Malignant mesothelioma is a rare and quick acting growth where no successful remedy exists in spite of the finding of quite a few possible genetic targets. The late stages of Malignant pleural mesothelioma diagnosis and the long period of time that connects exposures and diagnosis have made it tricky to comprehensively study what risk factors do and the insuing molecular effects.
Many hospitals are now seeing increasing numbers of patients with asbestos cancer. This presents pathologists involved in making the diagnosis with a number of problems, which can be broken up into those exposed in making the distinction between malignant mesothelioma and benign changes and those discovered in differentiating cancer of the mesothelium from different sorts of epithelial and connecting tissue tumors. IHC is a major factor in diagnosis, but it should be understood with due regard to the scientific setting and radiological characteristics, and taking into consideration the broad morphological variations that exist in mesothelioma.
Cancer of the mesothelium is a cancer affecting the serosal cavities, an anatomic site that is also frequently affected by mets, mostly from primary carcinomas of the ovary, lung and breast. Progression in IHC have resulted in enhanced diagnostic sensitivity and precision in the differential diagnosis in both cytological and histological material. Recently, the researchers used a high level of throughput technology to the classification of new flags that might assist in telling the difference between mesothelioma from ovarian and peritoneal serous carcinoma, tumors cells that contain closely related histogenesis and antigenic profile. In addition to the improved tools obtainable for serosal carcinoma diagnosis, knowledge regarding the biology of malignant mesothelioma has increased recently.
Plastics ultimately end up as litter, filling up landfills and obstructing water systems. Nonetheless, a great number of them eventually end up in the oceans. In fact, 60-80% of marine debris comes from plastic garbage. Because of this, over 1 million seabirds, 100,000 marine animals and innumerable fish are killed in the North Pacific every year since they usually ingest these plastics by accident. The presence of these indigestible materials in their digestive systems causes starvation and death.
According to recent studies, one ingredient, bisphenol A, which is used to manufacture hard polycarbonate plastics, may leak from food and drink containers if used regularly. Based on tests, the chemical may disrupt the endocrine system, promote the growth of some cancer cells and pose great threat to newborns and children.
Most plastics are made from petrochemicals and its dwindling supply accounts for oil price hikes. Petroleum has important uses such as in lighting, transport, factories, and more. According to statistics, around 100 billion plastic bags are used and thrown each year in the United States alone, and that is equivalent to 12 million barrels of oil. It goes without saying that it would be better if petroleum would be used for more relevant purposes other than the production of plastic bags.
At CEMEX, air quality is a priority with the cement company’s fusion of environment friendly programs and pro-safety policies
Smart Brief published an article about the Third Annual CEMEX U.S. Building Awards, which also highlights CEMEX air quality initiatives.
Learn more about CEMEX Air Quality on the Environmental Support Site.
You are in the previous investment trap when your bright idea goes south and you have so much invested you refuse to walk away, squandering additional time, money and effort on a salvage operation that will more than likely fail worse than the original idea. A business, a marriage, a purchase, a hobby - the trap is the same.
Iraq is a previous investment trap. The investment of political capital, money and blood for what began as a bad idea, carried on into a subsequent administration as a salvage operation. A man took it upon himself to wager the future of the world on a personal desire and ambition. He cannot say he was wrong and more than 500 leaders have stood behind him to one degree or another. Men and women of no higher moral character than the one who declares that people must die for his political dreams and objectives. To create a new and bankrupt world in accordance with his personal vision. Did I hear you say he of all people has the right? Who asked you? Who asks you about anything in this fine democracy?
Do you write letters to representatives who likely never see them and aides who are glad few people think like you? Maybe you too are in the previous investment trap, investing time, money and effort in ambitious ego maniacs obsessed by career and delusions of power.
Yet, the question is not who is to blame, the question is how to stop additional investment. The moral issues now fog the politics and economics. The first step in extraction is to tune out those who insist we must continue to salvage a bad investment, that no life has been lost in vain. That no injury has been sustained in vain. That no money spent or effort made in vain. So the losses mount as we are assured there is NO WAY OUT save continued investment. Does this not sound like a gambling addiction? This is why it is called the previous investment trap. A trap with no way out is like unto Guantanamo Bay where American Justice triumphs over evil. We might as well all hang ourselves, for there is no hope.
Why was Al Qaeda assisted in their escape from Konduz, Afghanistan in November, 2001 and later at Tora Bora only to lock up hundreds not Al Qaeda indefinitely in Cuba? Do you suppose deals are being struck, we know nothing about? Is it possible George Bush and Osama Bin Laden are on the same team? Heaven forbid huh? If it is an unproven fact, nobody wants it proven. Nobody wants it to be a fact. Good way to do abracadabra. “Watch closely while I secretly change the world before your very eyes.”
