Pack of 16 - 4 x trugs, 4 x cauldrons, 4 x baskets and 4 bamboo planters. Rec 3+. Contents may vary.