text:
You are at:Home»Uncategorized»Genome Collaboration Leads to Prostate Cancer Finding
Genome Collaboration Leads to Prostate Cancer Finding
By Roger Anderson on	 Mar 26, 2013
William Catalona, MD, professor in urology, has helped outline the benefits of whole genome sequencing in validating the genes associated with a person's susceptibility to prostate cancer.
For years, William Catalona, MD, professor in urology, has worked to discover and validate many of the first genes associated with a person's susceptibility to prostate cancer.
Now, a new collaborative effort published in Nature Genetics is verifying the benefits of whole genome sequencing in that pursuit.
Whole genome sequencing provides scientists with a complete picture of a person's genetic code, as opposed to the more commonly used targeted sequencing, which focuses on a specific region. This additional genetic information may help physicians uncover treatment options that would work best for an individual patient. Although the cost of whole-genome sequencing is significantly more than targeted sequencing, investigators believe this gap will shrink as the technology continues to improve.
"Genetic variants provide important insights into the fundamental causes of prostate cancer, especially its aggressive forms," said Catalona. "In this regard, whole genome sequencing will help to identify the cell signaling pathways involved in the development and progression of prostate cancer. It will also be useful in developing new biomarkers, like blood tests, for identifying men who should undergo prostate cancer screening."
Brian Helfand, MD, PhD, adjunct assistant professor in cell and molecular biology, a urologic oncology fellow at the time of the study, co-authored the publication that is among the first to use whole genome sequencing to discover new germ-line genetic variants associated with susceptibility to prostate cancer.
Validated in patient populations at Northwestern as well, the study went far beyond previous whole-genome sequencing studies involving only a few patients. It analyzed 32.5 million variants in 1,795 Icelanders.
The extensive effort proved fruitful, identifying a new variant – 8q24 – associated with a three-fold risk of prostate cancer in Caucasian populations.
"Most previously discovered risk variants only increase the risk by five to 30 percent," said Catalona, director of the Clinical Prostate Cancer Program at the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University. "Using standard genotyping methods, this variant had not been discovered. The study was also able to confirm another recently described variant – HOXB13 – that is important in familial and non-familial prostate cancer."
Focused on understanding the genetic underpinnings of prostate cancer that can be translated to patient care, Catalona's clinical research database is largely funded by the Urological Research Foundation and various grants from the National Institutes of Health and Northwestern Memorial Hospital.
"This research is important because the men who carried this new, rare variant were diagnosed with prostate cancer at a younger age," Catalona said. "The hope is that this research could provide potential new targets for pharmaceutical manipulation in the treatment or prevention of prostate cancer in general."
Recent Uncategorized
New Frontiers — in Medicine, and on Campus
'Epidermal VR' Gives Technology a Human Touch
Erectile Dysfunction Could Signal Risk for Heart Attack, Stroke


text:
Ksenia's Reviews
Convenience Store Woman by Sayaka Murata
A darkly humorous, compulsively readable exploration of normativity through the eyes of a content but maladjusted young woman who, despite societal pressures, is simply not wired to conform. Perfect for helping anyone who has ever felt they're not living "the right way" become convinced otherwise. - Ksenia
Convenience Store Woman (Paperback)
By Sayaka Murata, Ginny Tapley Takemori (Translator)
Published: Grove Press - September 17th, 2019
Mars: Stories by Asja Bakic
Haunting, visceral, often funny and always powerful, these surreal, fabulist stories are nothing short of brilliant. Bakic, an emerging feminist speculative writer from the Balkans, is simply extraordinary, a talent not to be missed. - Ksenia
Mars: Stories (Paperback)
By Asja Bakic, Jennifer Zoble (Translator), Ellen Elias-Bursac (Afterword by)
Published: Feminist Press - March 12th, 2019
Deaf Republic by Ilya Kaminsky
A poetic parable of an occupied town which refuses to hear soldiers, Deaf Republic is the most unique and profound anti-war work I've ever read. Kaminsky, himself a hard-of-hearing immigrant from Ukraine, re-envisions disability as a powerful act of defiance and silence as "the invention of the hearing." - Ksenia
Deaf Republic: Poems (Paperback)
By Ilya Kaminsky
Published: Graywolf Press - March 5th, 2019
To Be a Machine by Mark O'Connell
A witty and highly fascinating - sometimes laugh-out-loud funny, occasionally disturbing - gonzo-journalistic tour into the world of death-renouncing transhumanists, many of whom are bankrolled by the mysterious Silicon Valley billionaires and by the military-industrial complex. Loved it! - Ksenia
To Be a Machine: Adventures Among Cyborgs, Utopians, Hackers, and the Futurists Solving the Modest Problem of Death (Paperback)
By Mark O'Connell
Published: Anchor - January 16th, 2018
Imagining the Future of Climate Change by Shelley Streeby
A truly unique book that delves into the power of science fiction to educate and inspire change, as exemplified by the works of Octavia Butler and other sci-fi writers and activists of color on the front line of the fight for the future of our planet. - Ksenia
Imagining the Future of Climate Change: World-Making through Science Fiction and Activism (American Studies Now: Critical Histories of the Present #5) (Paperback)
By Shelley Streeby
Published: University of California Press - January 31st, 2018
Are Prisons Obsolete? by Angela Davis
A short book that posits and answers an immense question. Angela Davis outlines the history of incarceration as the primary form of punishment and asks us to imagine a world interested in rehabilitation more than retribution and in healing rather than perpetuating the cycle of oppression. An absolute must-read from a legend. - Ksenia
Are Prisons Obsolete? (Open Media Series) (Paperback)
By Angela Y. Davis
Availability: Backordered
Published: Seven Stories Press - August 5th, 2003
How to Suppress Women's Writing by Joanna Russ
First published in 1983, legendary feminist scholar and science fiction writer Joanna Russ's rigorous review of women writers' diminished contributions and deliberately neglected works is an absolute must-read that is, maddeningly, still relevant today. - Ksenia
How to Suppress Women's Writing (Paperback)
By Joanna Russ, Jessa Crispin (Foreword by)
Published: University of Texas Press - April 17th, 2018

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
340 F. 2d 803 - National Labor Relations Board v. Camco Incorporated
340 F2d 803 National Labor Relations Board v. Camco Incorporated
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
CAMCO, INCORPORATED, Respondent.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Leonard M. Wagman, Atty., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Warren M. Davison, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
L. G. Clinton, Jr., H. L. Deakins, Jr., Houston, Tex., Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates & Jaworski, Houston, Tex., of counsel, for respondent.
Before WISDOM and GEWIN, Circuit Judges, and HANNAY, District Judge.
WISDOM, Circuit Judge:
In this unfair labor practice case Camco, Inc., a Texas corporation manufacturing oil field equipment, contends that it made a good faith reduction in force because of a decline in business brought about by Hurricane Carla. The charging union, District Lodge No. 37, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, contends that the decline in business was a pretext for discharging eleven employees because of their union activities. Camco insists that the eleven men were selected for termination of employment before it knew of their union activities. The Trial Examiner accepted the Company's explanation, found that Camco had engaged in certain "technical" violations of the National Labor Relations Act but had not engaged in the other alleged unfair labor practices, and concluded that a cease and desist order would not "effectuate the purpose of the Act." The National Labor Relations Board disagreed with the Examiner's conclusions. The Board found that the Company violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by engaging in an "extensive campaign of interrogation coupled with promises of benefits and implied threats" and that this "coercive conduct warrants the issuance of a remedial order."1 The Board found that Camco violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act by discriminatorily discharging the eleven employees. The Board seeks enforcement of an order based on its findings. We grant enforcement of the order, except as to the reinstatement of two of the discharged employees.
Coercion by interrogation is one of the "subtler" forms of management's interference with labor's protected rights.2 As the differences here between the Examiner and the Board illustrate, the "act of interrogation is not coercive or intimidating on its face, nor is it easy to demonstrate just how often, and under what circumstances, a threat of reprisal will be inferred by the employees."3 Bourne v. N. L. R. B., 2 Cir.1964, 332 F.2d 47, 48 modifying 144 NLRB No. 75 (Sept. 26, 1963), is helpful in determining the limits of proper interrogation. In that case the court lists five factors to be considered in weighing the lawfulness of company interrogation of employees:
"(1) The background, i. e. is there a history of employer hostility and discrimination?