The way out is to announce your withdrawal and let the rest of the world step in and clean up a mess they refused to prevent. Americans are not alone in this mess and we can find other ways to assist our replacements or whoever is assisting the Iraqi people. But then, one man has sworn an oath saying that will never happen. America will stand with warring Iraqis come hell or high water. What man has the right to swear such an oath or the power to enforce it? Ignore him. He only imagines such things. An actor on a global stage, directing the play. Israel has paved the way to unilateral withdrawal as the U.S. has paved the way to preemptive strikes.
The ship of state is going down. Loyal Americans intend to go down with it because they are convinced there is no way out. Prayer, meditation, peace practices, the U.S. Peace Department, promised in the 2003 presidential election campaign, campaign finance reform - all offering no hope, no way out. The previous investment trap has become the American way, approved by the wisdom of majority. If you have hope, you might be un American - and you might have a future.
|
Ed Howes sought and found, knocked and entered. Now he sees things differently. To see more of what he sees, please visit http://www.justanotherview.com or do an author search here at Ezine Articles. Readers grow: wiser, faster, better. |
 |
The Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME) involves the
free flow of labour, goods and capital among participating
Caribbean Community (CARICOM) members states. The emergence, of
this single market means that legal and administrative
restrictions affecting trade, labour and technology within the
CARICOM region will generally be a thing of the past.
But one of the greatest advantages is that it will encourage
intra-regional trade and allow CARICOM states to negotiate as a
single entity. This will afford them a better opportunity to
influence policies concerning global trade. Perhaps the region
may soon be a force to reckon with in the next round of World
Trade negotiations.
The major issue for each state is whether its existing
businesses and workforce can survive the increased competition
when businesses that are more successful enter the local market.
Many states are uncertain as to whether their local economy can
survive the transition. From all indications, it appears that
the CSME is about survival. Businesses that do not have the
resources or capacity to compete will surely whither away.
States that fail to develop their capacity must prepare to deal
with economic calamity.
But the most debated issue is the implications for employment.
The free movement of labour is limited to qualified and skilled
persons. Therefore, the idea that with the emergence of the CSME
will result in mass movement of unskilled persons to more
prosperous member states seems far-fetched.
Of major concern to the Governments and people of the region is
the potential for an increase in local unemployment as a result
of more persons competing for the few available jobs. Another
concern is the increased pressure that may be placed upon social
and economic institutions, in the event of mass migration, and
their ability to cope. Governments of the region are exploring
various measures to assist the public and private sectors to
adapt. However, many are of the view that, the question of
whether these states have the resources to deal with negative
externalities including increases in crime, poverty and
unemployment levels is yet to be strategically addressed.
Whatever the issue, the CSME is a reality that all member states
must confront. At the end of the day, sink or float, it’s all
about survival of the fittest.
A STRATEGIC AND ESCHATOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE
This week (ending December 3, 2005) in Washington, D.C., the United States and Israel, after a three-year hiatus, resumed their “Strategic Dialogue.” This is differentvery different. Something far more significant has commenced between the two allies facing the likes of a burgeoning insurgency fed by an Iranian President who insists that “ISRAEL MUST BE WIPED OF THE MAP” and a resurgent Syrian-Hezbollah-Hamas (Baathist Socialist-Shiite-Sunni) alliance whose intentions mirror those of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a “World Without Zionism” (Haaretz).
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev claimed the Strategic Dialogue had broken off for “logistical reasons”not because tensions over upgrading Israel’s Harpy anti-radar aerial drones, originally purchased by China in the mid-’90s under Ehud Barak’s regime, were the actual cause of the estrangement (Israel sent the degraded drones back to China; ipso facto, it’s time to strategize (PINR)). Frankly, the US and Israel are harping about something else . . .
IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM MUST BE WIPED OFF THE MAP
Targeting March of 2006, IDF Military Intelligence Chief, Major General Aharon Ze’evi, and Ariel Sharon have given official notification: Israel is not apt to abide the diplomatic ineptitude of the French, Germans, and British with the Iranians in stemming the inevitable WMD and the delivery systems now in place to fulfill the visions of Ahmadinejad, Osama ben Laden, and Zarqawi on behalf of Israellet alone the aspirations of “democratic reforms” fashioned by Egypt’s Islamic Brotherhood (BBC)!
