text:
VUNDACAST ch 95 Summer Movie Shoot Out Spectacular
Filmmaker Fandom Friday: The Robert Rodriguez: 10 ...
Crepuscular Creepiness: Mars Attacks! - First Attack
VUNDACAST ch 94 Weekend at Ego's
V for Venture: Blue Morpho Bootleg | The Venture B...
Trejo Tuesday: MACHETE reads your MILEY CYRUS YouT...
Mornphing Monday Morning: Mighty Morphin Power Ran...
Saga Sunday: Obi - Wan Kenobi Vs Darth Vader HD
Best of the Inernets: Guile Theme Goes With Everyt...
Filmmaker Fandom Friday: Scream - Making Of
Crepuscular Creepiness: The Craft-My Favorite Scen...
RESIST FOREVER: speech -- scent of a woman
Trejo Tuesday: Spy Kids 2: Island of Lost Dreams M...
Kliq Bait: Derrick's Top 10 Wrestling Matches of A...
Morphin Monday: Billy Morphs into the Gold Zeo Ranger
Saga Sunday: Master Yoda VS Darth Sidious HD
Ultimate Movie Jams: Joe Esposito - You're The Bes...
Filmmaker Fandom Friday: Desperado - Ten Minute Fi...
Get Stuff Done: Any Given Sunday Al Pacino Pre-Gam...
clASSic ADS: Fred and Barney for Busch Beer
clASSic ADS: Mattel Tommy Burst TV commercial 1960s!
Kliq Bait: Derrick's Top 10 Wrestling Matches of All Time
By D-Rock June 19, 2017
There are so many things that go into making a wrestling match great. The workrate, the psychology, the story, etc. Every serious wrestling fan has opinions about what those things are and which matches are the greatest. Some are purists who think the wrestling stands on its own. Some care more about the stories being told than anything else. For me, it's a delicate balance between several factors:
One of the things that makes kayfabe professional wrestling unique is its ability to tell stories in a way that no other art form really can. It is one of the most heavily physical forms of storytelling, with so much having to be communicated with mere movements and facial expressions. It is also one of the most improvisation-based forms of storytelling, with so much of what the wrestlers say and do in the ring being unscripted. It has all the rich, compelling narratives of all the major competitive sports and--at its best--orchestrates these narratives in the most compelling and dramatic ways in order to engage its audience.
For me, the story leading up to the match and the story being told within the match are equally important and have to be logically consistent. Really, everything has to be logically consistent. I think it was Ted DiBiase whose advice to the younger talent was something along the lines of: every single thing you do in the ring (and outside it, for that matter), you have to be thinking about WHY you're doing it. Characters and their motivations have to be clearly defined and every single action of those characters has to be logically consistent with both their character and their motivations.
While I firmly believe that a wrestling match can't be truly great without a good story, the opposite is equally true. After all, at the end of the day, it is all about the wrestling. But what goes into "good wrestling" and what does it look and feel like? Certainly most wrestling fans are familiar with the usual indicators of "good" wrestling: workrate, move set, technical ability, athleticism, selling. But there is so much more that goes into making a wrestling match great and I feel like a lot of it is much more subtle stuff that the average wrestling fan doesn't necessarily notice, at least not consciously.
Perhaps the most important of these is realism--that is, how much does this look like a real athletic contest (or a flat out fight, depending on what you're going for) within the rules and logic of the match and how hard do the wrestlers appear to be trying to win (or just beat the shit out of each other)? Selling is a big part of this but there's more to it than that. It's also related to workrate in a way--how much do the wrestlers stay on each other, do they look like they're going 100% on every move or can you tell they're holding back, how diligently are they trying to win the match and how well are they using the logic and rules of the match to their advantage, how stiff are they working? Kayfabe wrestling, at its very best, should legitimately look as much like a real fight happening in real time as possible.
There are also other elements that are often underrated if not overlooked. Timing is a major one--the ability (and the chemistry between wrestlers) to put your body and your movements in exactly the right place at exactly the right time (and for the right reasons). Visual imagery is another one--how the moves and the spots look, the fluidity of motion, the creation of images and "moments" and telling of stories using only movements and facial expressions (and sometimes words that the audience can't hear--although with modern television production technology, those words are able to come across more and more). Psychology is a bit more well known, though more complex than perhaps many realize--particularly the importance of wrestling in character even when doing so doesn't look like "good wrestling."
This is a category that can be easy to overlook but that I think I place more emphasis on than most. So much of modern kayfabe wrestling is about "moments" and, like the major sports, legacy is incredibly important. One of the things that can really tip the scales to certain matches in favor of others is when those matches contain important moments in the canon in which they exist. A first championship of a legendary wrestler, a match that launches someone's career, even the culmination of a truly all-time great story are moments that live forever. And then sometimes (well, once, as far as I know) a match transcends professional wrestling and becomes something more.
Some people might object to this criteria and that's totally valid. Great matches have certainly happened in front of terrible crowds before. Just look at Chris Benoit v. Dean Malenko at WCW Hog Wild 1996--which took place at a motorcycle convention, for some reason, and featured a crowd that had absolutely zero interest in watching wrestling happen unless Hulk Hogan was involved. Still, I have to admit that a big part of what makes a match great is the crowd's reaction to it. For one thing, connecting with a wrestling crowd in order to elicit a specific response is an art and one that is a whole hell of a lot more difficult than it might seem. When they do it right, there is an energy it creates that is like nothing I've ever seen before. When they don't, things can get real ugly, real fast. But there's nothing better than a great match where the crowd is completely jacked and popping huge for big moves and chanting "this is awesome" and biting down hard on nearfalls. There's nothing like it in the world.
So, then, what do I think are the ten greatest wrestling matches I've ever seen?
THE HONORABLE MENTIONS:
Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker (Hell in a Cell Match) -- WWF In Your House: Badd Blood (1997)
I love the iconic Mankind match as much as anyone (it could arguably be worth an honorable mention on importance and storytelling alone), but the first Hell in a Cell match is EASILY the best. The storytelling behind the match itself wasn't the greatest but there was a side story that had been hinted at for months and was secretly the main point of this match. The match itself is exquisite. Both men use the cage expertly, playing to their strengths. HBK's psychology here is as good as ever, freaking out when they close the cage, trying to use his quickness but ultimately getting put through the meat grinder until he finds an opening and starts desperately beating on the Undertaker to keep him subdued.
The match turns when HBK is backdropped onto a cameraman causing him to assault the cameraman. They open the cage to get him some medical attention and suddenly HBK and Undertaker have both escaped the cage and are on top of it. HBK tries to escape by climbing back down but Undertaker beats him until he lets go and falls through a table. But he's not done there. He chokeslams HBK from the top rope. He CRACKS his head with a chair (revenge for HBK doing the same to him on Raw). He signals for the Tombstone but then the lights go out and the now-iconic ominous organ intro plays and a red-and-black-clad behemoth appears with Paul Bearer in tow. The debuting Kane RIPS THE DOOR OFF THE CELL and Tombstones Undertaker to Hades. And it's clearly a powerful Tombstone because the last, like, five minutes of the match is HBK crawling over to make the cover and the referee counting the slowest three count possible. Even after HBK leaves, Undertaker is still out like a light. And this was only the beginning of one of the great WWF/E feuds of all time.
Rey Mysterio vs. Eddie Guerrero (Cruiserweight Title vs. Mask) -- WCW Halloween Havoc 1997
This is hands down the quintessential American cruiserweight match. It's Rey Mysterio, Jr. and Eddie Guerrero at the peak of their powers. There isn't a ton of story going on here besides the title v. mask stipulation which hurts it for me but it is an impeccably wrestled match. The crispness and perfect execution of every move and the chemistry and timing between Rey and Eddie are off the charts. Look at that cartwheel reversed into an Eddie Guerrero suplex. That test of strength pin attempt into the springboard backflip DDT. The sequences trading reversals on the apron and outside the ring. The springboard rana that Eddie turns into a brutal backbreaker and the one he catches for a THUNDEROUS powerbomb. Simply the consumate cruiserweight masterpiece.
Undertaker vs. Shawn Michaels -- WWE WrestleMania XXV (2009)
This match was set up to be one of the greatest of all time before anyone ever even had the idea for it. Mr. WrestleMania takes on the streak. It was inevitable. Shawn has accomplished everything in his career except for breaking the streak. "You may be 16-0 at WrestleMania," Shawn says, "but I AM Mr. WrestleMania." The story almost writes itself. Shawn Michaels the incredible sinner turned born again Christian against the man from the depths of Hell. It's light v. dark, Heaven v. Hell. "Sometimes it's Hell," Undertaker says, "trying to get to Heaven." Even the entrances reflect this story with HBK descending from the heavens bathed in light, dressed all in white, and kneeling in prayer on the ramp while Undertaker rises from the depths of hell bathed in darkness and fire, dressed all in black, and uses dark magic to bring up the lights in the arena when he gets to the ring. Michaels is completely unintimidated, though. His cold, intense eyes are fixed on the Undertaker the entire time.
A lot of people consider this the greatest WWE match of all time, if not the greatest wrestling match period. I get why but, for me, what keeps it from being higher on the list is that, honestly, some of the wrestling here is kinda sloppy. The biggest spot in the match is basically a really cool-looking botch and a couple other moves look awful. The story is great but there's really not much work put into it because there didn't really have to be. The wrestling and story are still amazing, this is just nitpicking because this is, after all, my top ten matches of all time. There is a lot here that is very realistic and that really flows from one thing to the next. A ton of great counters upon counters, including the phenomenal ending sequence and countless chokeslams into superkicks and vice versa. If nothing else, this is the quintessential WrestleMania match--heavy on spectacle and epic story and WrestleMania Moments.
10. Shinsuke Nakamura vs. Sami Zayn -- NXT TakeOver: Dallas (2016)
As far as pure wrestling matches go, I can't think of a stiffer, more realistic-looking wrestling match than this one. These two absolutely UNLOAD on each other and it's incredible. Not only that but their timing and chemistry is off the charts, which is especially amazing when you consider the fact that the two did not so much as touch each other before the match. A lot of people feel this match suffers from a lack of story while benefiting greatly from a molten hot crowd. Maybe I'm biased because I was in that crowd but, for me, the crowd response is a significant aspect of the greatness of this match. Yes, NXT fans were hyped for Shinsuke Nakamura's debut but if this match wasn't as good as it was, the crowd wouldn't have been either. Just look at the whole sequence where they're just trading strikes back and forth with the crowd just screaming "YEAH!" every time instead of the more customary "YEAH"/"BOO" and then it turns into the crowd "YES"ing and Zayn and Nakamura doing everything they can to keep up, to the point that their arms are basically noodles by the end of it. THAT is how you work a crowd and the crowd is incredibly appreciative. We weren't chanting "FIGHT FOREVER" because we wanted to be on TV, we were chanting it because we were SO HAPPY and we NEVER wanted this to end.
And yes, the story is a little thin but I think people forget that not only was this Shinsuke's debut but it was Sami Zayn's NXT swan song so it really is kind of a passing of the torch in a way because Sami Zayn was the heart and soul of NXT and who better to take up the mantle than Shinsuke? Not only that but the story they tell in the ring is beautiful in spite of (or, perhaps, because of) its simplicity: two of the best damn wrestlers on the planet giving every ounce of everything they have to prove who is THE best. And they do NOT disappoint. Every strike is brutal, every move is crisp, every reversal is fluid. Eventually it becomes less a battle for supremacy and more a fight for survival. Shinsuke's nose gets busted and he tastes his blood and turns into a shark. At one point he's just stomping Sami's skull while he's on the ground and Sami realizes he might literally die if he doesn't match Shinsuke's violence and fast--to the point where he finds himself stomping Shinsuke's head in right back, which is a level of viciousness we never see from Sami. Of course, there's no way he can match Shinsuke's violence so ultimately he gets stuck with a knee to the back of the neck and a Kinshasa. After the match, Sami looks like he got put through a meat grinder because, well, he kinda did. The two warriors share the kind of embrace that only two guys who just nearly killed each other can share and raise each other's hands and Sami gets a standing ovation and a suitable sendoff.
9. Cactus Jack vs. Triple H (Street Fight for WWF Title) -- WWF Royal Rumble 2000
At the turn of the century, Triple H was quickly ascending to the top of WWF thanks in no small measure to a budding relationship with the boss's daughter. They even played it up into a storyline where Triple H and Steph made a Machiavellian power grab, taking control of the company in order to put themselves over. While Triple H had clearly developed into a legitimate top guy, there were still questions about his toughness. His character began as a privileged Connecticut blueblood and that was a reputation that stuck with him through the D-X years as well as the Cerebral Assassin years. So what better way to change that reputation than to put him with the most violent man in the WWF?
The story is great. Triple H, in a sadistic power trip, puts The Rock and Mankind in a "Pink Slip on a Pole" match which results in Mankind being fired. This, however, doesn't stop Mankind from showing up to foil Triple H's plans on several occasions. Not only that, but the entire locker room rebels against the McMahon-Helmsley regime and demands they reinstate Mankind, who demands a match at the Royal Rumble for the WWF title. Enraged, Triple H brutally assaults Mankind in hopes he won't make it to the Royal Rumble. Mankind confronts Triple H and informs him that after the brutal beating, he's in no shape to take on Triple H...BUT he has found a suitable replacement. "Maybe you've heard of him," Foley says, removing his mask to reveal that Triple H will be facing Cactus Jack. Triple H, to his credit, does an amazing job of selling how shook he is by this announcement.
The match is an incredibly well-orchestrated bloodbath. Jack is in HHH's head before the bell even rings with his patented rambling smack-talking and once the match starts he just lays into him. Eventually he reveals Barbie (the 2x4 wrapped in barbed wire) and rips Triple H's face to shreds. HHH also suffers a NASTY puncture wound on his calf that looks like a freaking gunshot wound. HHH is able to turn the match on the outside when Foley runs at him and he hip tosses Foley legs first into the ring steps, followed by an Irish whip knees first into the steps. Two Mick Foley staples and two of the most painful looking moves in wrestling. The whip into the steps in particular is one of the most evocative visuals in wrestling, the way the stairs just explode in his wake and the thunderous sound they make--it's hard not to think about the fact that Mick Foley has no cartilage in his knees anymore thanks in no small part to these moves.
From there, this is absolute chaos punctuated by two brutal table spots--including the GNARLY Foley stump piledriver onto the table that DOESN'T BREAK. It's already glorious but then it gets REALLY good when Triple H takes out the handcuffs. Not only is this scummy and sadistic but it's an excellent callback to the previous year's Royal Rumble where The Rock did the same thing to Mankind. And WWF doesn't just bring up its own history, it exhibits a thorough knowledge of it by showing that Mick, who has been in this position before, knows exactly how to fight with both hands behind his back. Not only that, but, in a triumph of symmetry, The Rock is the one to come out, brain Triple H with a chair, and get the handcuffs removed. It's not enough, though, because when Foley introduces the thumbtacks, Steph comes to ringside to distract Foley long enough to give HHH an opportunity to introduce Foley to the thumbtacks. Even THIS won't put Foley down, so HHH PEDIGREES HIM FACE FIRST ONTO THE TACKS for the pin. Quite simply, this is the best hardcore match in WWF/E history. It has it all and more.
8. Chris Benoit vs. Triple H vs. Shawn Michaels -- WWE WrestleMania XX (2004)
Quite simply the greatest North American triple threat match ever. This match is a masterpiece of tandem wrestling. The chemistry between these three guys is off the charts--not surprising considering you have two of the best in-ring performers of all time in the ring with a guy who is at least in the top 100. The story isn't spectacular or anything but there's a lot of really good stuff going on here. HHH and HBK are coming off of a brutal Last Man Standing match at the Royal Rumble that ended the way roughly 90% of Last Man Standing matches end: with both men unable to answer the ten count. Then you have Benoit, the underdog fan favorite fresh off winning one of the best Royal Rumble matches ever by pulling the Big Show over the top rope by his damned head. Benoit originally had a one-on-one match-up with HHH but HBK superkicked him at the contract signing and signed his name instead so Bischoff made an executive decision to make it a triple threat match. From there the animosity boils over between all three men. To their credit, the bad blood between Benoit and HBK almost reaches the same level as HHH and HBK.
The match is a whirlwind. All the characters are so well defined and all three performers are so great at making this look like both a real fight and a delicate dance simultaneously. Sequences like HHH ramming Benoit's back into the apron into a HBK baseball slide followed by an HBK moonsault and HBK reversing HHH's whip into Benoit in the tree of woe and Benoit getting his foot up to kick HHH in the face are just breathtaking. Moreover, Benoit makes everyone work harder and treats this more like a real fight than almost anyone I've ever seen in the ring--and yet he's the only one who isn't covered in blood by the time it's over.
You know when the announcer is like "THIS IS A WAR" and it's kinda disingenuous and you're like "OK, buddy, relax." Yeah. THIS is a WAR.
Benoit locks in the Crippler Crossface on HBK and he's about to tap out but HHH holds his hand before he can and they team up on Benoit and double suplex him through a freaking announce table. HHH is about to win with a Pedigree but Benoit comes out of nowhere to break up the pin. Benoit has a Sharpshooter locked in on HHH and just as HHH's fingers graze the ropes, Benoit pulls him to the center of the ring and then moments later, HBK NAILS him with a Sweet Chin Music but Benoit kicks out at 2! HBK goes for another Sweet Chin Music but Benoit ducks under and throws him out of the ring. HHH catches him in a Pedigree but Benoit reverses it into a Crossface. HHH tries to roll into a pin but Benoit hangs on and now HHH has nowhere to go so he taps out. After the match, Eddie Guerrero, who had just successfully defended his title against Kurt Angle via shoe removal, comes to the ring and the two best friends celebrate together in one of the most retrospectively tragic moments in wrestling history.
7. Magnum T.A. vs. Tully Blanchard (Steel Cage "I Quit" Match for the United States Championship) -- NWA Starrcade 1985
This match is a masterclass of emotion and realism in wrestling. All the incredible pathos and malicious violence of a truly bitter rivalry and it's breathtaking. The story, as I understand it, from what I've read, was that Magnum TA was a quintessential babyface and everything Tully Blanchard wanted to be but Tully had dragged Magnum to a much darker place than he'd ever been in and the pure hatred these two portrayed in this match and the effort put into making this look as much like a real fight as possible is unmatched. These guys were out to kill each other and every time they stick the mic in each other's face, they're SCREAMING "SAY IT!" and then beating each other with it. You have to consider this pretty much the standard for American hardcore wrestling. Dark, vicious, violent, emotionally driven, almost excruciating to watch at times but in the best way possible. It ends when Tully's valet throws a wooden chair in the ring and it breaks and Magnum stabs Tully in the fucking face with a shard of broken wood until he gives up. He's in such agony that he can't even SAY "I Quit" and instead just screams "YEEESSS! YEEESSS! YEEESSS!" Absolute, sheer brutality.