"(2) The nature of the information sought, e. g. did the interrogator appear to be seeking information on which to base taking action against individual employees?
"(3) The identity of the questioner, i. e. how high was he in the company hierarchy?
"(4) Place and method of interrogation, e. g. was employee called from work to the boss's office. Was there an atmosphere of `unnatural formality'?
"(5) Truthfulness of the reply."
This list is not intended to be definitive and, as Professor Bok has pointed out, intimidation may occur even if all of these factors cut in favor of the employer. He warns that "employers must beware of interrogation unless (1) they have a valid purpose for obtaining information concerning the union's strength; (2) they communicate this purpose to the employees; and (3) they assure the employees that no reprisals will be taken."4 Taking the Bourne approach, but bearing in mind Bok's formulation of the Board's warning to employers, we enter a Blue Flash5 thicket.6
There is no doubt about Camco's anti-union animus, although there is contradictory testimony in regard to a speech by the Company's president in which the anti-union policy was plainly stated. Several employees testified that in October 1961 President Harold E. McGowen, Jr. made a speech to the employees in which he threatened to close the plant if it were unionized. McGowen testified that he made no such threats. His speech was in fact a written statement of over-all plans read at a meeting of stockholders as well as at a meeting of employees. The Examiner discredited the testimony of the employees. The following anti-union statement does appear in the written speech:
"Union — as you know, some 3½ years ago, we had a union election in this plant. This was defeated and since then, we have had absolutely no trouble in this respect. This Company is of the very firm opinion that we will not have a union here. We are against the union in all respects and will do our best to see that it does not come to this plant. If any man feels otherwise, we invite him to leave and go to another plant. This is the American way of life."
In December 1961, President McGowen decided to reduce production personnel because sales and profits were down. Camco terminated four employees on January 4, 1962, six on January 5, and eight more later in the month. February 2, Hughes, head of the production department, instructed Shop Superintendent Theek to submit a list of ten men to be laid off. Theek passed the instructions along to his foremen, Cook and O'Pry. February 7 or 8, the foremen submitted to Theek ten names. All were union supporters and all were terminated February 16.
Efforts to organize the plant did not begin until the middle of January when McCall, a production employee asked the help of the Union. February 9, Locke, another production employee, arranged an organization meeting at the Union Hall the next day.
Numbers are important in this case. Of the 95 employees in the production department, 16 attended the meeting and signed authorization cards. Of the 16, Camco fired 11; one on February 13, three days after the meeting, and 10 on February 16. These 11 men were the only production employees discharged during February 1962. No non-union man was discharged.
Between the time of the meeting and the time of the terminations, three Camco officials (Shop Superintendent Theek and Foremen O'Pry and Cook) interrogated 11 employees about their union activities; 10 were union adherents. The Company admittedly interrogated nine of the eleven union employees discharged; the tenth was a union leader discharged summarily; there is no evidence one way or the other as to the eleventh.
The discharged employees testified that the interrogators, Theek, O'Pry, and Cook attempted to learn the identity of the men who had been at the meeting and repeatedly said that the men who had attended the union meeting would be fired. Cook testified that the Company knew the identity of the men.
The testimony of the discharged employees was corroborated by the testimony of a union sympathizer, Baggett, who was still working for Camco at the time of the hearing. He testified that when he was questioned he did not admit his union activity; his foreman testified that he did. According to his testimony, one Camco foreman stated that he would not be fired because he had not attended the union meeting. Another foreman stated, before the union meeting, that he was going to the union hall to take names. A foreman said shortly after the discharge of the ten men that they had been fired because they were "troublemakers and union agitators".
Superintendent Theek admitted that he interrogated one employee. Foreman Cook admitted interrogating four employees, including the one Theek questioned. Foreman O'Pry admitted interrogating seven employees. These interrogations took place in a short period — between February 13 and February 15. February 15, Theek asked employee Locke if he had attended the union meeting and mentioned the benefits that the Respondent had given the employees. February 13, Cook asked Locke whether he had heard rumors "going around" about a union. He told Locke "to keep his feet on the ground" and that it would be to Locke's benefit if he "stayed out of it". During this same period, O'Pry, on separate occasions, asked employees McCall, Clepper, Cox, Yeager, and Williams whether they had attended the union meeting.
According to the testimony of Camco supervisory employees, at least 6 of the 10 union adherents questioned denied that they knew anything about the union activity or that they had attended the union meeting. A seventh testified that he denied it; his foreman testified that he admitted it. In N. L. R. B. v. Syracuse Press, 2 Cir.1954, 209 F.2d 596, 597, cert. denied, 1954, 347 U.S. 966, 74 S. Ct. 777, 98 L.Ed. 1108, discussed in N. L. R. B. v. Harbison-Fischer Mfg. Co., 5 Cir.1962, 304 F.2d 738, 744, the Second Circuit emphasized the fact that one of the employees when questioned concealed his union activity. Here, since most of the Camco employees questioned, at least at first, concealed their union activities, the Board could reasonably infer that they were answering under pressure.
Camco argues that the interrogation was only by low-ranking officials and was done informally in the shop while the men were at work. Theek supervised the machine shop. Cook and O'Pry were foremen under Theek. The place of interrogation and the rank of the interrogators bear on the issue of coercion but, assuming the authority of the interrogators to speak for the Company, the crucial question is not their rank but whether to the employees the interrogators represent the Company. See Hendrix Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 5 Cir. 1963, 321 F.2d 100. Here the record shows that in the minds of the production employees the foremen and supervisor did indeed represent Camco management. Because of the nature of the interrogation and the obvious correlation between the interrogation and the discharges, the Board could reasonably conclude that the questioning was not casual, whether it took place in the shop or in the office of the President of the Company and whether President McGowen or Superintendent Theek was the inquisitor.
Bourne points out that an innocuous question (e g. How is the union doing?) is much less coercive than a pointed question (e. g. Who are the union leaders?). 332 F.2d at 48. Two of the Camco employees who answered untruthfully refused to answer innocuous questions (Did they know anything about the union rumors?). If an employee refuses to give a truthful answer even to an innocuous question, the inference of coercion is as strong as if he refused to answer a pointed question.
Questioning is much more likely to have a coercive effect if the purpose of the interrogation is not explained and if there are no assurances against retaliation. See Martin Sprocket & Gear Co. v. N. L. R. B., 5 Cir.1964, 329 F.2d 417. Camco made no explanation to the interrogated employees and gave no reassurances that their answers would not be held against them. Nothing was done to negate the effect of questioning most of the union adherents, or the effect of Camco's known anti-union policy.
The evidence of promised benefits is not conclusive. The Company made no promise of any specific benefit, but the testimony of Theek, Cook, and O'Pry shows that they did make an effort to persuade the men that it was against their interest to join the Union. Theek's conversation with Locke included a discussion of Camco's employee benefits as compared with the benefits from joining the Union. As for threats, Cook made certain statements to Bounds and Led-better which might properly be considered as "implied threats".
Camco deprecates any notion that the questions put to the employees were coercive. The Company draws attention to these facts. There were only eleven acts of interrogation, ten by minor supervisors. The other inquiry, by Theek, was made to an employee who had been his friend for thirty years. The interrogation consisted only in asking whether the employee had attended the union meeting or had heard about a union rumor, without any effort to obtain other information on union activities. Finally, so Camco contends, such remarks were natural and could be expected in an atmosphere in which such discussions were occurring "all over the shop."
The questioning cannot be plucked out of context. And the context includes these considerations. (1) The Company had publicly announced an anti-union policy. (2) The law of probabilities indicates a close connection between the selection of men for interrogation and the union activities of those men. (3) There is a manifestly close correlation between the interrogations and the terminations of employment. (4) The interrogation was systematic and intensive over a period of only three days. (5) Some of the interrogatees gave untruthful answers, apparently for fear of the consequences of revealing their union activities. (6) The Company did not explain the purpose of the interrogation to the employees and gave no assurances against reprisals. (7) There is some evidence of coercion by carrot and by stick.