“‘If by the end of March 2006, the international community (i.e., the inane efforts of the British, French, and Germans) does not manage to use diplomatic means to block Iran’s effort to produce a nuclear bomb, there will no longer be any reason to continue diplomatic activity in this field, and it will be possible to say that the international attempts to thwart [Iran’s efforts] have failed,’ Ze’evi said.” (December 2, 2005, Haaretz)
Indeed, the pivotal Brits (perennial toadies of the US-Israeli Axis) have no need to fear a politically defunct EU aghast at what an attack on Iran might engender throughout the Moslem Worldat least not according to John Laughland in ICH:
“Will an attack on Iran put unacceptable strain on Euro-Atlantic relations? Will Britain be forced further onto the horns of the dilemma it has striven to avoid, namely to be forced to chose between the US and the EU? No. US and British policy has ensured that the EU will itself be in such turmoil over the next year that it will not be able to respond in any meaningful sense to a new act of Anglo-American aggression.”
As the “watch and see” Israelis reach “maximum vulnerability”the US-Israel “special relationship” may, like the Syrian-Iranian Defense Pact of early 2005 (Fox News), evolveby necessityinto a far more sinister tool of Western colonial imperialism. The Moslem Worldand think not that I stereotype all Moslems into that “world”is fixated, notwithstanding the ineffective fringe of moderate-secular Islam, upon the awful and inevitable prospect:
THE US-ISRAEL DEFENSE PACT
This is a huge enchilada to swallow; thence, we shall dismember this wildebeest in four stages: (1) The nature of such a Defense Pact; (2) The circuitous route through Israel’s history it’s taken; (3) Allies behind the pact; and (4) The eschatological imperative embedded within an ultimate security agreement between the US and Israel (let alone the scores of nations who will sign on to such an arrangement). No, I don’t wish to sound presumptuously prophetic; however, if you still can’t see the elephant in the picture (having been mesmerized by the white crane taking a free ride atop the pacaderm) then let me disabuse you of your preposterous pigeon-vision perspective and get a bit stereoscopic: BEHOLD, THE ELEPHANT COMETH!
First, let’s be clear, the aforementioned “strategic dialogue” between the USA and Israel is designed to put Iran on notice: The Elephant Cometh. Secondly, there’s no need to hide the obviousnothing like putting the whole world on notice, for we’re about to see the wave peak: The Sea Change Cometh!
Now, Herr Hitler in Mein Kampf said he intended to kill the Jewsgrief, he meant what he said. Well, today you have Radical Islamicists (who need little “doctrinal platform” from the Koran to launch their aspirations)double grief, they intend to “Wipe Israel off the map.” Next, you have the Commercial West, led by the political chutzpah of the USA and the shock and awe of history’s most awesome military machine ever to countenance the planetunder girded by the recalcitrant “Bush Doctrine”an amalgam of victorious democratic enforcement, buttressed by the Judeo-Christian-Evangelical-Zionist-Neocons, with the corporate elite picking up the rear, hoping they’ll get the contracts from this hyphenated juggernaut and the oil from not only Iraq, but also Iran et al.
Forgive, but at this juncture, the altruistic peaceniksyou know, the Air-head America Radio typeswho have the supercilious notion that a unilateral and immediate pullout of American troops from Iraq and the entire Middle East, along with keeping “international accords” and the like, will somehow regain American stature and alleged credibility in the world. Look, let’s just cut to the chase: The US Congress has spoken401 to 3. We’re staying put!
The Israelis and the US know that their “strategic-special relationship” is not built on thin airbut upon a host of platitudes: Shared values; Judeo-Christian beliefs; Cold War allies; pioneer spirit (settlers); only democracy in the Middle East; over a million Israelis holding dual US citizenship (approximately of the nation); both are terrorized by terroriststhe same ones; Israel’s identification with the West, ad nausea, ad infinitum. Whoops, and as the Moslem World sees it: Shared Western decadence and heretical religious affirmationsright smack in the midst of the 10/40 Corridor, the Holy Land which Saladin et all took fair and square from the Crusaders way back when!
“Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the deepening and strengthening of ties with the United States has always been a central, essential issue in Israeli foreign and defense policy. In this context, the possibility of establishing a formal defense pact with the United States has arisen from time to time . . . since the end of the Cold War and with the progress made in the peace process, some complex elements have been added . . . it is clear that the nature of such a pact in the current period would be significantly different from one during the Cold-War era” (Yair Evron, Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies-Strategic Assessment).
This only gets more specific . . . as Mr. Evronway back in October 1998outlines the reasons for such a “Defense Treaty between Israel and the U.S.” (minor editing):
1. When Israel-Syria negotiations are resumed, a defense pact is likely to serve as part of American ‘compensation,’ offered in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, or within the framework of American guarantees for developing a ‘package’ of security measures, which would undoubtedly constitute a central component of such an agreement.