6. Jeff Hardy vs. CM Punk (TLC Match) - WWE Summerslam 2009
This is one of those matches that I feel like I rank a LOT higher than most people and there are a few reasons for that. First of all, the story here is so good. Jeff Hardy as the deeply human, relatable fan favorite with the troubled past filled with struggles with drug abuse and addiction. C.M. Punk as the stereotypical sanctimonious straight edge dude who considers himself morally superior to the weak-willed masses yet can't understand why they don't love him for being better than them. "What you need is a straight edge champion," he tells them. "You need CM Punk." But finally he begins to understand why the people gravitate toward Jeff: because "it's easier to be weak like Jeff, because you sure can't be strong like me." Therefore, in order to make the fans see the light, Punk believes he must end Jeff Hardy. That's excellent.
The other reason I rate this match so highly is that it is the single most well-executed ladder match I have ever seen. Yes, even better (honestly, in my not-so-humble opinion, significantly better) than the HBK/Razor Ramon matches and every combination of the Hardy Boyz, Dudley Boyz, and Edge and Christian. The workrate and the strict adherence to the logic inherent in the rules of the match is unparalleled. This is far from just a random spotfest. Both guys are working their asses off with the specific aim of incapacitating each other and they take EVERY possible opening they have to try to climb the ladder and get the belt which doesn't happen nearly enough in most ladder matches. Both men are absolutely tenacious in staying on each other resulting in these amazing sequences of three, four, five, or more moves one after another. There are two especially amazing sequences:
1. Hardy whips Punk into the steps, Punk jumps on top of them, jumps off into a chair shot; Hardy hits a Poetry In Motion on Punk into the barricade; throws a chair at his head; sets Punk up on the table, goes for splash but Punk moves at the VEEERY last second; Punk goes for the belt, Hardy grabs his leg, pulls him down, climbs over him, has his hand on the title, Punk gets Hardy into GTS position but Hardy reverses it into a sunset flip powerbomb; Hardy goes for the belt but Punk tips the ladder and Hardy gets fucking MANGLED in the ropes; Punk grabs him from the apron and FUCKING SUPERPLEXES HIM ONTO THE GODDAMN LADDER JESUS CHRIST...
2. Hardy Twist of Fate, goes for Swanton but Punk gets his knees up, Punk goes for the jumping knee into the bulldog but Jeff lifts him up and tosses him to the outside through the fucking table HE set up like 5-10 minutes ago! Hardy goes for the belt but Punk hits him with a springboard axe handle, throws him to the outside, drapes the chair around Hardy, sends him into the post but Hardy blocks it, uses his momentum to send HIM into the stairs, DESTROYS Punk with a chair, throws it at him, preps the Spanish announce table, hits Punk with the monitor, puts him on the announce table, BRAINS him with a chair, gets a FUCKING GIGANTIC LADDER and Swantons Punk to goddamn CHINA!!! Punk goes for the belt and Hardy stumbles back to the ring, selling like fucking Marcellus Wallace after Butch hit him with his car, and they have maybe the greatest top of the ladder showdown ever with both VERY nearly grasping the belt and pulling it down but finally Punk knocks Hardy off and grabs the belt.
If that wasn't enough, as Punk stands over Hardy's limp body and mugs with the belt, the lights begin to flicker and then go out. The lights come back on and seemingly nothing has happened but then HOLY SHIT THE UNDERTAKER HAS REPLACED JEFF HARDY and he chokeslams Punk to hell, starting a whole new wonderful feud. That's how it's done.
5. Stone Cold vs. The Rock (No Holds Barred Match for WWF Title) -- WWF WrestleMania X-Seven (2001)
This is the quintessential brawl and the pinnacle of one of the defining rivalries of modern WWE history. It also features one of the most brilliant bits of storytelling you'll ever see. The Rock and Stone Cold are two guys who seemed to be on a perpetual collison course for most of their careers. They battled over the Intercontinental title in 1997. The Rock was at the center of Stone Cold's feud with Vince McMahon and the Corporation in 1998 and 1999, ultimately dropping the title to Austin at WrestleMania XV. They were the #1 and #2 guys throughout the Attitude Era and this was their climax. Both at the peak of their powers (albeit not necessarily their physical primes) and both desperate to establish supremacy. That's really the essence of the story. Both men DESPERATELY need to win this match and that desperation and the resulting animosity between them is palpable. And every last drop of that desperation and animosity is poured into this match.
This is a straight up bar fight with all the intensity of the build up to the match boiling over into vicious punches, kicks, chokes, slamming faces into objects, hitting each other with anything not nailed down, etc. Austin is one of the best ever at making a fight look absolutely real and this is one of the most realistic looking fights I've ever seen. Austin lacerates Rock with a ring bell to the face but Rock gets his revenge, busting Austin open on the exposed turnbuckle and braining him with the same ring bell. When Austin can't put the Rock away with a catapult into the ring post and a TV to the face, he picks him up, flips him off, and goes for the Stunner but Rock catches his leg and puts him in Rock's terrible Sharpshooter. Austin gets to the ropes so Rock goes for another Sharpshooter, flipping Austin off halfway into it, giving Austin an opening to rake his eyes and reverse it into a (much better) Sharpshooter of his own but Rock powers out! Austin goes after the leg and puts on another Sharpshooter but Rock gets to the ropes. Austin flips off the ref but ultimately breaks the hold and locks in the Million Dollar Dream! Color commentator Paul Heyman aptly notes that he's pulling out all the stops, that he'll do anything in his power to get the WWE title. The Rock reverses the hold into a pin attempt and then hits a Stone Cold Stunner on Stone Cold but Austin kicks out at 2.9!
Here's where it gets interesting. Out comes Vince McMahon for reasons no one really understands. Before the match, it was announced that it had been made a no disqualification match, to which play-by-play announcer Jim Ross replied: "Who made that ruling?" Now, The Rock catches Austin in a spinebuster and hits the People's Elbow. Cover. VINCE BREAKS UP THE PIN! And just like that, in one of the most shocking moments in WWE history, perhaps the two most mortal enemies in WWE history joined forces--the ultimate conclusion of the "these guys will do LITERALLY ANYTHING to win this match" story AND the second year in a row that The Rock has been betrayed by Vince McMahon in the main event of WrestleMania. The Rock is LIVID. He chases Vince around the ring and runs into a Rock Bottom from Austin, kicking out at 2.99! The referee gets knocked out and Austin directs Vince to hand him a chair and then brains The Rock with it as Vince revives the ref who counts to 2.999! Austin is IRATE. His points his finger in the face of The Rock and is about to hit him with a chair when Rock catches him in a Rock Bottom, only to have Vince distract the referee. The Rock launches Vince in the ring and beats on him but gets caught in a Stone Cold Stunner off the distraction and...KICKS OUT AT 2.9999!! Austin BLASTS Rock in the face with the chair and...THE ROCK KICKS OUT AT 2.99999!!! The Rock WILL NOT DIE. Austin becomes incensed, brutally beats Rock half to death with the chair, and finally pins him. After the match, Austin and Vince celebrate in the ring with a beer and give The Rock one more good stiff shot with the title belt just to throw a little salt in the wound.
4. Bret Hart vs. Owen Hart -- WWF WrestleMania X (1994)
Is there any more classic feud than brother v. brother? And when you add in the fact that those two brothers are two of the greatest technical wrestlers of all time, you're really in for a show. The angle was built up over four months, with Owen wanting to step out of the shadow of Bret and face him one-on-one after Bret, in his eyes, caused him to be the only one eliminated in the Hart Foundation's win at Survivor Series. Bret refuses to fight Owen and calms him down--like he probably has all their lives when Owen complained like this--convincing him to team up and win the tag titles. Unfortunately, Bret injures his knee and is unable to tag Owen in late in the match, costing them the match. Owen, who can't understand why Bret didn't tag him, has had enough of living in his brother's shadow and attacks him, setting up this showdown. It's not a story the WWE put a TON of work into but it didn't have to be. It's such a natural story to tell and Bret and Owen tell it beautifully without needing much airtime to do it.
Owen's character work throughout the match is brilliant--sniveling, entitled, whiny, cocky, annoying, cowardly, and underhanded. He celebrates "winning" the initial lock-up. He slaps Bret after Bret sends him through the ropes. Gives him "a yank of the hair and a foot in the face." At one point, he even tries to leave. As a technical wrestling match, I don't know if it gets any better than this. Two of the absolute greatest of all time chaining moves and holds together like few others in wrestling history are capable of, throwing everything they have at one another to prove which of them truly is "the best there is, the best there was, and the best there ever will be." The workrate is absolutely dizzying. Both men methodically and tenaciously target body parts with unparalleled creativity and an extensive arsenal of moves. Bret does everything he can to put Owen away but Owen won't go down. Bret tries to go for a pin out of the electric chair position and BAM, Owen blocks it and pins him, shocking everyone. An absolute master class of technical wrestling with an amazing story and a shocking ending. And still only the second best WrestleMania match of all time...
3. Steve Austin vs. Bret Hart (Submission Match) -- WWF WrestleMania XIII (1997)
As long as we're on the topic of masterpieces...this match. The story was simple but brilliant: Bret has been screwed over and over, pushing him over the edge. He feels like times have changed and doesn't know where he fits in. Stone Cold is at the center of all of this, giving the finger to everything Bret stands for and violently attacking him every time he sees him because he can't stand all the whining and complaining Bret's been doing. The build was excellent because the hatred between these two was so palpable. Every time either man was on screen, no matter what else they were doing, the other man would come barreling into him within like ten seconds which is a thing that doesn't happen NEARLY enough on WWE TV these days. Not only that but past/tradition v. future/change angle is always a great story, especially when it actually does result in change--revolutionary change, at that. The beginning of the era of the highest grossing WWE superstar of all time. And what's even more impressive is that initially, Bret was meant to be the good guy in all this. He had nothing but legitimate complaints and Austin had definitively dicked him over on several occasions. But the irresistible power of Austin's personality and rebelliousness as well as the change that he represented was so resonant that WWF was forced to change their plans midstream and orchestrate this brilliant double turn.
Much like Austin/Rock at WrestleMania XVII, this whole match looks incredibly realistic. In keeping with the build to the match, the two immediately brawl to the outside and into the crowd. When they finally get back in the ring, Bret tries to turn this into a wrestling match, going after Austin's injured neck and then targeting his injured knee but eventually Bret's animosity takes over. He grabs the ring bell and a chair, wraps the chair around Austin's injured leg, and is about jump off the top rope and stomp him like Austin did to Brian Pillman a few weeks prior but he takes a little too long. Austin recovers, grabs the chair and brains Bret with it and the crowd ERUPTS. Austin targets Bret's back--a persistent "injury" that was exploited in so many of Hart's matches--with a lot of moves he didn't use very often--a Russian leg sweep, a modified abdominal stretch, a Boston Crab. He even goes for a Sharpshooter but Bret rakes his eyes.
When Austin tries to whip Bret into the timekeeper, Bret reverses and Austin "hits" his head on the railing, busting his head WIDE fucking open and causing blood to pour from his head. Bret "smells blood" and goes immediately after the laceration, hitting it with rapid fire punches and smashing Austin's head into the steps and the post. Bret attacks Austin's leg with the chair and goes for a Sharpshooter but Austin rakes his eyes. Bret goes back to the cut but Austin kicks him in the dick. Austin gets in a flurry of offense and then chokes Bret with a fucking electrical cable but Bret brains him with the ring bell. This fight is SO intense and SO personal and you can feel it radiating from everything they do.
And then--in one of the most timeless images and one of the most memorable, most replayed WrestleMania moments of all time--Bret puts Austin in the Sharpshooter, Austin screaming and fighting and clawing until he plants his hands, one at a time, and pushes with every ounce of energy he has left, powering out of the Sharpshooter as the crowd ROARS and the announce team hollers "IMPOSSIBLE!" and "NOBODY'S EVER DONE THAT!" But Bret--being, y'know, Bret Hart--never fully relinquishes the hold, gets back up and leans back into it until Austin passes out and guest referee Ken Shamrock (still in UFC at this point) has to stop the match.
After the match, Bret continues to attack Austin and is about to put him in another Sharpshooter before Shamrock takes him down from behind and the crowd goes wild. Shamrock is primed and ready to fight but Bret slinks out of the ring to a chorus of boos. Austin, meanwhile, is having trouble leaving the ring so some referees come to the ring to help him and they get a stunner for their trouble. Austin hobbles back up the ramp to the sound of the fans chanting his name and the greatest double turn of all time is complete.
2. Sami Zayn vs. Adrian Neville (NXT Title Match) -- NXT TakeOver: R|Evolution (2014)
The journey of Sami Zayn spans roughly 18 months. He made his mark by beating Cesaro in his first appearance on NXT TV and then having the greatest match in NXT history (until this one) with Cesaro in a 2-out-of-3 falls match a few months later. After that, for months and months he was the heart and soul of NXT, everyone's favorite wrestler but just kept falling short and couldn't win the big one. He was always the "nice guy" in NXT, lacking the killer instinct to do "what is necessary" to be champion like pretty much everyone else in WWE always does. Finally, it's come to a head. Sami has failed for the last time. It's now or never. Sami says if he can't beat Neville then he is done in NXT. When he refuses to shake hands and slaps Neville across the face, it's clear that this time is different. Not only that, but he and Neville used to be best friends but now they can't even train in the same gym together. All of this is SO good and SO classic and SO simple it's amazing that WWE can't tell stories this simple, clear, and concise all the damn time.
They start out with a beautiful parallel exchange with chaining submissions. It's clear these two know each other so well and are so much alike. Neville tries to slow the pace down and keep Zayn grounded which is a little surprising but it does take the crowd out of the match somewhat and Sami is definitely a guy that feeds on the crowd. When the pace starts to quicken, Sami gets the upper hand with a KILLER tilt-a-whirl backbreaker and a PERFECT seated springboard moonsault, landing on his feet. One of the (many) impressive things about this match is how clean and crisp and impeccably executed every single move is, even the INCREDIBLY complex ones and the counters upon counters upon counters. Just look at that cartwheel into the electric chair position into the Blue Thunder Bomb. That shit is incredible.
The intensity ramps up when Neville hits Zayn with some big forearms and Zayn gets right up in his face and says BRING IT ON; they trade blows and Zayn clotheslines Neville inside out. When Neville gets an opening and goes for the Red Arrow, Zayn gets his knees up and transitions straight into the Koji Clutch but Neville gets to the ropes. Zayn goes for the Exploder, Neville reverses it into a roll-up, Zayn kicks out and sends Neville into the ref. As Sami pauses to checks on the ref, the crowd is screaming "NOOOOOOOOOOO!" but it's too late. Zayn walks into a crushing superkick and a BRUTAL poisoned hurricanrana but kicks out at 2.9!
At this point, both men are SPENT. Zayn hits two German suplexes and the third is an inverted exploder. When Neville rolls out of the way of the Helluva Kick, Zayn hits him with the through-the-ropes DDT (I don't want to overuse the caps button too much but it always bears mentioning: holy shit that DDT is insane). Zayn finally hits the Helluva Kick but Neville pulls the ref into his path and Zayn once again gets distracted by checking on the ref. Neville takes the opportunity to grab the belt and attempts to hit Sami with it but Sami kicks him before he gets a chance.
This is the moment of truth.
Sami looks down at the belt, contemplating using it himself. He picks it up and is poised to hit Neville with it. The crowd is chanting "NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!" This is the eternal struggle. Temptation. The struggle of staying true to yourself. If I may quote e.e. cummings in a blog post about professional wrestling: "to be nobody-but-yourself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else is to fight the hardest battle any human being can ever fight..." and Sami is fighting that battle before our very eyes. Does he compromise his values and his identity for glory or does he risk literally everything and stay true to himself? Finally Sami shakes his head and says "NAH FUCK THAT!" (this is edited out of the recording on WWE Network but I watched this show live and he definitely said those exact words) and throws the belt down. Neville tries to roll him up off the distraction but he kicks out at 2.99 and catches Neville with an Exploder suplex. He runs to the corner, and in one of the most dramatic and powerful moments of wrestling storytelling I've ever seen, swipes his hand down over his face, cleansing himself of all the doubt of the past 18 months that he can do this and do it his way. He NAILS Neville with the Helluva Kick for the 1-2-3.
It is the defining moment in NXT history. The heart and soul of NXT, the fan favorite, the lovable loser who just kept falling a hair short time and time again and who EVERYONE wanted to see win it all finally did it. It was the 2004 Boston Red Sox. The 2016 Chicago Cubs. The entire locker room empties out to hoist him up onto their shoulders and celebrate, including Proud Grandpa Pat Patterson and Sami's best friend Kevin Owens, whose debut opened the show. If your heart didn't grow three sizes watching this, I honestly don't know why the hell you watch wrestling in the first place. He hugs it out with Neville and the locker room leaves to let him celebrate on his own but Owens comes back out to share just one more moment with his best friend. The show is ending. The event tag pops up. They're walking to the back arm-in-arm. And then...BAM! Owens throws Zayn to the ground and powerbombs him onto the apron. THAT is how you do it. In the words of UpRoxx's Brandon Stroud, as soon as you're done with Flair/Steamboat, you move right into Flair/Funk. Beautiful. This is fucking ART.
1. Aztec Warfare III -- Lucha Underground (2016)
I've written a lot about how amazing and important this match is and I don't know how much more I can really say about it. It is, quite simply, a masterpiece. It is a perfect battle royale, a virtuosic symphony of dynamic, beautiful lucha libre. It tells countless amazing stories, including two of the best wrestling stories ever told that span TWO AND A HALF SEASONS of this show. But what sets it apart most of all is that it is a radical, subversive political statement, speaking to the broader social context in which it exists. I've never seen a wrestling match do that before in my life and I don't know that there IS such a match. The statement may not have been intentional but all great art has unintended impact. Moreover, I have a hard time believing it was unintentional when Robert Rodriguez was running ads on El Rey throughout the election that were very thinly-veiled anti-Trump ads. And honestly, even if it WAS unintentional, the match might slide down a few spots on the list but it STILL told two of the best wrestling stories I've ever seen and gave us the first ever female world heavyweight champion of a major American wrestling promotion--not to mention the match itself is brilliant. Maybe I'm a prisoner of the moment. Maybe I'm massively overrating this match. But by the criteria I subscribe to, it is the greatest, most important wrestling match I've ever seen.
derrick mustelier kliq bait wrestling