We hold therefore that fair inferences and substantial evidence compel affirmance of the Board's finding that Camco's interrogation of its employees violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
The issue of discriminatory discharge has four distinct components: (1) the employer testimony, (2) the employee testimony, (3) the Examiner's findings, and (4) the Board's inferences from the admitted facts of the case. Here, Camco management testified that the discharges could not have been discriminatory, because Camco decided to discharge the men before the union activity even began. The employees testified that Camco's supervisor and foremen told them that men were going to be fired because of their union activity. The Trial Examiner discredited the employee testimony and credited the employer testimony. The Board, largely relying on inferences from admitted facts, held that the men whose employment was terminated were discriminatorily selected for discharge because of their union activities. Each of these four components creates its own problems.
In earlier decisions in this circuit, we have said that because reinstatement of a discharged employee may be considered a penalty, the evidence of discrimination should be compelling. We said, too, that the Board should accept the employer's testimony if the evidence gives equal support to the employer's explanation and the inference of discrimination, since the employer, testifying under oath, is in a position to know the motive. N. L. R. B. v. Houston Chronicle, 5 Cir. 1954, 211 F.2d 848; N. L. R. B. v. Tex-O-Kan Flour Mills Co., 5 Cir.1941, 122 F.2d 433. However, many times, too often to cite, we have stated and restated the substantial evidence rule as phrased by the Supreme Court in Universal Camera and Walton. And, at least since our decision in N. L. R. B. v. Coats & Clark, 5 Cir.1956, 231 F.2d 567, 572, we have held that we cannot disturb the Board's choice if there is a fair conflict between the employer's testimony and a reasonable inference of discrimination. See N. L. R. B. v. Walton Mfg. Co., 5 Cir.1963, 322 F.2d 187, 189; N. L. R. B. v. Florida Citrus Canners' Cooperative, 5 Cir.1963, 311 F.2d 541. In N. L. R. B. v. Walton Mfg. Co., 1962, 369 U.S. 404, 409, 82 S.Ct. 853, 7 L.Ed.2d 829, the Supreme Court eliminated any residual doubt left over from Tex-O-Kan and reaffirmed the tenet that the employer's reasons for his conduct in a discriminatory discharge case are to be given no more weight than in any other type of case under the Act: "There is no place in the statutory scheme for one test of the substantiality of evidence in reinstatement cases and another test in other cases." 369 U.S. at 407, 82 S.Ct. at 855, 7 L.Ed. at 832.
Still, under Walton and Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 1950, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456, we must give the employer's testimony whatever weight it deserves in the light of the record as a whole. The employer testifies under oath, and the employer is the only one in a position to know why an employee is discharged. The employer's testimony cannot be lightly disregarded. N. L. R. B. v. Florida Citrus Canners' Cooperative. However, an 8 (a) (3) violation always depends on the employer's intent. Those who testify to the circumstances by which the elusive fact of intent must be proved testify under the same oath used by the employer. The employer's oath carries no more weight than an employee's oath.
Universal Camera spells out the role of the Trial Examiner. There, the Board reversed the Trial Examiner; the Court of Appeals disregarded his findings. The Supreme Court held that the Board's findings must be affirmed if substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the Board, but the Court also made it clear that the findings of the Trial Examiner are a part of the record, and must be given whatever weight they merit in the circumstances of each case.7
When the Board and the Trial Examiner disagree, the Board takes into account the evidence discredited by the Trial Examiner as well as other evidence; it is still part of the record. Similarly, this Court takes into account the evidence relied on by the Trial Examiner as well as the evidence relied on by the Board. The Board may rely on inferences in conflict with testimony the Examiner credits. And this Court may rely on the Board's inferences rather than testimony the Examiner credits. As the Second Circuit puts it:
"In reaching this conclusion he [the Examiner] relied largely on the testimony of * * * the Company's manager, as to what his intentions were. The Board, on the other hand, drew contrary inferences from the undisputed facts. Although the Board may not overrule its Trial Examiner by discarding the positive credible testimony of a witness in favor of an inference drawn from tenuous circumstances * * * it may refuse to follow its Trial Examiner in crediting testimony where it conflicts with well supported and obvious inferences from the rest of the record. Such refusal is particularly justified where the testimony in question is given by an interested witness and relates to his own motives." (Emphasis supplied.) N. L. R. B. v. Pyne Molding Corp., 2 Cir. 1955, 226 F.2d 818.
One of the basic premises of Universal Camera is that, "The findings of the examiner are to be considered along with the consistency and inherent probability of testimony". 340 U.S. at 496, 71 S.Ct. 469, 95 L.Ed. 472. (Emphasis supplied.) This principle is part of the trend towards more liberal rules governing evidence and methods of proof: "However halting its progress, the trend in litigation is toward a rational inquiry into truth, in which the tribunal considers everything `logically probative of some matter requiring to be proved.'" 340 U.S. at 497, 71 S.Ct. at 469. The trend includes inferences based on common sense recognition of probabilities.
Camco argues against the Board's playing a "numbers game". But courts have long accepted an inference of discrimination based on the percentage of discharged employees involved in union activities. Courts should. A man cannot cross a street without first having made a flash calculation of his chances of reaching the other side, based on his experience with the law of probabilities. In more legal language, in N. L. R. B. v. The Newton Company, 5 Cir.1956, 236 F.2d 438, 445-446, we said:
"Evidence is admissible in a proceeding to determine whether or not there has been anti-union discrimination in a lay-off of the percentage of union adherents involved. * * * The drawing of such inferences as are to be drawn from percentage testimony is within the province of the Board and if reasonably drawn, the inference is evidence, and with other evidence may be substantial evidence such as to entitle the Board's finding based thereon to our acceptance."
In Newton the Court found that the inferences were overbalanced by other evidence in the case. But this Court and other courts have relied on such inferences as a basis for enforcing the Board's orders. See N. L. R. B. v. Nabors, 5 Cir.1962, 196 F.2d 272, 275-276 cert. den'd, 1952, 344 U.S. 865, 73 S.Ct. 106, 97 L.Ed. 671; N. L. R. B. v. Sandy Hill Iron & Brass Works, 2 Cir.1947, 165 F.2d 660, 663; N. L. R. B. v. Dinion Coil Co., 2 Cir.1952, 201 F.2d 484; cf. Stokeley Foods, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 5 Cir.1952, 193 F.2d 736. If there is a choice between "two fairly conflicting inferences", we must uphold the Board. N. L. R. B. v. Coats & Clark.
If we should consider only the testimony of the respondent and the employees and for the moment disregard the Examiner's findings and the Board's inferences, we should say that the evidence on both sides is about even. Camco's management and supervisors testified that they did not know the identity of the union adherents, and that they selected the men on February 8, before the union activity began. This testimony was internally consistent. It was not weakened to any extent on cross examination. According to the testimony of the discharged employees, the Camco foremen and the supervisor told them that Camco knew who the union adherents were, or would soon know. The Camco foremen and supervisor also said that the union adherents would soon be fired. Some but far from all of this testimony was weakened on cross examination. The discharged employees were corroborated by Baggett, a union adherent who was not fired and was still working for Camco at the time of the hearing. Only Baggett seems free of self interest.
If we add to the testimony the Board's inferences drawn from admitted facts, the record weighs very heavily against Camco. Camco bases its version of the facts on an incredible series of coincidences.
As noted in the discussion of the interrogation issue, ten of the eleven men questioned were union adherents. But there were only sixteen union adherents in the production department where the men worked. Thus, of seventy four nonunion production employees, only one was questioned. We have to say that it is a fair inference that Camco must have known the identity of most of the union adherents.
Of the sixteen union adherents, Camco discharged eleven. Camco discharged not one of the seventy four non-union employees. Again we have to say that it is a fair inference that Camco based the discharges on the discriminatees' actual union activity and Camco's knowledge of the fact the discriminatees favored organization of a union at the plant.
This only begins the chain of coincidences. There is a close correlation between the men questioned and the men discharged, whether we examine the totals or the number under each foreman.8
One further inference weakens Camco's explanation. Camco's management testified that some men were terminated in January to cut production costs in the face of lagging sales. The men were terminated a day or two after Camco made the decision. On February 7 Camco supposedly drew up a list of men to be discharged eight days later. Camco offered no evidence to explain the delay. The supposed eight days delay included the beginning and the end of the union activity at Camco. The Board could reasonably infer that Camco did not in fact select the employees before the union activity began.