2. The subject of a defense pact might also arise within the context of the possible ‘leakage’ into the region (Note: Veiled allusion here to, at the time, Iraq, and assuredly Iran and even Syriamy edit) of nuclear materials or weapons from Russia . . . a defense pact would be likely to moderate or preclude the development of dangerous conditions.
3. Assuming the peace process continues, it is likely that a regional security system will be established; an important component of this regime would be (predicated) on (an) Israeli-U.S. defense pact.
Again, Mr. Evron’s perceptions regarding such a defense pact clearly grasps the overall strategic understanding between the USA and Israel; however, if you wouldstrategic peculiarityof a defense pact occupies an “above and beyond” all Memoranda of Understanding, all elements of the existing strategic alliance between the two, and, most definitely, all existing military-cultural-religio affinities to wit:
“The idea of a defense treaty arose again in the 1970s and in the 1980s. During the Cold War period, the U.S. viewed Israel as a ’strategic asset’ and a stabilizing influence in the region . . . Israel clung to this perception in the hope that mutual strategic interests would serve as a foundation strong enough to formalize defense relations between the two countries, despite the absence of a solution to the problem of the territories occupied in 1967. The 1982 Lebanon War and the continuation of the regional conflict, however, prevented such formalization, and it appeared that the U.S. would not be prepared to protect Israel’s borders if those borders included the occupied territories. In the absence of a formal defense treaty, Israel’s status was defined, for the first time, as a Non-NATO Ally in early 1987.” (ibid. Yair Evron)
Be very clearthe U.S. and Israel know perfectly well what such a DEFENSE TREATY entails. During the Peres government (and, who knows, sounds like Sharon-Peres will have a government again if their Kadima party wins in March, 2006same time that Iran gets the bomb) in 1996 Israel pressed for just such an accord. But, that expectation was placed on the back burner when Netanyahu took over as Prime Minister.
BARAK - CLINTON - AND THE DEFENSE PACT
Never mind, Ehud Barak, strolling around Camp David with President Clinton back in 2000 knew precisely the cost of such a DEFENSE PACT. Bruce Riedel, Clinton’s Special Assistant for Near East and South Asian Affairs on the National Security Council spelled out the financial ramifications and parameters of the elusive pact in an article found on bitterlemons.org.
Riedel spent time with Barak’s aides, Danny Yatom and Zvi Shtauber, in formulating the “defense agreement and the compensation package” that Israel would receive if they structured a peace deal with the U.S. Riedel related how the Israelis came to Camp David preparedthey “placed a draft of the DEFENSE AGREEMENT on the table along with a detailed list of financial and security requests” (Aluf Benn, Haaretz). Now, listen how Aluf Benn puts it:
“According to Riedel, Barak wanted a contractual format for the strategic relations between the U.S. and Israel, which had developed substantially over the years but lacked a formal dimension. His proposal was to sign an agreement in which the U.S. would agree to come to Israel’s aid in the event of future attacks and then get the pact ratified by the American Congress and the Knesset.”
Is that clear enough? O.K. let’s spell it out:
(1) $15 Billion in American aidprimarily upgrading the IDF
(2) $10 Billion to compensate the Palestinians
(3) $10 Billion for building desalination plants in Israel, the Palestinian state and Jordan
TOTAL: $35 Billion
Ultimately, the befuddled Riedel pondered . . .
“Two years after Camp David (2002) the tragedy of the missed opportunity that the summit presented is clearer than ever. Imagine a Middle East without the Intafada and with a peace agreement buttressed by an enormous reconstruction fund, akin to the Marshall Plan that President Truman used to rebuild Europe after World War Two” (ibid. Aluf Benn).
PERES AND THE ELUSIVE US-ISRAEL PEACE PACT
Remember, the 82-year old Peres has wanted a US-Israeli Defense Pact for a long timepositioning himself in the new Sharon-Peres Alliance provides ample space to conclude such a pact.
Please view full article/graphics/links @ http://www.the-tribulation-network.com
Doug is a member of the “Last Days Network” . . . a group of evangelical pundits providing news and analysis on Religion in Politics. “Applied Biblical prophecy,” apostasy and deception, the impact of the American New World Order System, and the influence of the Religious Right and Left upon American culture–are topics discussed by the group. He is an educator in the public schools (California) and an administrator. Doug’s articles can be found all over the netbut anchored @ http://www.the-tribulation-network.com (a real upbeat web site, given the name).