Founded in 2012 in Harrogate, North Yorkshire, by solicitor Andrew Gray, Truth Legal set out to be an ethical, tenacious and affordable law firm.
Andrew has since been joined by Georgina Parkin, Navya Shekhar, Mirek Ksiezarek, Helen Beaumont, Magdaelena Ions, Emily Beaumont, Catherine Reynolds and Aleksandra Cebula.
We seek justice for our clients and aim to use litigation to ensure safety for the public and to improve working conditions for employees.
Our expansion has allowed us to give our clients the care and attention they deserve, and to focus on achieving the best possible results for them.
Truth Legal pursues justice, and does so affordably. We strive to provide the most caring, thorough and individual legal representation available. We aren't perfect, but we try to be.
Our priority is to help our clients make a full physical, emotional and financial recovery from whatever incident has brought them to us. We specialise in assault, accident and employment law. In all cases, we provide affordable legal advice.
We work hard to make ourselves available when our clients need us, using modern technology to deliver a great service. We try wherever possible to reduce our environmental impact and always to leave society in better shape than we found it.
We believe that negligent parties should apologise for their actions or mistakes.
Free Legal Library – did you know we have a free legal library on our website? You can download useful legal documents to help you with your own DIY legal case.
Free Legal Tips – our website is full of useful legal advice, including our Blog which is regularly updated with detailed, actionable tips and advice.
If you're looking for a law firm that goes above and beyond, get in touch with us here at Truth Legal today.
Andrew also trains medical experts in various locations.