Camco objects to the Board piling inference upon inference. The so-called rule against pyramiding inferences, if there really is such a "rule" and if it is anything more than an empty pejorative, is simply legalese fustian to cover a clumsy exclusion of evidence having little or no probative value. See 1 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940) § 41. In labor discrimination cases the employer usually resorts to the rule when knowledge of union activity and discriminatory motive rest on the same bit of evidence. See e. g., N. L. R. B. v. Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 5 Cir.1955, 222 F.2d 341; Interlake Iron Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 7 Cir.1942, 131 F.2d 129. Here, however, there is a broad base supporting the inference of knowledge and the inference of motivation. Call them "findings" or "conclusions" and they may be piled on inferences. Here, the inferences rest on many admitted facts: the total number of union adherents, the total number of production employees, the total number of union men and nonunion employees questioned, the total number of discharged employees questioned, the total number of union and nonunion employees questioned and discharged in each section of the production department, the unexplained lapse of time between the supposed decision to fire and the actual discharge of the men. There are other significant factual bases on which the Board rests its inferences. In short, the multiple inferences in this case have sufficient probative value to be weighed in the Board's and this Court's reaching a decision. See N. L. R. B. v. W. C. Nabors.
This case is well within the limits marked out by earlier cases. In N. L. R. B. v. Walton Mfg. Co. the Board's finding was supported by some employee testimony which directly conflicted with the employer's explanation, but the inference based on the percentage of men discharged was not as strong as the inference in this case, since only slightly more than half of the discharged employees were union adherents. In N. L. R. B. v. W. C. Nabors there were veiled threats to union adherents but there was no mass of testimony of direct statements that the union adherents would be fired. There was a strong statistical inference (twenty three of the twenty six men discharged were union adherents); in this case all of the men discharged were union adherents. In N. L. R. B. v. Dell, 5 Cir., 283 F.2d 733, as in the present case, all of the discharged employees were union adherents but a large percentage of the employees as a whole were not. We said:
"But it seems to us that it was more than a coincidence that each discharged employee was active in the Union organizing movement and each was discharged during the period when the Company was opposing the Union by threats, promises, and other unlawful acts of interference. The record fairly permits the conclusion that anti-union motivation lay behind the Company's action." 283 F.2d at 736.
Most of the cases denying enforcement lacked at least one of the factors pointing to discrimination in this case, or there were circumstances which weakened their probative value. Many cases which hold against the Board involved the discharge of a single employee. See e. g., N. L. R. B. v. Fox Mfg. Co., 5 Cir.1956, 238 F.2d 211; N. L. R. B. v. Birmingham Publishing Co., 5 Cir.1958, 262 F.2d 2; Schwob Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 5 Cir.1962, 297 F.2d 864, 870; Bon-R Reproductions, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 2 Cir.1962, 309 F.2d 898, 905-06. In these cases there was no inference based on the percentage of union adherents discharged to rebut the employer's testimony. Some cases of group firings completely lack any basis for an inference resting on the percentage of union men fired. Thus, in N. L. R. B. v. Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 5 Cir.1961, 293 F.2d 300, we held that the Board was not supported by substantial evidence because only half of the employees discharged were union adherents, and half the total number of employees were union adherents; there was no evidence at all that the company knew about the union activities of many of the men discharged. In other cases of group firings, the percentage inference may be overcome by strong evidence that there was "cause" for the discharge or that the company did not know who the union adherents were. N. L. R. B. v. The Newton Co., 5 Cir., 236 F.2d 438, held that the discharge of a high percentage of union adherents was not discriminatory in that the selection followed a non-discriminatory company rating system. N. L. R. B. v. Moore Dry Kiln Co., 5 Cir. 1963, 320 F.2d 30, 33, held that the inference based on statistics was inadequate, because there was a lack of evidence that the company knew the men were union adherents and because most of the men were discharged on a basis of strict seniority.
It would serve no useful purpose to add pages to this opinion by discussing the case of each employee who was discharged. This Court has read and re-read the entire record. We find that only McMen and Cox were discharged for cause.
Except as to the reinstatement of McMen and Cox, we grant enforcement of the Board's order.
The Board found it "unnecessary to consider other conduct also alleged as violations of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act as any findings thereon would not affect the scope of the Order." We have considered such other conduct to the extent it throws light on the employer's motivation in the interrogation and discharge of the employees
Bok, The Regulation of Campaign Tactics in Representation Elections under the National Labor Relations Act. 78 Harv.L.Rev. 38, 106 (1964)
Bok, n. 2 at 107
"[T]he Board is required to determine the significance of particular acts of interrogation in the light of the entire record in the case." Blue Flash Express, Inc., 1954, 109 NLRB 591
This Court has recognized the coercive effect of interrogation in a variety of cases. The test is whether the questioning tends to be coercive, not whether the employees are in fact coerced. N. L. R. B. v. American Mfg. Co., 5 Cir. 1943, 132 F.2d 760. A few isolated instances of questioning may not be coercive if there is no background of company hostility to the union. N. L. R. B. v. Fuchs Baking Co., 5 Cir. 1953, 207 F.2d 737; N. L. R. B. v. Armour & Co., 5 Cir. 1953, 213 F.2d 625. Nor do a few casual questions violate Section 8(a) (1), if there is no evidence of threats of reprisal or promises of reward. N. L. R. B. v. Mississippi Products Co., 5 Cir. 1954, 213 F.2d 670. Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Harbison-Fischer Mfg. Co., 5 Cir., 1962, 304 F.2d 738, 740 (dissenting opinion). But a few questions may be coercive, if there is even slight evidence of threats or if employees are asked to become informers. N. L. R. B. v. Fox Mfg. Co., 5 Cir. 1956, 238 F.2d 211. Even a single question put to a single employee may be a violation, if there is a background of union hostility. N. L. R. B. v. Griggs Equipment, Inc., 5 Cir. 1962, 307 F.2d 275. As the Court stated in Griggs: "The statements in and of themselves might possibly be lawful and non-coercive, but viewed in its entirety, there is sufficient evidence of a background of union hostility in context with the statements made to bring them within the proscription of § 8(a) (1) of the Act." 307 F.2d at 278. Questioning a large number of employees is coercive, if there is evidence of union hostility, such as statements by the company president to one or two workers. Martin Sprocket & Gear Co. v. N. L. R. B., 5 Cir. 1964, 329 F.2d 417; accord, N. L. R. B. v. Harbison-Fischer Mfg. Co., 5 Cir. 1962, 304 F.2d 738. Other cases hold that a poll of all or most employees violates Section 8(a) (1) even if there are few other circumstances which show coercive effect. Texas Industries, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 5 Cir. 1964, 336 F.2d 128; N. L. R. B. v. Aycock, 5 Cir. 1964, 328 F.2d 314. Questioning is also much more likely to be coercive, if there is no attempt to reassure the employees against reprisals. Martin Sprocket & Gear Co. v. N. L. R. B., 5 Cir. 1964, 329 F.2d 417, 419-420. Interrogating key employees during an organizational drive makes the company's anti-union message easier to read than interrogating a few employees at random. See e. g., N. L. R. B. v. Syracuse Color Press, 2 Cir. 1954, 209 F.2d 596, 597, cert. denied, 1954, 347 U.S. 966, 74 S.Ct. 777, 98 L.Ed. 1108, discussed in N. L. R. B. v. Harbison-Fischer Mfg. Co., 5 Cir. 1962, 304 F.2d 738, 744 (dissenting opinion)
"We do not require that the examiner's finding be given more weight than in reason and in the light of judicial experience they deserve. The `substantial evidence' standard is not modified in any way when the Board and its examiner disagree. We intend only to recognize that evidence supporting a conclusion may be less substantial when an impartial, experienced examiner who has observed the witnesses and lived with the case has drawn conclusions different from the Board's than when he has reached the same conclusion. The findings of the examiner are to be considered along with the consistency and inherent probability of testimony. The significance of his report, of course, depends largely on the importance of credibility in the particular case. * * *" 340 U.S. at 496, 71 S.Ct. at 469, 95 L.Ed. at 472
Foreman Cook admitted that he questioned only four men, Bounds, Locke, Ledbetter and Irby. Four of the eleven men discharged were under his supervision. These four were the same four whom Cook had questioned about their union activities, Bounds, Locke, Ledbetter and Irby. Cook must have known these four men were union adherents and must have recommended their discharge for that reason
The correlation of men questioned and men discharged on Foreman O'Pry's shift is almost as close. O'Pry testified that he questioned seven men, Carrier, Cox, Clepper, McCall, Baggett, Yeager, and Williams. Four men were discharged from O'Pry's shift. These four were Carrier, Cox, Clepper, and McCall. All four of these men discharged from O'Pry's shift were union adherents and they were among the seven whom O'Pry questioned. According to O'Pry, Carrier, Clepper, McCall and Baggett admitted their union activity and Cox, Yeager, and Williams denied it. All seven were union adherents except Williams. But the testimony of the six union adherents whom O'Pry questioned was very different. Yeager and Baggett both testified that they did not tell O'Pry that they had been to the union meeting. Yeager and Baggett were the two union adherents who were not discharged. Of the four union adherents who were discharged, three admitted that they told O'Pry they had attended the union meeting. The fourth, Cox, admitted that he did not tell O'Pry that he had attended the meeting, but someone else told him that O'Pry had said he knew Cox had been at the meeting. From all this the Board could reasonably infer that O'Pry selected for discharge those who admitted their union activity.