As the fastest-growing resource in politics, the Internet
provides a cost-effective method to reach supporters and
potential supporters. However, writing for your local campaign
website is different than writing for print. Simply copying your
local campaign print material onto your website limits the
potential of online campaigning.
Online campaign writing tips
Nobody likes scrolling through pages and pages of poorly
written, overblown website content. Studies show that people
read from computer screens is about 25% slower than reading from
paper. Give your visitors the information they want, and then
some. Include information about your campaign and your local
political scene. Post all your campaign releases, including
press announcements, speeches, advertisements, and policy
papers. Also, create content that is exclusive to the website,
and remind visitors return to your website frequently.
Use these tips to make your campaign website content more
readable:
* Include your most important keyword phrase as close to the
beginning of the description as possible. For example: John
Jones for Anytown, NY Town Council.
* Start each written section with the conclusion. Put the main
points of your document in the first paragraph, so that readers
scanning your pages will not miss your point.
* Write concisely and stick to one idea per paragraph.
* Keep in mind that many web readers still use dial-up access.
Don’t bog your site down with too many large images or
extra-long pages.
* Bullet lists rather than use wordy sentences or paragraphs.
Readers can pick out information more easily from a list than
from paragraphs.
* Use meaningful sub-headings. Guide the reader by highlighting
the main points of your information.
* Bold your keywords.
* Remember that readers do not read web pages in sequence.
Providing information in precise segments allows readers to
quickly locate the material they seek.
* Separate your ‘white paper’ information and link out to it for
readers who want to know more detail about a particular subject.
PDF files work well, because they can be easily printed out for
offline reading.
Online content layout tips
* Don’t set your text size too large or too small.
* Capitalizing all letters give the appearance of shouting at
your visitors. Shouting is rude!
* Keep your main text left-aligned on the page. Center-aligned
text is best used in headlines.
* Use spaces between blocks of information. Large blocks of text
are intimidating to a reader, and probably won’t get read.
* Left and/or right-align images to your paragraphs. This will
break up your text a bit and allow your text to flow down the
pages and around your images.
Remember — anything you put on your campaign website becomes
part of ‘the record’ and will not only be read by your
supporters, it will be read by your opponents! Once the
opposition finds out that you have a website, you can be sure
that they will keep an eye on it.
Recently at a coffee shop there were two gentlemen talking about the war in Iraq. One was a homosexual from Canada on vacation in the United States, the other was a former military Colonel, who had a son and a brother both on active duty in Iraq. Need less to say the gentleman who looked to young to have made Colonel was pro-America, pro-Democracy and pro-Bush. The gentleman from Canada was quite liberal in his thinking and very anti-war. The both agreed that wars were a terrible tragedy of the human race and it was a shame anyone had to go to war.
The Canadian assumed that the former Colonel was upset about the equipment, bullet proof vests and armor on the Humvees and said; “You feel your brother and son who are serving over there are not getting enough protection, don’t you?” The Colonel nearly let the Canadian have it, verbally that is and said;
“With all due respect here are my thoughts on your perception of “Feelings.” And please do not take this wrong, but lets understand what we are talking about here. I did not say that my brother or my son was not getting enough protection as a defensive play, do not put words in my mouth. My brother and my son can and will protect them selves and blow a hole in his enemy. I want offensive weapons so we can kill the enemy, as in splatter their brains against block walls or smash them into oblivion via steamrollers, crushing every bone in the bodies and let the flies deal with it; The faster the better. I do not “Feel” anything. I only care about winning and finding everyone one of those little maggots insurgent international terrorist murderers and killing them, that is all.”
The Canadian was taking a back. He said; “Well yes, I understand that you want to win the war, who wouldn’t? But don’t you feel George Bush lied to the World about Saddam and that your son and brother are risking their lives for no reason?”
The American Former General said; “Look you SOB, I want those scum killed efficiently, permanently, effectively and immediately. This feelings crap is for faggots and socialist liberal weak-minded mommas boys. I only care about winning, ONLY. Complete and total victory and complete annihilation of the enemy and you can call me Bob von Clauswitz, Sir. “Feel” where on Earth did you get that from? Feeling is for women, this is a war, not a game. What? Are you psych major too? Do you want to discuss psychological warfare instead? Let me know on that, got plenty of information there. Now get out of my way you Girlie Man!”
With that the Canadian man snickered some comment in a femine voice and left. The Colonel turned around and got what was close to a standing ovation from the entire coffee shop. I stood there in amazement and before I left I shook Bob’s hand and said thank you for your service to our nation and for the service of your son and your brother. Good day. Think on this in 2006.
“Lance Winslow” - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/