text:
How a single gene alteration may have separated modern humans from predecessors
Posted on Feb 22, 2021, 10 p.m.
Researchers discovered a single gene alteration that may help explain cognitive differences between modern humans and our predecessors, and used that information to develop Neanderthal-like brain organoids in the lab. The novel study used brain organoids genetically modified to mimic now-extinct Neanderthals
As a professor of pediatrics and cellular and molecular medicine at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine, Alysson R. Muotri, Ph.D., has long studied how the brain develops and what goes wrong in neurological disorders. For almost as long, he has also been curious about the evolution of the human brain -- what changed that makes us so different from preceding Neanderthals and Denisovans, our closest evolutionary relatives, now extinct?
Evolutionary studies rely heavily on two tools -- genetics and fossil analysis -- to explore how a species changes over time. But neither approach can reveal much about brain development and function because brains do not fossilize, Muotri said. There is no physical record to study.
So Muotri decided to try stem cells, a tool not often applied in evolutionary reconstructions. Stem cells, the self-renewing precursors of other cell types, can be used to build brain organoids -- "mini-brains" in a laboratory dish. Muotri and colleagues have pioneered the use of stem cells to compare humans to other primates, such as chimpanzees and bonobos, but until now a comparison with extinct species was not thought possible.
In a study published February 11, 2021, in Science, Muotri's team cataloged the differences between the genomes of diverse modern human populations and the Neanderthals and Denisovans, who lived during the Pleistocene Epoch, approximately 2.6 million to 11,700 years ago. Mimicking an alteration they found in one gene, the researchers used stem cells to engineer "Neanderthal-ized" brain organoids.
"It's fascinating to see that a single base-pair alteration in human DNA can change how the brain is wired," said Muotri, senior author of the study and director of the UC San Diego Stem Cell Program and a member of the Sanford Consortium for Regenerative Medicine. "We don't know exactly how and when in our evolutionary history that change occurred. But it seems to be significant, and could help explain some of our modern capabilities in social behavior, language, adaptation, creativity and use of technology."
The team initially found 61 genes that differed between modern humans and our extinct relatives. One of these altered genes -- NOVA1 -- caught Muotri's attention because it's a master gene regulator, influencing many other genes during early brain development. The researchers used CRISPR gene editing to engineer modern human stem cells with the Neanderthal-like mutation in NOVA1. Then they coaxed the stem cells into forming brain cells and ultimately Neanderthal-ized brain organoids.
Brain organoids are little clusters of brain cells formed by stem cells, but they aren't exactly brains (for one, they lack connections to other organ systems, such as blood vessels). Yet organoids are useful models for studying genetics, disease development and responses to infections and therapeutic drugs. Muotri's team has even optimized the brain organoid-building process to achieve organized electrical oscillatory waves similar to those produced by the human brain.
The Neanderthal-ized brain organoids looked very different than modern human brain organoids, even to the naked eye. They had a distinctly different shape. Peering deeper, the team found that modern and Neanderthal-ized brain organoids also differ in the way their cells proliferate and how their synapses -- the connections between neurons -- form. Even the proteins involved in synapses differed. And electrical impulses displayed higher activity at earlier stages, but didn't synchronize in networks in Neanderthal-ized brain organoids.
According to Muotri, the neural network changes in Neanderthal-ized brain organoids parallel the way newborn non-human primates acquire new abilities more rapidly than human newborns.
"This study focused on only one gene that differed between modern humans and our extinct relatives. Next, we want to take a look at the other 60 genes, and what happens when each, or a combination of two or more, are altered," Muotri said.
"We're looking forward to this new combination of stem cell biology, neuroscience and paleogenomics. The ability to apply the comparative approach of modern humans to other extinct hominins, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans, using brain organoids carrying ancestral genetic variants is an entirely new field of study."
To continue this work, Muotri has teamed up with Katerina Semendeferi, professor of anthropology at UC San Diego and study co-author, to co-direct the new UC San Diego Archealization Center, or ArchC.
"We will merge and integrate this amazing stem cell work with anatomic comparisons from several species and neurological conditions to create downstream hypotheses about brain function of our extinct relatives," Semendeferi said. "This neuro-archealization approach will complement efforts to understand the mind of our ancestors and close relatives, like the Neanderthals."
Co-authors of the study include: Cleber A. Trujillo, Isaac A. Chaim, Emily C. Wheeler, Assael A. Madrigal, Justin Buchanan, Sebastian Preissl, Allen Wang, Priscilla D. Negraes, and Ryan Szeto, UC San Diego; Edward S. Rice, Nathan K. Schaefer, Ashley Byrne, Maximillian Marin, Christopher Vollmers, Angela N. Brooks, Richard E. Green, UC Santa Cruz; Roberto H. Herai, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná; Alik Huseynov, Imperial College London; Mariana S.A. Ferraz, Fernando da S. Borges, Alexandre H. Kihara, Universidade Federal do ABC; Jonathan D. Lautz, Stephen E.P. Smith, Seattle Children's Research Institute and the University of Washington; Beth Shapiro, UC Santa Cruz and Howard Hughes Medical Institute; and Gene W. Yeo, UC San Diego, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (Singapore) and the National University of Singapore.
Funding for this research came, in part, from the Neanderthal Brain Foundation, National Institutes of Health (grants U19MH1073671, K12GM068524, K01AA026911), Brain and Behavior Research Foundation (NARSAD Independent Investigator Grant), National Science Foundation (grant 1754451), Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (grant GBMF3804), Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Capes, Brazil), FAPESP (São Paulo Research Foundation, grant 2017/26439-0), CNPq (Brazil's National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, grants 431000/2016-6, 312047/2017-7) and Loulou Foundation.
Disclosure: Alysson R. Muotri is a co-founder and has an equity interest in TISMOO, a company dedicated to genetic analysis and brain organoid modeling focusing on therapeutic applications customized for autism spectrum disorder and other neurological disorders with genetic origins. The terms of this arrangement have been reviewed and approved by the University of California San Diego in accordance with its conflict of interest policies.
https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/how-a-single-gene-alteration-may-have-separated-modern-humans-from-predecessors
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6530/eaax2537
Drinking Tea Alters Women's Genes
Intelligence Linked to 'Smart Genes'
Autoimmune Disease Trigger Discovered
Being a "Night Owl" is Genetic
Astaxanthin Activates the FOX03 'Longevity Gene'
DNA Methylation Predicts Mortality