Three employees were discharged who were not under Foreman O'Pry or Cook. Of the three, McMen was discharged summarily on Tuesday, February 13. The second, John Hughes, did not testify at the hearing. Neither O'Pry nor Cook was asked whether he had questioned Hughes. The third, Barnett, testified that Foreman O'Pry did ask him whether he had attended the union meeting. O'Pry admitted that he had talked to Barnett but denied that he questioned him about the union activity. Barnett worked under Foreman Alexander on the first shift, and O'Pry was a foreman on the second shift. It is very curious that O'Pry happened to speak to a man who did not work under him, who was on a different shift, and who happened to be one of the eleven men discharged several days later. The Board could reasonably accept Barnett's testimony.
The connection between questioned men and men discharged is too close to be an accident. If we accept Barnett's testimony that he was questioned, we get the following totals. Of the eleven union men questioned, nine were discharged and the other two testified that they did not admit their union activity. Of the eleven union men discharged, nine were questioned, there was no evidence either way about the tenth, and the eleventh (McMen) was a union leader discharged summarily the day the questioning began. Yet only one of the approximately seventy four nonunion employees was questioned. From all this we can only infer that Camco selected those employees, who, to the best of Camco's knowledge, were union adherents.


I've just been sorting out all my photographs from a half term break up in the Lake District when I remembered that I hadn't finished telling you about our Easter trip to Norfolk! I think I need to start a blog calender so I keep on top of things a little better!
So, I'd managed to share our day at the brilliant BeWILDerwood – but that was just part of our adventure. We spent the rest of our mini break much closer to the coast. Alex, having read all the leaflets in our holiday cottage, was desperate to visit an aquarium, so after much begging, we headed over to Hunstanton to the SeaLife Centre there.
It was a really gloomy day, and we were a bit concerned when we arrived after an hour long drive to find a pretty rundown looking building on a tired seafront. But it was actually excellent. The children loved the activity trail and spent ages watching all the different aquatic displays. They particularly enjoyed feeding these enormous jungle fish!
We spent ages in the little seal hospital reading the stories of all the creatures being rehabilitated at the sealife centre – there were some really sad tales, but the residents seemed to be doing really well!
Probably the highlight was nothing to do with the sea – instead, the kids loved getting to hold big bugs!
The heavy clouds that had been threatening to rain all day finally delivered – and we all got soaked running for shelter. But the discomfort was short-lived because the most beautiful rainbow came out as soon as the rain stopped. Alex and Sophie desperately tried to find some treasure on the beach!
Our final day on the Norfolk coast dawned sunny and bright, so we decided to get our hiking boots on and walk from Blakeney to Stiffkey. It was a good few miles, but the walking was easy and the views far-reaching across the marshes.
We hopped on the brilliant coastal bus at Stiffkey and travelled into Wells-Next-The-Sea for a well-deserved fish and chips lunch before catching the little Wells Harbour train out to the most enormous beach.
The sun was finally a bit warmer, so we stripped off our coats and enjoyed an hour playing in the sand and admiring the beautiful beach huts.
We didn't get anywhere near the actual sea!
It was a wonderful day – only marred by Sophie getting the most enormous splinter in her hand! But things improved after some emergency tweezer action, and we enjoyed one more lovely evening in the pool at our cottage complex in Weybourne.
We were up early the next morning to enjoy croissants on the local beach before heading home to London via our NCT friends in Cambridge.
It was a short, but rather lovely Easter trip – and I'm keen to get back up to see more of Norfolk. We only managed to scratch the surface in our mini-break.
That looks like so much fun and fresh air too.
I thought Cornwall had big beaches but these are huge. I can see why you never made it to the sea. Love the look of the sea life place and wow to the size of those bugs. they look like over sized worms! You really did pack a lot into your mini break and it sounds like you've had plenty more adventures since too, I have a blog calendar and can thoroughly recommend it for keeping events organised.


text:
30. Russell Albanese
The Albanese Organization is one of the leading green developers in our area and the credit surely has to go in no small part to Russell Albanese, the far-thinking chairman of the Garden City-based company. Just a couple of years ago the Long Island Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council honored him at its annual gala at Oheka Castle because of his notable accomplishments in making energy-saving—as well as planet-saving—buildings a priority. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Albanese Organization manages 5 million square feet of space in its portfolio, and of that, 60 percent is residential, 24 percent is office-related, and the rest is hotel, retail and other uses. Last year, Albanese broke ground on Wyandanch Village, a $500 million, 40-acre mixed-use neighborhood in one of the most deserving communities on Long Island. This environmentally aware developer also serves on the boards of Sustainable Long Island, the Nature Conservancy and Long Island Youth for Christ.
29-james-daddario
31-dean-skelos


text:
Series Preview and Predictions: Cubs vs. Brewers at Wrigley Field
by Dustin Riese - Staff Writer - Thursday, August 13, 2020, 12:03 PM
Cubs are back at Wrigley Field
After coming away with a two-game sweep of Cleveland and a 3-1 mini road trip record, the Cubs (12-3) return home for a 10-game homestand starting with Milwaukee (7-9) today. This four-game with the Brewers will be the second series of the season between the two, but will also be the final time the Cubs see the Brewers at home.
These two teams locked up on the opening weekend in which the Cubs pitching handcuffed the Brewers in two of those three games to take the series 2-1. Since then, these teams have been trending in different directions with the Cubs sporting the best mark in the majors while the Brewers are struggling to reach .500. Chicago currently holds a 5.5 game lead over Cincinnati and Milwaukee heading into this series, but things can change quickly as the Brewers know how to beat the Cubs.
Thursday at 6:15 p.m. CT on Marquee Sports Network: Brett Anderson (0-1, 5.40 ERA) vs. Yu Darvish (2-1, 2.12 ERA)
One of the Brewers offseason acquisitions was adding veteran lefty Brett Anderson to the rotation. After missing his first start of the season with a blister issue, Anderson has not looked good since returning getting walloped in each of his two outings. Cubs fans should be familiar with his name as he was the No. 5 starter for them in 2017, before missing the final five months with back injuries.
Although the Cubs don't have much experience against him, the ones who have seen him have great success as all six hitters have seen him have a 286 average or higher. The Cubs would like that to continue today. Opposing him is Darvish, who continues his strong run with the Cubs. After dropping his first start of the season to this Brewers club, Darvish has bounced back with two great outings showing he can be both crafty and overpowering.
The key to his last two outings has been his ability to keep the ball in the yard. While the Brewers are struggling to hit the ball as a team, they have been hitting lots of home runs lately, which Darvish is prone to giving up. I'm sure Darvish would like a nice bounce-back performance from his last time out against Milwaukee.
Friday at 7:15 p.m. CT on Marquee Sports Network and MLB Network (out of market): Brandon Woodruff (1-1, 2.53 ERA) vs. Tyler Chatwood (2-1, 5.40 ERA)
Much like Darvish, Woodruff's only loss came to the Cubs during a 3-0 opening day shutout. Woodruff didn't pitch awful in that game, but had a hard time putting hitters away and saw his pitch count rise rapidly. That will be the key for the Cubs once again in this one as Woodruff is looking exactly like the ace Milwaukee expected him to be.