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
« Poisonous scammers slither out from Texas floods | Russians blame Trump's consulate closures on...Obama »
Hillary holds a fire sale
By Monica Showalter
Pay-to-play is alive and well with Hillary Clinton, now that she's charging $2,375.95 a pop to hear her pitch her new book for sale called What Happened.
Two thousand bucks? To hear her shill a book you could order just as easily on Amazon if you really wanted it? Seems she hasn't changed a bit from her glory days shaking down donations for the Clinton Foundation in exchange for favors. Back then, she was charging between $1 million and $5 million a head for access to Herself and her State Department from any gamy player with the bucks to shell out – sultans, emirs, oligarchs, goons. They all had money that was welcome, and the Clinton Foundation rolled in the dough as she sold the State Department.
That was her zenith, an upward progression from her salad days of selling White House access through coffees and nights in the Lincoln bedroom, which she sold earlier for the same access to herself and her political favors.
It's characterized Hillary Clinton's political career from the get-go.
This calls to mind that at a mere $2,000 a pop, Hillary seems to be holding a fire sale, especially since the ticket, at least in Canada, covers places for two people. Without an office to sell and favors to dispense, she shrinks precipitously in her price to the public. It must be some sort of humiliation, since she's always for sale for something – to go from $5 million to a lousy $2,000 is enough to make one throw an ashtray. It's tough times when you are shilling very little of value.


text:
Erie man gets prison for sword attack
Caitlin Taylor @ctaylormn
An Erie man who brutally attacked a woman with a sword last year recently was sentenced to 20 years in state prison.
Eddie L. Skellett, 60, repeatedly struck Deanna Foster in the face — leaving her permanently scarred — for reportedly no known reason. The incident occurred last August in Skellet's Clayton Street home off S. Dixie Hwy.
He was charged with four felonies and bound to Monroe County 38th Circuit Court in October.
Chief Circuit Judge Michael A. Weipert sentenced Skellett to prison for two of those felonies, including assault with intent to murder and fleeing police in the third degree, during a hearing held earlier this month.
Skellet also was charged with one count of firstdegree criminal sexual conduct and one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct with another female, but was found not guilty.
The morning of the Aug. 14 assault, Foster reportedly accompanied a friend to retrieve some belongings from Skellett's home. The two allegedly entered the house, sat down and Foster was attacked with a welded sword within minutes.
"I was sitting on the love seat playing with the dog," Foster said in court in October. " I heard him say, 'I've got to take care of her.' Then I felt being repeatedly struck on my face."
When Foster finally was able to escape, she reportedly ran for help and her friend soon followed.
Monroe County Sheriff's Deputy Brandon Benes responded to the scene and later testified that he spotted Skellett's car leaving his home. A chase reportedly ensued and Skellett crashed his car into a tree before being taken into custody.
Foster was transported to St. Vincent Mercy Medical Center in Toledo where she underwent emergency surgery.
In October, Foster said that in addition to a scar which stretches from the ear to the corner of her mouth, she had permanent nerve damage, lost seven teeth and suffered from other problems related to the attack.
She also said she no longer liked being alone and was afraid to leave the house.
Skellett will be remanded to the Michigan Department of Corrections and will receive credit for 318 days previously served in Monroe County jail.


text:
The University of Iowa Labor Center
The Iowa Worker Rights Project
The publications listed below are available upon request or can be downloaded directly from this page. Costs range from $2-$10 per copy. Request a publication online or call 319-335-4144.
Don't see what you are looking for here? Call the Labor Center at 319-335-4144. We have a constantly growing collection of manuals and handouts available to workers on issues related to collective bargaining, legal rights, communications, organizing, and more.
Solidarity in Action: A Guide for Union Stewards
Workers' Rights: Summary of Federal and State Laws that Apply to Iowa Workplaces (updated 2017) - click here to download pdf - in English (pdf is formatted for doublesided printing)
Workers' Rights: Summary of Federal and State Laws that Apply to Iowa Workplaces (2017) - click here to download pdf - in Spanish (pdf is formatted for doublesided printing)
Introduction to the Affordable Care Act
Bargaining Insurance Under the Affordable Care Act
Your Rights to Family and Medical Leave: A Worker's Guide to the Family and Medical Leave Act and the 2008 Revised Department of Labor Regulations
Your Rights to Family and Medical Leave: A Federal Worker's Guide to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 and OPM Leave Regulations
Workers' Compensation in Iowa: A Brief Guide to the Iowa Workers' Compensation Law (updated 2017) work_comp_manual_2017_final.pdf
The Americans with Disabilities Act: A Basic Guide
Collective Bargaining: a manual for Private Sector Unions
Collective Bargaining: a manual for Iowa Public Sector Unions
Privacy in the Workplace: What Legal Rights Do Workers Have?
Ergonomics for Union Members in the Building Trades. Dan Holub, 2004.
Alcohol and Drug Testing: Iowa Law and Negotiating Alcohol and Drug Testing
The Union Safety and Health Committee -- Organizing for Action: A Manual for Local Union Safety Committees
Workers' Rights to Form a Union under Iowa's Public Employment Relations Act
Labor Law in Iowa's Public Workplaces: Local Union Activists' Rights and Duties under the Iowa Public Employment Relations Act
Iowa Public Sector Unions' Rights to Information under the PERA: Questions and Answers on your Rights to Information Necessary for Collective Bargaining or Grievance Handling


text:
Home I Professor Tommy Löbel Swing Band I Jennie Löbel & Swing Kings
Calendar I Discograpy I To the organisers I Contact us
THE MUSIC PLAYED BY THE BANDS Jennie Löbel & Swing Kings and Professor Tommy Löbel Swing Band is suitable for many different occasions. We hope we can give you what you want for your party, restaurant, jazz club and dance.
For dancing
We play in danceable tempos and make sure we have the right rhythm section musicians - it must swing! We switch between happy, fast melodies and slow music full of feeling. The bands are very popular among both foxtrotters and lindy hoppers / jitterbugs who follow the bands wherever they play.
When it's time for a party – for your wedding or birthday, or at the office - we will come to you. If you're tired of cover bands playing Hotel California, we will give your guests something different and bring a real atmosphere to your party. We've noticed we're much appreciated by people of different ages.
Elderly people are happy that the music of their youth is back – although that might not be a
surprise. But it looks as though we are seen as really cool right now among the younger crowd. And that's a trend we hope will last for a long time.
We can produce a programme that is tailor-made for your party and can for example provide:
- a small band playing when the guests arrive or for a cocktail mingle.
- piano entertainment during the dinner.
- a bigger band for a dance or concert.
- performances with Sweden's best swing dancers.
At the restaurant or jazz club
The band brings an exciting atmosphere to your restaurant or jazz club. The music will transport you to a smoky, sexy jazz club in New Orleans in the 40s. A cultural retro is sweeping the States right now with clothes, music and dance inspired by trad and swing. And Sweden is following. The band can also give your club a touch of class and luxury. White tuxedo, black piano and golden dress, how about that?
At the jazz festival
It is quite unusual to find a real swing band at jazz festivals these days and on top of that we play an unusual swing repertoire. At the trad jazz festivals we are the modern band in the Dixie jungle. Visitors appreciate the variation. Where modern jazz is being played it is our traditional melodies and older sound that make us stand out from the others.
At any event
At any kind of festival, party or celebration, we play the kind of music that makes people dance in the streets.