On the other hand, Chatwood is coming off his worst outing as a Cub and perhaps the worst of his career. He allowed 8 ER in just 2 1/3 inning last time out and saw his ERA rise from 0.72 to 5.40. The one encouraging sign from that start was the walk column as he didn't walk a single hitter in that outing. That continues to be the most significant change this season for Chatwood as his walk total is very low.
We have seen how good Chatwood can be primarily against the Brewers in his first start. I am hoping we get that version of Chatwood over what we saw last time out. Early on, we should get a good feel for Chatwood as the first inning dictates what he will be able to do. Even if guys like Christian Yelich, Keston Huira, and Justin Smoak continue to hit the ball well off him, Chatwood's ability to turn double plays can help eliminate the damage.
Saturday at 7:15 p.m. CT on Marquee Sports Network and MLB Network (out of market): Adrian Houser (1-1, 2.65 ERA) vs. Alec Mills (1-0, 1.38 ERA)
Much like Woodruff or even Corbin Burns for that matter, Houser is establishing himself as a pivotal piece to the Brewers long term pitching plans and has looked just as good as Woodruff in recent outings. He has also been blessed with past success against this Cubs lineup, so look for that to be a considerable factor.
Mills, on the other hand, will not only be making his first start in nine days but will be facing the Brewers for the first time in his career. Usually, I would love his chances against anyone given how he slows things down, but against this Milwaukee lineup, things could be dicey. Despite Brock Holt being the only Brewer with an at-bat against him, look for the Brewers to not only be patient but get some good swings off Mills.
Sunday at 1:20 p.m. CT on Marquee Sports Network and FSWI: Josh Lindblom (1-0, 5.68 ERA) vs. Jon Lester (2-0, 1.06 ERA)
Another offseason pitching acquisition, Lindblom was brought in on a multi-year deal in hopes of solidifying the back end of the Brewers rotation. After struggling in his past MLB tenures, Lindblom went to the KBO for a few years to figure things out and has now returned stateside.
Looking at his ERA, you wouldn't think too highly of it. However, much like Chatwood, Lindblom struggled in one of his outings but pitched well enough to win his other starts. Not known as a guy who will blow you away, the Cubs hitters need to be ready as they will see lots of strikes and off-speed stuff from this righty.
Pitching the series finale for the Cubs will be the bulldog, Jon Lester. Although his strikeout numbers haven't been great through three starts, he has been the team's most consistent arm this season, but the best starter in the rotation through three starts looking like an ace again. Lester appears to have reinvented himself as a pitcher as he now pitches to contact working the lower part of the strike zone and corners.
Pitching to contact tends to work sometimes, but against this Brewers lineup, you never know. They are an aggressive team at the plate and won't hesitate to swing the bat. Sometimes pitching to contact is a good thing because they are overly aggressive, but sometimes it doesn't work because they will make you pay for your mistakes. Lester pitched to a 3.79 ERA against Milwaukee last season, but his career has an ERA of 4.35 against the Brewers. Guys like Yelich, Ryan Braun, and Jedd Gyorko have all had success against him, so keeping their bats in check will be huge.
Looking at the teams on paper, you would think this would be another series win in the Cubs favor. While that still could be the case, I don't think it will be easy as I look for the teams to play to a 2-2 split. In terms of starting pitching, you have to give the Cubs the advantage as they have been the best in overall starting pitching this season.
Offensively, things are about even as both teams are struggling to hit the ball overall as a team. The Cubs have shown the ability to put together big innings when needed in clutch situations. The problem the Cubs have had in recent seasons is handling high velocity and unfamiliar pitchers. That is precisely what the Brewers are throwing at the Cubs this weekend, which will be interesting to see how Chicago adapts.
Ultimately, I think three of these games could come down to the bullpen, and although better as of late, the Brewers have the edge there. I like the Cubs chances of getting to the middle relief, but if they trail in the eighth inning at any point, look for Josh Hader to come on for six out saves. If the Cubs can avoid him, you have to feel good about them winning another series.
X-Factors
This might be the only time I list two relief pitchers as an X factor, but both Rowan Wick and Jeremy Jeffress are ones. Craig Kimbrel struggles to get things done in the ninth, David Ross has had to adjust on the fly, and both Jeffress and Wick have been his stoppers. Jeffress was signed as a free agent and has gone seven scoreless innings without allowing a hit this season.
E-N-E-R-G-Y
Jeremy Jeffress' ERA in 7 games? 0.00 pic.twitter.com/Nsh5eS7Qy3
— Marquee Sports Network (@WatchMarquee) August 13, 2020
Wick emerged in the second half last season as a future arm in the Cubs pen and has proven to be trusted in high leverage situations again this season. Should the Cubs have the lead in a tight game late, look for these to get the ball over Kimbrel right now.
Tags: Brett Anderson, Yu Darvish, Tyler Chatwood, Alec Mills, Jon Lester, Rowan Wick, Jeremy Jeffress, Craig Kimbrel, David Ross
Send Feedback to Dustin Riese: Email | Comment
Latest Brett Anderson News
Past due time for Cubs to develop home-grown pitching
Comeback Cubs: Ninth-inning rally results in Cubs victory over Brewers
Cameron Maybin scratched from Saturday's lineup, Brewers starting pitcher out
Brewers win war of attrition versus Cubs in walkoff fashion
Series Preview, X-factors and Prediction: Cubs vs. Brewers
Yu Darvish takes no-hitter into seventh inning as Cubs down Brewers
Breaking down Cubs 2020 Opponents: Milwaukee Brewers
Ranking the Cubs postseason teams of the 2000s
Cubs News and Notes: Hoyer on offseason, Bryant's future, Jeffress, Addison Russell, more
Cubs News and Notes: Morrow is back, Darvish inquiries, Rule 5 Draft, Hot Stove, more
Commentary: If the Cubs could re-do blockbuster trades, would they?
Cubs News and Notes: Lester rocked, Zobrist's comeback, Wisdom from Ross, more
WATCH: Kris Bryant puts Cubs on scoreboard with 439-foot 2-run jack
Chicago Cubs lineup: Albert Almora Jr. in CF, Bote in 2B
Cubs News and Notes: Fly the W, Kimbrel to the IL, Contreras update, Elton Rizzo, more
Cubs vs. Athletics Series Preview: TV times, Starting pitchers, Predictions, more
Cubs News and Notes: Fly the W, Bryant injury update, Zo's highlights, No walk-zone, more
Cubs News and Notes: Fly the W, Contreras injured, Zo's comeback, Morrow's plan, more
Cubs give up big inning in blowout loss to A's
The Hot Corner: Cubs taking BP, Maddon on Russell, Cubs injury, Epstein on racist emails
FA Breakdown: Who's left for the Cubs?
145 MLB players become free agents including six Cubs players
Maddon fires back on Anderson's classless jab
Former pitcher takes a classless jab at Cubs
Former Cubs pitcher signs with Blue Jays
Cubs designate LHP for assignment
Brett Anderson injury update
Report: Cubs interested in former CY Young Award winner
Cubs make roster moves involving La Stella, Grimm, and more
Anderson: "Nobody feels worse than I do"
Most Read Brett Anderson News
Cubs to switch up pitching rotation
Miguel Montero pitches the 9th inning vs. Yankees
Maddon announces Cubs' pitching rotation
Cubs lineup vs. Brewers on Friday
Cubs lineup vs. Padres on Sunday
Cubs lineup vs. Reds on Sunday
Cubs lineup vs. Rockies on Saturday
Cubs lineup vs. Reds on Saturday
First Look: Cubs series vs. Brewers
Cubs lineup vs. Brewers on Saturday
WATCH: Anderson discusses joining rotation
WATCH: Anderson admits Wrigley debut was grind
Cubs lineup vs. Dodgers for Thursday
WATCH: Anderson dives wildly out of way of Rizzo's throw
Cubs lineup vs. Pirates on Monday
Cubs lineup vs. Yankees, Schwarber out
Contreras on playing every day: "It's getting a lot easier"


You know I'm a Pinterest-aholic ... Its a great way to share ideas, makes and tips ... as well as recipes.
Being busy with college has left me a little overwhelmed when it comes to the kitchen but now that i am finished all my assessments, i can concentrate more on being creative (I hope).