text:
Journal of General Internal Medicine
November 2015 , Volume 30, Issue 11, pp 1611–1617 | Cite as
Acute Care Utilization by Patients After Graduation of Their Resident Primary Care Physicians
Sonja R. Solomon
Holly C. Gooding
Harry Reyes Nieva
Jeffrey A. Linder
The disruption in provider continuity caused by medical resident graduation may result in adverse patient outcomes.
Our aim was to investigate whether resident graduation was associated with increased acute care utilization by residents' primary care patients.
DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS
This was a retrospective cohort study of patients cared for by junior and senior residents finishing the academic year in 2010, 2011 and 2012.
MAIN MEASURES
We compared rates of clinic visits, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations between transitioning patients whose residents were graduating and non-transitioning patients whose residents were not graduating.
Our study population comprised 90 residents, 4018 unique patients, and 5988 resident–patient dyads that transitioned (n = 3136) or did not transition (n = 2852). For transitioning patients, the clinic visit rate per 100 patients in the 4 months before and after graduation was 129 and 102, respectively; for non-transitioning patients, the clinic visit rate was 119 and 94, respectively (difference-in-differences, +2 per 100 patients; p = 0.12). For transitioning patients, the ED visit rate per 100 patients before and after graduation was 29 and 26, respectively; for non-transitioning patients, the ED visit rate was 28 and 25, respectively (difference-in-differences, 0; p = 0.49). For transitioning patients, the hospitalization rate per 100 patients before and after graduation was 14 and 13, respectively; for non-transitioning patients, the hospitalization rate was 15 and 12, respectively (difference-in-differences, −2; p = 0.20). In multivariable modeling there was no increased risk for transitioning patients for clinic visits (adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 1.03; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.10), ED visits (aRR, 1.05; 95 % CI, 0.92 to 1.20), or hospitalizations (aRR, 1.04; 95 % CI, 0.83 to 1.31).
Acute care utilization by residents' patients did not increase or decrease after graduation. Acute care utilization was high before and after graduation. Interventions to decrease the need for acute care should be employed throughout the year.
continuity of care care transitions medical education-systems based practice medical education-graduate ambulatory care utilization
Continuity of care is a cornerstone of high-quality primary care.1 Increasing continuity with an individual provider is associated with increased rates of guideline-concordant preventative care,2 lower rates of hospitalization and emergency department (ED) utilization,3 , 4 lower cost of care for patients with chronic disease,5 and lower mortality among older adults.6 However, it is unknown whether patients are more vulnerable to adverse outcomes in the period immediately following the transition to a new primary care provider.
One substantial disruption to continuity occurs at the end of each academic year, when resident physicians graduate and transition the care of their primary care patients to new residents. Resident graduation affects approximately 1 million patients annually, and is particularly challenging due to the discrepancy of experience between outgoing and incoming physicians and the administrative complexity caused by the simultaneous departure of many clinicians.7 Many patients in teaching practices are subject to this particular transition of care repeatedly, and may be at risk for adverse outcomes associated with discontinuity of care.
Previous studies found lapses in care for the patients of graduating residents, including lack of follow-up of high-priority patients.8 , 9 Unknown is whether graduating residents' patients experience more complications or acute care utilization in the period following graduation compared to the period before graduation, and compared to non-graduating residents' patients.10 We conducted a retrospective cohort study to address whether acute care utilization, as a proxy for inadequate outpatient continuity of care and access, is increased among patients of graduating residents compared to non-graduating residents.
Setting and Study Population
The study practice is the largest of 19 clinics that serve as continuity practice sites for internal medicine residents at Brigham and Women's Hospital. We limited the study to this hospital-based, academic practice to examine a single, diverse, patient population. Other teaching practices have fewer residents and variable degrees of panel-sharing with faculty preceptors. Several other sites do not admit patients preferentially to Brigham and Women's Hospital, which would limit outcome ascertainment. At the study practice, residents serve as the primary care physician (PCP) for patients, with faculty precepting and supervision. Residents serve as the PCP for approximately 16 % of patients in the practice. Residents' patients are uniformly insured through Medicare or Medicaid. Each year, 20 to 30 residents graduate and transition approximately 2000 patients to new resident PCPs. Most patients transition from graduating residents to first-year resident interns, but patient panels are not transitioned en masse from one resident to another, and for the majority of patients, there is no face-to-face meeting between the outgoing and incoming PCP. All transitioning patients receive written notification of the need to select a new PCP several months before graduation. Patients identified by their residents as high-risk are tracked by clinic staff to ensure that timely follow-up with a new PCP is scheduled. Graduating residents are instructed to sign out pending results to their preceptors.
Our study population comprised the patients of internal medicine junior and senior residents who finished their academic year in 2010, 2011 or 2012. We excluded residents with non-traditional training pathways (for example, a 2-year "short-track" into a medical subspecialty) and residents who remained as primary care faculty and retained their patients. Study residents included those in a traditional categorical track (20 weeks of dedicated ambulatory training over 3 years), a primary care track (40 weeks over 3 years), and a global health track (14 weeks over 3 years). All residents see patients in their continuity clinic approximately once weekly while on inpatient rotations, and 2–3 times weekly while on ambulatory rotations. The study was approved by the Partners HealthCare Human Research Committee.
Defining the Primary Care Relationship
A record of change in PCP over time for each patient was unavailable. Therefore, using billing and electronic health record (EHR) data, we developed an assignment algorithm to match each patient with a resident PCP. We defined a patient as having a given resident as their PCP if the patient had at least two visits with the resident in the 2 years before the annual date of graduation (June 20), and had seen that resident more than any other provider in the clinic in those 2 years. In the event of a tie in number of visits between clinicians, patients were assigned to the clinician who saw them closest to the graduation date.
We used a two-year primary care relationship interval to maintain an exposure period that was consistent for patients of senior (graduating) and junior (non-graduating) residents. We excluded patients of residents completing their first year of training to avoid the confounding effects of provider inexperience and a shorter-term patient–physician relationship.
We validated the PCP assignments through chart review of 10 % of randomly sampled transitioning patient charts (n = 314). We looked for language reflecting that the visit was conducted by the PCP, either in the title or text of the note. If the note was labeled "Urgent Care Visit," the documentation reflected that the patient's PCP was another provider, or it was unclear that the visit was conducted by the assigned PCP, the visit-based assignment was considered incorrect. Based on chart review, our visit-based definition had a positive predictive value of 99 %. The remaining 1 % were patients seen most by a resident in the preceding two years for urgent care visits.
Defining Transitioning and Non-Transitioning Patient–Resident Dyads
We identified patients with visits to the study practice between 20 June 2008 and 20 June 2012. From this cohort, we assigned patients to one or more residents using the definition above. For each transition year (2010, 2011 and 2012), we defined "transitioning dyads," patients associated with senior residents who were graduating; and "non-transitioning dyads," patients associated with junior residents completing their second year of training and entering their final year. Using this approach, we created six study groups (Groups A—F; Fig. 1). Residents generally appeared in the study twice, when they concluded their junior year and when they concluded their senior year. A patient could appear in the study multiple times, linked to the same or different residents for different years.
Description of transitioning and non-transitioning patient groups. Groups A, C and E: Patients of senior residents graduating in 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. Groups B, D and F: Patients of junior residents entering their final year of training in 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. Arrows and shading denote that most residents and many patients in Groups B and D will become residents, and patients in Groups C and E, respectively.
Acute Care Utilization Outcomes
Using billing data, we calculated the number of visits to the study practice, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and hospitalizations for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) in the 4 months before and 4 months after 20 June for each patient, for each year under study. A clinic visit was defined as any medical visit to the study clinic with any provider, regardless of whether that provider was the PCP or an urgent care provider. An ED visit was defined as any visit to the ED, regardless of indication, and regardless of whether it resulted in admission. A hospitalization was defined as an inpatient admission of any duration for any indication. An ACSC hospitalization was defined according to criteria established by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.11 ED visits and hospitalizations were considered to be adverse outcomes, while visits to the study practice were considered neutral outcomes reflecting patients' ability to access the clinic for care at different time points. We chose an interval of 4 months before and after the transition date to capture acute care episodes that were proximate to the transition date and represent an accurate baseline of ongoing acute care utilization prior to the transition date, and to avoid the winter months where we would expect to see an increase in acute care utilization unrelated to a change in PCP. This follow-up interval is similar to that used in a prior study of this transition.9
Covariates and Data Analysis
We extracted patient sociodemographic information from the EHR. Our system conflated race and ethnicity, which we grouped into the categories of White, Black, Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Other. We derived a comorbidity score using a combination of coded EHR problem list entries and International Classification of Diseases-9, Clinical Modification (ICD-9) billing codes. We selected comorbidities based on their clinical significance and inclusion in the Charlson Comorbidity Index (Table 1).12 For each patient, we also calculated the usual provider continuity (UPC) index, the fraction of total clinic visits with the patient's PCP during the 2-year review period that preceded the resident's graduation date.
Patient Demographics
Overall (n = 5988)
Non-transitioning (n = 2852)
Transitioning (n = 3136)
Age, years
< 0.001
Clinic visits with resident
UPC index
Comorbidity score
N (%)
Asian/Pacific Islander
Resident type
Primary care and global health
Cancer (Metastatic)
Cancer (Non-metastatic)
Cerebrovascular disease
Chronic kidney disease (Moderate/Severe)
Connective tissue disease
Hemiplegia
11 (< 1)
Liver disease (Mild)
Liver disease (Moderate/Severe)
Peptic ulcer disease
The sample represents 90 residents, 4018 patients, and 5988 resident-patient dyads
To examine differences between transitioning and non-transitioning resident–patient dyads, we used Fisher's Exact Test and the Chi-squared test for categorical variables and Student's t test for continuous variables. We calculated incident rates for each of the four care utilization outcomes. We assessed the difference in rates within transitioning and non-transitioning patient groups using negative binomial regression.
To assess the independent association between transitioning and clinic visits, ED visits, and hospitalizations, we used multivariable negative binomial regression. The rate of ACSC hospitalizations was too low to reliably examine using multivariable modeling. We adjusted for potential confounders related to acute care utilization including patient factors (age, sex, race/ethnicity, and pre-transition incident rates), resident factors (categorical, primary care or global health training track), and clustering by patients. The latter adjusted for the effect of patients appearing in multiple groups in different years. Neither additional adjustment for clustering by resident nor use of zero-inflated negative binomial regression changed the results substantively.
Patients and Residents
Ninety-nine residents with continuity clinic in the study practice graduated in the years 2010–2013 (Fig. 2). We excluded nine residents: seven had non-traditional training pathways and two became primary care faculty who retained their primary care patients. Of the 90 remaining residents, 65 were in the categorical track, 15 were in primary care, nine were in global health, and one resident was in both the primary care and global health tracks.
Creation of transitioning and non-transitioning dyads. On chart review, the PCP assignment algorithm had a 99 % positive predictive value for a primary care relationship. Over the 3 years of study, 3461 patients had one resident PCP, 552 had two resident PCPs, and five patients had three resident PCPs.
Of approximately 122,000 patients seen in the study practice between 2008 and 2012, 4018 unique patients met our criteria for belonging to one or more residents' primary care panels, resulting in 5988 resident–patient dyads. Of these, 3136 dyads transitioned (i.e., the senior resident graduated; 961 in 2010, 1092 in 2011, and 1083 in 2012) and 2852 dyads did not transition (i.e., the junior resident advanced to their final year of training; 884 in 2010, 951 in 2011, and 1017 in 2012; Fig. 2). Within dyads, the average number of patients associated with each resident was 67. Of the 5988 dyads, 354 (5.9 %) had a tie in PCP by our algorithm and the patients were assigned to the resident with the visit closest to graduation.
Patients had a mean age of 52 years; were 67 % women; 44 % Black, 26 % Latino, and 23 % White; and 76 % spoke English and 14 % spoke Spanish (Table 1). The mean UPC index was 0.7 (range, 0.1 to 1.0) prior to the date of transition, and did not differ between transitioning and non-transitioning patients. Transitioning patients were slightly older, made slightly more visits with their resident in the 2 years prior to the transition, had higher comorbidity scores, and were more likely to have categorical resident PCPs.
In the 4-month pre-transition and post-transition periods, the proportion of patients who had any clinic visit was 69 and 53 %, respectively; the proportion of patients who had ED visits was 18 and 17 %, respectively. The proportion of patients who had hospitalizations was 8 % in both the pre-transition and post-transition periods and the rate of ACSC hospitalizations was 2 % in both the pre-transition and post-transition periods.
Rates of clinic visits were significantly higher in the pre-transition period than in the post-transition period. There was a significant decrease in the rate of hospitalizations for non-transitioning patients. Overall, transitioning patients had no increase or decrease in the rate of clinic visits, ED visits, hospitalizations, or ACSC hospitalizations compared to non-transitioning patients (Table 2).
Utilization Rates for Transitioning vs. Non-Transitioning Patients
Rate per 100 patients per 4-month period
Encounter type
p value pre-post difference*
Δ-in-Δ's between transitioning and non-transitioning†
p value Δ-in-Δ‡
Clinic visits
Non-transitioning
ED Visits
ACSC hospitalizations
*p value is difference between pre and post rates assessed by negative binomial regression
†Δ-in-Δ is difference-in-differences
‡p value of transitioning based on negative binomial regression modeling, adjusted for the baseline rate and clustering by patient
In multivariable modeling, transitioning patients had no increased risk of clinic visits (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.03; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.09), ED visits (aOR, 1.03; 95 % CI, 0.90 to 1.17), or hospitalizations (aOR, 1.10; 95 % CI, 0.87 to 1.40; Table 3). Independent predictors of clinic visits, ED visits, and hospitalizations were higher pre-transition visit rates and higher comorbidity scores.
Multivariable Models of Post-Transition Acute Care Utilization
Odds ratio (95 % confidence interval)
Emergency department visits
Pre-transition visits, per visit in the 4 months prior to transition
Comorbidity score, per point
Patient age, per decade
Women, versus men
Race/ethnicity, compared to Whites
African American/Black
Latino/Hispanic
Other/Unknown
Resident type, compared to categorical
There was an insufficient rate of ACSC hospitalizations to reliably model. Usual provider continuity index and resident visits, which were colinear with pre-transition visit rates, were not included in the models. Patient language, which was colinear with race, was not included in the models.
The graduation of resident physicians represents an annual, large-scale disruption in primary care continuity. This disruption could leave patients vulnerable to adverse outcomes. Other studies have described this vulnerability by retrospectively examining cohorts of patients whose residents recently graduated, assessing rates of loss-to-follow-up, inadequate follow-up of abnormal test results, missed preventive screening opportunities, and acute care utilization.8 , 9
Our study represents the first attempt to utilize a control group of non-transitioning patients to assess transition-related outcomes. We hypothesized that resident graduation would be associated with an increase in ED visits and hospitalizations. To the contrary, we found that the rate of clinic visits, ED visits, hospitalizations, and ACSC hospitalizations did not change after resident graduation for transitioning patients. The effect of provider transitioning status had no bearing on pre-post differences in utilization rates.
However, we observed a high rate of acute care utilization in all time periods examined. We observed 25 to 29 ED visits per 100 patients per 4-month interval and 12 to15 hospitalizations per 100 patients per 4-month interval (Table 2). These rates extrapolate to annual rates of 75–97 ED visits per 100 patients and 36–45 hospitalizations per 100 patients. These are much higher than national averages, which for the year 2010 were 43 ED visits per 100 people per year13 and 11 hospital discharges per 100 people per year.14
In this study, we did not determine what factors account for the observed high rates of acute care utilization, but hypothesize that medical complexity, low socioeconomic status and lack of awareness about clinic resources for managing acute issues may all play a role. Of note, adjusting for clustering by resident did not alter our results, arguing against the possibility that individual residents providing either better or worse care would confound the outcomes.
With respect to clinic visits, we observed a lower rate of visits to the clinic in the 4 months following graduation than in the 4 months prior. This is likely multifactorial: graduating senior residents may make an effort to schedule final visits with patients before their departure; visits to clinic likely decline during the summer months; and access to residents' clinics is more limited post-transition due to fewer appointments per session for new trainees compared to experienced trainees. The fact that the pre-post differences were similar between transitioning and non-transitioning patients argues that the transition itself was not the cause of this difference.
There were several limitations of our study. First, our analysis was restricted to a single clinic site and may not be generalizable to other settings. Second, we were unable to capture episodes of acute care occurring outside the institutions included in our EHR. However, we would not expect the rate of ED visits or hospitalizations at outside institutions to be differentially affected by the transition. Third, we did not examine other outcomes that may reflect inadequate transitions of care including chronic disease-specific metrics, on-time medication refills, follow-up of abnormal results, or patient satisfaction.
Finally, a limitation in any study of care continuity is the way in which the linkage between patient and primary care provider is defined. In our study, we chose a definition based on clinical encounters, rather than the PCP listed in the EHR, as the latter was not available retrospectively. Patients were assigned to a resident PCP only if they had seen that resident for two or more visits in the previous 2 years and had seen no other clinic provider more than that resident. We therefore excluded patients who were less closely linked to a single physician. Excluded patients could be at either increased risk (e.g., due to less continuity) or decreased risk (e.g., due to lack of medical complexity) of acute care utilization. However, our method of linking patients to a resident PCP was balanced between the patients of graduating and non-graduating residents, and introduced a conservative bias for our estimates: we would expect patients with more individual continuity to be more influenced by the graduation of their PCP. Despite this bias, we saw no association between resident graduation and increased acute care utilization.
On the other hand, it could be argued that the length and closeness of the primary care relationships in this study are in fact insufficient to cause significant alterations in care utilization when they terminate. More research is needed to determine whether the loss of a more long-standing primary care relationship is associated with acute care utilization or adverse clinical outcomes.
Our study demonstrates that residents care for a population at high risk of acute care utilization, and interventions to reduce inappropriate acute care utilization should be employed throughout the academic year. Such interventions might include enhancing patient education about how to access their care team for urgent needs; developing care management strategies for high-risk patients; and identifying patients with frequent ED visits or hospitalization for targeted intervention. These initiatives have all been undertaken to various degrees at our institution and further research will be necessary to measure their effects. We acknowledge that our study does not answer the question of whether achieving a certain threshold of ambulatory continuity will decrease acute care utilization by residents' patients, and if so, what that threshold might be. It would be worthwhile to examine whether demographically similar patients cared for by attendings in our practice exhibit different rates of acute care utilization, and if so, whether the duration of the primary care relationship is predictive.
We continue to support the development and implementation of standardized procedures for transitioning the care of ambulatory patients at the end of each academic year, as such procedures make good sense clinically and operationally. A standardized process may benefit other members of the care team, including clinic staff and residents themselves, who self-report anxiety surrounding the year-end transition9; such a process has been shown to improve patients' rate of follow-up with their new PCP.15
In conclusion, we found that resident graduation from a large teaching practice did not impact their patients' acute care utilization. However, high rates of acute care utilization before and after the transition highlight the need to better understand this problem and develop targeted interventions to address it throughout the academic year.
The authors would like to acknowledge Stuart Lipsitz, ScD and Robert Glynn, PhD for biostatistical consultation and Edward Carreras, MD for assistance with chart review.
This work was funded by a Support for Excellence in Educational Development (SEED) Grant from the Brigham and Women's Hospital Department of Medicine.
Prior Presentations
Presented in part at the Society of General Internal Medicine New England Regional Meeting, 7 March 2014, Boston, MA and the Society of General Internal Medicine Annual Meeting, 24 April 2014, San Diego, CA.
The authors have no potential conflicts of interest.
Bodenheimer T, Chorob A, Willard-Grace R, Grumbach K. The 10 building blocks of high-performing primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12(2):166–71.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Atlas SJ, Grant RW, Ferris TG, Chang Y, Barry MJ. Patient-physician connectedness and quality of primary care. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(5):325–35.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Nyweide DJ, Anthony DL, Bynum JP, Strawderman RL, Weeks WB, Casalino LP, et al. Continuity of care and the risk of preventable hospitalization in older adults. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(20):1879–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Chaiyachati KH, Gordon K, Long T, et al. Continuity in a VA patient-centered medical home reduces emergency department visits. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(5):e96356.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Hussey PS, Schneider EC, Rudin RS, Fox DS, Lai J, Pollack CE. Continuity and the costs of care for chronic disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(5):742–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Wilonsky FD, Bentler SE, Liu L, et al. Continuity of care with a primary care physician and mortality in older adults. J Gerntol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2010;65(4):421–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young JQ, Wachter RM. Academic year-end transfers of outpatients from outgoing to incoming residents: an unaddressed patient safety issue. JAMA. 2009;302(12):1327–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Caines LC, Brockmeyer DM, Tess AV, Kim H, Kriegel G, Bates CK. The revolving door of resident continuity practice: identifying gaps in transitions of care. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;6(9):995–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pincavage AT, Ratner S, Prochaska ML, et al. Outcomes for resident-identified high-risk patients and resident perspectives of year-end continuity clinic handoffs. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(11):1438–44.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Bump GM. Residents' final transition: the graduation clinic hand-off. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(2):145–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Quality Indicators Software Instruction, SAS Version 4.4. Available at: http://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/Downloads/Software/SAS/V44/Software%20Instructions%20(SAS)%20V%204.4.pdf. Accessed March 5, 2015.
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2010 Emergency Department Summary Tables. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/nhamcs_emergency/2010_ed_web_tables.pdf. Accessed March 5, 2015.
CDC/NCHS National Hospital Discharge Survey, 2010. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhds/1general/2010gen1_agesexalos.pdf. Accessed March 5, 2015.
Pincavage AT, Lee WW, Venable LR. "Ms. B changes doctors": using a comic and patient transition packet to engineer patient-oriented clinic handoffs (EPOCH). J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(2):257–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
© Society of General Internal Medicine 2015
1.Division of General Internal Medicine & Primary CareBrigham and Women's HospitalBostonUSA
2.Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
3.Division of Adolescent and Young Adult MedicineBoston Children's HospitalBostonUSA
Solomon, S.R., Gooding, H.C., Reyes Nieva, H. et al. J GEN INTERN MED (2015) 30: 1611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-015-3305-7
Received 09 December 2014
Revised 24 February 2015
Accepted 16 March 2015


text:
Walstonburg és una població dels Estats Units a l'estat de Carolina del Nord. Segons el cens del 2000 tenia una població de 224 habitants.

Demografia
Segons el cens del 2000, Walstonburg tenia 224 habitants, 91 habitatges i 66 famílies. La densitat de població era de 210,9 habitants per km².

Dels 91 habitatges en un 27,5% hi vivien nens de menys de 18 anys, en un 60,4% hi vivien parelles casades, en un 7,7% dones solteres, i en un 26,4% no eren unitats familiars. En el 25,3% dels habitatges hi vivien persones soles el 7,7% de les quals corresponia a persones de 65 anys o més que vivien soles. El nombre mitjà de persones vivint en cada habitatge era de 2,46 i el nombre mitjà de persones que vivien en cada família era de 2,9.

Per edats la població es repartia de la següent manera: un 23,2% tenia menys de 18 anys, un 6,3% entre 18 i 24, un 34,8% entre 25 i 44, un 23,2% de 45 a 60 i un 12,5% 65 anys o més.

L'edat mediana era de 37 anys. Per cada 100 dones de 18 o més anys hi havia 102,4 homes.

La renda mediana per habitatge era de 36.875 $ i la renda mediana per família de 41.750 $. Els homes tenien una renda mediana de 24.063 $ mentre que les dones 22.250 $. La renda per capita de la població era de 19.571 $. Entorn de l'11,1% de les famílies i el 13,3% de la població estaven per davall del llindar de pobresa.

Poblacions més properes
El següent diagrama mostra les poblacions més properes.

Referències

Entitats de població de Carolina del Nord

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Bellantoni
Melody Barnes on getting to work
← return to Bellantoni
By Christina Bellantoni The Washington Times - November 25, 2008, 02:16PM
When President-elect Barack Obama announced Melody Barnes yesterday as Director-designate of the Domestic Policy Council, she stood smiling next to Vice President-elect Joe Biden and the rest of the new economic team.
After the press conference ended the new appointees took no questions, but Barnes went backstage to chat on camera with the New Media team in this short video.
She outlines her background and said while campaigning for Obama across the nation she talked to voters about their priorities: growing the economy, improving health care and educational reform and accountability. She talked up his jobs plan with a focus on green-collar industries.
But she also noted something few have talked about since Obama won the election.
"The President-elect really ignites and inspires people, people are also committed to getting to work," she said. "Being asked by President-elect Obama to do this work is an opportunity to engage with the American public and to empower those who feel like they just want to be asked what to do and how we go about making change in our country to fulfill the vision that he set forth in front of us," she said.
Speaking of the new team, I did a short piece in today's paper about the lack of criticism heard over Larry Summers' appointment as director of the National Economic Council.
There was a loud clamor when he was on short list for Treasury, but yesterday: Crickets.
CHICAGO - When word got out that President-elect Barack Obama might choose Lawrence H. Summers to assume the same Treasury secretary post he once held, women's groups still angry about remarks he made in 2005 about women and math made their voices heard.
But on Monday, when Mr. Obama instead tapped Mr. Summers to be a key member of his economic team and director of the National Economic Council, groups that had been protesting or appearing on cable shows did not put out statements, and did not respond to requests for comment.
Finally, a note of thanks to those of who wrote to see why I'm blogging less frequently these days. There's so much news coming out of the Obama transition that most items are ending up as news stories on our Web site. That leaves me less time for blogging but I'll be posting as often as I can with some breaks for the holidays.
So please check here to see the stories I've been writing, and of course, always check out our home page for breaking news, updates and a wide selection of original Web video.
— Christina Bellantoni, White House correspondent,
Please bookmark my blog at
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/bellantoni
Find my latest stories here and visit my YouTube page
Christina Bellantoni


If you have $2.2 million and always wanted to live like Rex Ryan, act fast.
The former Jets coach is selling his home in Summit, N.J., for that price after becoming the Bills head coach last month.
The five-bedroom home is where Ryan lived during his six seasons with the Jets. He bought the home for $2.25 million in May of 2009. Ryan loved to reference the town of Summit during his press conferences with the Jets, particularly the high school football team, on which his son, Seth, played for three years.
The listing from Coldwell Banker does not make any reference to the famous seller, but if you scan through the photos on the listing there are some clues. There is a Jets pillow in what appears to be Ryan's mancave, complete with a large photo of Wrigley Field on the wall. There is also a giant Clemson helmet on the wall in one of the bedrooms. Seth Ryan is a student at the South Carolina school.
There is also an exercise room, where Ryan surely sweated away some of the 100-plus pounds he lost over the last few years.


text:
package com.google.research.ic.ferret.data;

/**
 * TODO: Insert description here. (generated by marknewman)
 */
public class UberResultSet {

  private ResultSet strongMatches = null;
  private ResultSet weakMatches = null;
  private ResultSet elongatedMatches = null;
  private ResultSet altEndingMatches = null;
  private Snippet query = null;

  public UberResultSet(Snippet query) {
    this.query = query;
  }

  public ResultSet getStrongMatches() {
    return strongMatches;
  }

  public void setStrongMatches(ResultSet closeMatches) {
    this.strongMatches = closeMatches;
  }

  public ResultSet getWeakMatches() {
    return weakMatches;
  }

  public void setWeakMatches(ResultSet weakMatches) {
    this.weakMatches = weakMatches;
  }

  public ResultSet getElongatedMatches() {
    return elongatedMatches;
  }

  public void setElongatedMatches(ResultSet elongatedMatches) {
    this.elongatedMatches = elongatedMatches;
  }

  public ResultSet getAltEndingMatches() {
    return altEndingMatches;
  }

  public void setAltEndingMatches(ResultSet altEndingMatches) {
    this.altEndingMatches = altEndingMatches;
  }

  public void mergeResults(UberResultSet otherURS) {
    if (strongMatches == null) {
      strongMatches = new ResultSet();
    }
    strongMatches.mergeResults(otherURS.getStrongMatches());

    if (weakMatches == null) {
      weakMatches = new ResultSet();
    }
    weakMatches.mergeResults(otherURS.getWeakMatches());

    if (elongatedMatches == null) {
      elongatedMatches = new ResultSet();
    }
    elongatedMatches.mergeResults(otherURS.getElongatedMatches());

    if (altEndingMatches == null) {
      altEndingMatches = new ResultSet();
    }
    altEndingMatches.mergeResults(otherURS.getAltEndingMatches());

  }

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
R.I.P DJ Screw
From TheBoxHouston.com
10 years ago today marks the passing of Robert Earl "DJ Screw" Davis Jr. Founder of the Screwed Up Click which gave birth to many of H-Town's greatest rappers such as Lil' Keke, Fat Pat, Big Pokey, ESG, Big Hawk, & The Botany Boys.
He was known for his trademark slowed-down mixes also known as "Screw tapes". One of the most legendary being "June 27th". Other notable Screw tapes are "All Screwed Up, Vol. 1" (1995), "3 'N the Mornin Part 1" (1995), "3 'N the Mornin Part 2 Blue" (1996), "3 'N the Mornin Part 2 Red" (1998) and "All Work, No Play" (1999).
When Screw, just 29 at the time, died medical examiners said it was from an overdose of codeine – (otherwise known as "lean," "syrup" or "barre"), a mixture of prescription-strength cough syrup and soda that can create a feeling of sedated euphoria when taken in large quantities.
His legacy continues to reach beyond the 3rd Coast as many artist have paid homage including Drake's "November 18th" which is an update of the "June 27th" freestyle. & T-Pain's (2008) release "Chopped & Screwed".
Post TagsDJ Screw Houston hip-hop R.I.P. Screwed Up Click