Dinners have been very basic recently. It needed to be quick which meant we usually have the same things over and over ... Boring!
Take the pizza dough out of the fridge about 30 minutes before you need to start as it makes it more pliable.
Unwrap the dough so it lies flat on the work surface.
Spread a layer of the tomato puree over the dough (use as little or as much as you like).
Sprinkle over your toppings. Try to leave about 3cm at the top so there is plenty of room to wrap it.
Tuck the corner into itself and start to wrap the dough. Keep it tight and roll to the end. It will look like a giant swiss roll.
Place the rolls into the oiled dish and pop in the oven for 15-20 minutes till its slightly browned and the cheese has melted.
Follow Sarah-Jane's board Scrumptious Savoury on Pinterest.


text:
Q: Can I avoid required svn add [dir] on branch? SVN seem to require me to run
svn add [dir]

if I add a directory in local branch (and whats it to be versioned).
Can I make SVN more clever than this default behavior?
Or is the easiest approach to run
svn add .

in project root before any commit?
regards,
//t
edit:
svn add --force ./*

that is..

A: Subversion will not track a file unless you instruct it to. That's by design and I think it's a good design: it sounds more intuitive to select stuff you want into version control (something that needs to be done once) than to un-select stuff you don't want (which you'd possibly need to do on every commit ever).
Said that, you might feel more comfortable with a GUI tool since most graphical clients allow to add and commit in a single step.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
HBLB Release Education Investment Programme For 2015
The Horserace Betting Levy Board (HBLB) veterinary science and education investment programme for 2015 includes 14 new research projects and three new scholarships, the latter intended to attract top calibre veterinary surgeons to the equine arena.
The HBLB's Veterinary Advisory Committee (VAC) will again be managing new veterinary scientific research investment on behalf of The Racing Foundation, the Thoroughbred Breeders' Association (TBA) and the British European Breeders Fund (BEBF). In addition to the funding allocation approved by HBLB of £1.8m (2014: £1.8m), £160,000 has been made available by the Foundation, and £20,000 by the BEBF and TBA.
Professor Willie Donachie, who retired from the role as Chair of the HBLB's VAC at the end of December 2014, said:
"It's good news for the future of Thoroughbred health and welfare not only that the HBLB is maintaining the level of its allocation to veterinary science and education, but also that our funding partners, The Racing Foundation, the TBA and the BEBF are continuing to invest in veterinary research. The VAC will again be taking responsibility for managing all the projects, making sure that the funders are kept up to date with progress."
Professor Celia Marr, who took over as Chair of the VAC on 1st January 2015, said:
"For us, good research has to be both scientifically robust and clearly relevant to the racing and breeding Thoroughbred. Our communications strategy this year will concentrate on making research outcomes available to and easily understood by the racing industry, and making promising young researchers aware of the huge range and opportunities in equine science. There is exciting, high quality work going on that is all for the benefit of the Thoroughbred."
Louise Kemble, Chief Executive of the TBA, said:
"The TBA is fully involved in the equine science research programme. This year we are looking forward to the final results of a current three-year PhD project at the Royal Veterinary College looking at early pregnancy loss and we will be supporting a small project that will be testing a possible new method of assessing umbilical cord changes in pregnant mares than can cause abortion. In addition, we are continuing, with the ROA and HBLB, to fund the Infectious Disease Service based at the Animal Health Trust.
"We would be very interested in ideas for future research projects concerning breeding, reproduction and youngstock and would encourage researchers to come forward if they have something promising in mind."
Chris Mills, Executive Officer of The Racing Foundation, said:
"The Racing Foundation is pleased to be able to fund two new applied research projects. One, into the post-natal development of tendons, has the potential to impact how young thoroughbreds are bought into racing to reduce injury risk, whilst the other, research into topical delivery systems, offers the prospect of enhancing the effectiveness of drug delivery to and through the skin of horses. Both projects therefore will be aiming to deliver very practical benefits for the horseracing and thoroughbred breeding industry."
Philip Freedman, Chairman of the BEBF, commented:
"The BEBF is committed to assisting in the funding of veterinary research. The study chosen for support in 2015 will be of long term benefit to breeders and those managing the performance of fillies and mares in training, both in Britain and further afield and we welcome the progress such work will produce."
All grant applications are assessed by the HBLB's VAC and external experts in accordance with the established procedure before being submitted to the Foundation, the BEBF and TBA. In addition, the VAC benefits from the advice of the British Horseracing Authority's Veterinary Committee in selecting projects for funding.
Six new research projects will be started in 2015, two of which will be part-funded by The Racing Foundation. To these will be added eight small projects which are designed to be completed within one year and provide an immediate applicable result. Two of these will be funded by the Thoroughbred Breeders' Association and the British European Breeders Fund.
Disease prevention and control remain of paramount importance, and work in this area will include investigation of potential mechanisms for the prevention or limitation of equine flu and the possibility of predicting future changes in the virus. In addition, the two related programmes based at the Animal Health Trust monitoring both influenza and other infectious diseases are being renewed this year following in depth review in 2014. Other projects will examine various aspects of infectious disease, respiratory problems, musculoskeletal sciences and orthopaedics.
Information on these new projects will be available shortly on the online resource at http://racehorsehealth.hblb.org.uk. The site also displays summaries of recent and current research on diseases and injuries of the Thoroughbred.
Proposed half a billion pound investment in British Racing
HBLB opens 2015 Equine Science Research and Education Awards Application Round
Defra/AHT/BEVA Equine Quarterly Disease Surveillance Report 4Q 2015
Outstanding programme announced for 25th National Equine Forum
Levy Board Publishes 2015/16 Business Plan with Projected Income Forecasts


text:
documentary & oral history studio
Dooky Chase
Longshoremen
Creole Italian
Making Modern N.O.
Student-Led Interviews
Films & Pubs
Technology & Instruction
by ivykate37
"No one else wants them": The Unfair Targeting of a Nursing Home
On the 25th of November, 1918, a piece was published in the Times Picayune about the necessity of play and diversion in a housewife's day. The article claims that to attain the balance and efficiency "for which American women are so justly celebrated", some fun and frivolousness should be indulged in. The article cites Mrs. George Wiegand, a member of the board for the Home for the Incurables, who points out that women can sink into "a sort of apathy" if they do not plan fun activities into their day. The article strangely compares housewives to patients of the Home for the incurables by suggesting that both show better results when given time to "play".
The House for the Incurables, which was established in 1891, still exists today. Now called the John J. Heinkel Home and Rehabilitation Center, the home is a non-profit organization located at 612 Henry Clay Avenue. Early on, the home served people with terminal illnesses and it was common for unwanted babies to be brought to the center (Alford). The home was often seen as a last resort for those who could not find or afford care anywhere else. Mary Brooks Rodrigue, the current owner of the home says of the history of Hainkel, "There weren't very many other nursing homes that would take them, so they came to Hainkel,".
Despite its necessity in New Orleans, the home received little state support through its history and many Louisiana Governors have tried to shut it down or deeply cut the budget. Former Senator John Hainkle pushed back by keeping the home open. The institution was renamed to Hainkle Home after his death in 2005 by then Congressman Bobby Jindal .
Hainkle Home continues to be one of the few options for New Orleanians on Medicaid or those who only receive Veteran's Administration coverage. However, in 2012 Jindal tried to close the institution. Jindal's case was supported by the State Department of Health who found many violations in the home, warranting the home to lose its nursing home certification. However, it is important to note these deficiencies only dated back to 2011, a transitional period for the home, since it was leased to a new nonprofit at that time. These problems tended to be relatively minor and none presented a threat to life. Some of the problems identified by the state were also out of the home's control. For example, in December of 2012 the home was cited for an incident in which a resident suffered a bath burn. The injury was suffered because a broken boiler that the state refused to replace (Alford).
Cheryl Gerber , The Advocate, James Cobb and patients of the Hainkel Home
Officials of the home at the time of the case said that the Department of Health and Hospitals was unfairly targeting the center. The Hainkel Home may have been targeted by the Jindal Administration in an effort to privatize health care. Another explanation for the push back against the home could be that sending its patients to another larger Louisiana home would bring the state additional Medicaid revenue. If the residents were moved to a facility in Jackson Louisiana, the State would earn $155 per day for each patient (Alford). When the State tried to close the home without due process in June of 2012, the case when to court with James Cobb as the Hainkel Home's attorney. In his defense, Cobb said of the residence "(they) are disabled, sick, mentally challenged. No one else wants them."
Cheryl Gerber, The Advocate, Members of Hainkel Home's staff
The Home ultimately won the case and stayed open. In 2014, the home received high marks on annual surveys carried out by the Department of Heath and Hospitals and no deficiencies were found (Cameran).
HainkelHome.com
Today, the nursing home prides itself on individualized care and a loving staff. In addition to nursing care, physical, speech, and occupational therapy, the staff form bonds with the residence by knitting sweaters and buying gifts (Nulty). Volunteers from local Universities also lend a hand. Rodrigue says of the volunteers, "Some come and do activities … singing, dancing, anything to get them involved. Sometimes volunteers read to them, sometimes they just sit there and listen." The home includes a barber and beauty shop on-site as well as a chapel, library, and courtyard. Residence are also visited weekly by dentists, podiatrists and ophthalmologists (Nulty).
Alford, Jeremy. "Closing Hainkel Home?" The Advocate, The Advocate, 16 Nov. 2012, http://www.theadvocate.com/gambit/new_orleans/news/the_latest/article_fc0d9a34-afe7-5b27-b103-32bd6be9c632.html
Blumenstein, Andrea. "John J. Hainkel Jr. Home and Rehabilitation Center." The Advocate, The Advocate, 27 Oct. 2014, http://www.theadvocate.com/gambit/new_orleans/cue_magazine/article_9123ef15-2d97-5418-ae25-f79a618145a3.html.
Camran, Mirella. "Hainkel Home Scores Top Marks." Louisiana Life, Jan. 2014, http://www.myneworleans.com/New-Orleans-Magazine/January-2014/Hainkel-Home-Scores-Top-Marks/.
Hearst Television Inc, director. State Tries to Shut down an Uptown Nursing Home. WDSU, WDSU, 5 Oct. 2017, http://www.wdsu.com/article/i-team-state-tries-to-shut-down-an-uptown-nursing-home/2567908.
"John J. Hainkel, Jr. Home & Rehabilitation Center." Hainkel Home, http://www.hainkelhome.com/.
"John J Hainkel Jr Home and Rehabilitation Center." U.S. News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, health.usnews.com/best-nursing-homes/area/la/john-j-hainkel-jr-home-and-rehabilitation-center-195149.
Nulty, Paige Rita. "What's in Store: Hainkel Home." The Advocate, The Advocate, 15 May 2017, http://www.theadvocate.com/gambit/new_orleans/cue_magazine/article_25461086-15dc-581f-83fd-58439059279d.html.
"The Arrow of Pi Beta Phi." Google Books, books.google.com/books?id=mzbPAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA353&lpg=PA353&dq=Mrs.%2BGeorge%2BWiegand%2Bnew%2Borleans&source=bl&ots=bqpltRhx0G&sig=R8XbtU4xWFbyzwlOmaQzdhjvgKE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj35bvYi-LeAhVQeKwKHVOvAMUQ6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Mrs.%20George%20Wiegand%20new%20orleans&f=false.
https://www.lasc.org/documents/LA_Supreme_Court_HCR_143_(2011)_Report.pdf
Previous New Orleans' Underpaid Teachers
Next No Use Crying Over Spilt Milk
Categories Select Category 1919 (34) Bogdanos Thesis (4) Deutsches Haus (5) Digital Humanities (78) Faculty Profiles (2) FCPX (4) featured (15) Instruction (8) Neutral Ground (10) OnThisDay (53) oral history (18) Restaurant Menus (43) service industry (9) tech (8) transcribing (4) Uncategorized (64)
What Would Your Major be in 1919
Mischievous Tots Trampled by Trolley
Caffeinating the Port of New Orleans
New Orleans trade with Mexico no longer threatened
Death Behind Bars
One Quarter, Two Blo… on Bibliography: One Quarter, Two…
One Quarter, Two Blo… on The D'Anna Family
One Quarter, Two Blo… on The Greco Family
One Quarter, Two Blo… on The Ruffino Family
Fall 2018 Service In… on Charlotte Jones
Bogdanos Thesis
transcribing


text:
Musings on Immigration The Fees, The Fees, Where are the Fees (Going Up!)
The Fees, The Fees, Where are the Fees (Going Up!)
Kuck Immigration Partners June 9, 2010 Blog Leave a Comment
The surprise announcement of a proposed fee increase at today's USCIS stakeholder meeting should take no one by surprise. USCIS plans to raise filing fees by "generally" 10% or so across the board, except for Naturalization (which is already at an outrageous $675, but will really now be $680) and Adjustment of Status, which is only going up 6% (by $55!!), but the Form I-140 filing fee is increasing by 20% to $580 and Premium Processing is skyrocketing to $1,225!!! USICS is doing this at a time when inflation has been basically nonexistent, there has been zero accountability from USCIS, and quality of service levels have dropped across the board.
Director Mayorkas has said that the USCIS is taking further steps to cut spending by $160 million from its $2.5 BILLION dollar budget (less than 1%). There is no doubt that USCIS is hamstrung by Congress, which gives USCIS virtually no funding. And, federal law is clear that USCIS does have to recoup some costs from users of its services. These mandatory recoverable costs include:
• Direct and indirect personnel costs, including salaries and fringe benefits such as medical insurance and retirement;
• Physical overhead, consulting, and other indirect costs, including material and supply costs, utilities, insurance, travel, and rents or imputed rents on land,buildings, and equipment;
• Management and supervisory costs; and
• The costs of enforcement, collection, research, establishment of standards, and regulation.
OMB Circular A-25, User Charges (Revised), par. 6, 58 FR 38142 (July 15, 1993). INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), also provides DHS broader discretion to include other costs in their "recapture" from filing fees.
A very interesting and potentially very expensive (for users) change in the regulations is that USCIS is setting up the new fee structure to NOT be tied to Form numbers, such that for the Form I-129, used for many nonimmigrant visas, they can charge separate and disparate filing fees for each type of visa. The USCIS also is now effectively limiting the types of Forms for which fees can be waived by rewriting the regulation on fee waivers.
What is disturbing to me is that there is nothing in the announcement about reducing the over-hiring from previous two years (staff cuts) or even reducing salaries. Frankly, that is the first place EVERY business in America starts. Heck, even the Department of Transportation had to furlough 2,000 people from its employee roles in March because of a budget fight with Senator Bunning. Why is there such a reluctance to cut positions or salaries?. It is quite clear that the USCIS is overstaffed. Otherwise how do you explain the extraordinary number of unnecessary and redundant Requests for Evidence from the Service Centers that appear to be nothing more than "make work" for examiners? Nor is there anything in the USCIS fee increase proposal about trimming other areas of its budget, including the virtually useless "call centers," employees benefits, or any other expense.
The real issue here is not necessarily the outrageousness of yet another fee increase, but really the source of funding for USCIS. More than 95% of USCIS's funding comes from user fees. I know of no other federal agency which gets this much of their funding directly from its users. In that respect, USCIS is in many ways like a private business. If Congress is mandating that USCIS be funded from is users like a private business, then USCIS needs to operate like a private business and be run as such. That would start with cutting not just "expenses" but overhead, which includes much of the over-hiring that was done in the previous administration.
Further, let's look at what we are NOT getting in this fee increase–quality control, employee accountability, and performance metrics. We don't know how USCIS measures its employees or its programs, and we do not know what criteria they use, particularly for "rogue" examiners who issue unnecessary and overbroad RFEs and denials. We are also getting no RATIONAL explanation for the HUGE fee increase for premium processing, other than the USCIS needs the extra money to modernize its systems!
Now, this is a proposed rule. So I strongly urge every person who reads this to submit formal comments on the proposed rule through www.regulations.gov. The comment period runs for 45 days, beginning June 11, 2010 and ending July 26, 2010. Additional detail on the methodology and data USCIS used to develop these fees will be available at www.regulations.gov on June 11, 2010. I would encourage us to voice our strong opposition to these fee increase until USCIS justifies this increase with better performance, and real budget cuts, not a superficial less than 1%!
immigrationImmigration Reformuscis fee increase; filing fees