“He stood there holding a sandwich in front of him with no clue as to what to do.

He opened it up, looked at it, touched it.

I took it, and folded it over, and then he took a bite out it.

But then we had to tell him, ‘you have to chew.’”

That’s a tragic story of a sailor whom came in with his wife after he had smoked K2 Spice, a synthetic substitute for marijuana.

It was related by Lt. Commander Donald Hurst, a fourth-year psychiatry resident at San Diego Naval Medical Center whom witnessed it.

Recently, the actress Demi Moore was admitted to a hospital suffering from convulsions after “She smoked something — it’s not marijuana, but it’s similar to incense, and she seems to be having convulsions of some sort,” according to a female then present whom spoke with a Los Angeles 9-1-1 operator.

Pentagon military officials are so alarmed by the appearance and use of those compounds and substances by their service members, that they have investigated more than 1100 suspected users. This year alone, the Marines have prosecuted 700 suspected users, and has discharged those whom found guilty of using it. This year, the Air Force has prosecuted 497 for using K2 Spice, an increase from last year’s figure of 380.

Yes, those substances were legal – albeit for a brief time. However, the military has prosecuted because of the damage that is done not only to the unit, its cohesion and mission, but to the service member’s family, and ultimately to the nation.

It’s not a laughing matter. Even one use of those unregulated compounds and substances can bring on hallucinations lasting for days at a time.

Marilyn Huestis, PhD, chief of chemistry and drug metabolism at the National Institute for Drug Abuse said, “When you take these drugs, you are hijacking the part of the brain important for many functions: temperature control, food intake, perception, memory, and problem solving. And people taking these high-potency drugs are affecting other important functions throughout their bodies — hormone functions, for example.”

Exotic Asian plants like Blue Lotus and Bay Bean are used to make K2 Spice, and their leaves are coated with chemicals which purportedly mimic the effects of THC, which is the active ingredient in marijuana. However, those substances have unknown effects upon human subjects, and are five to 200 times more powerful.

On March 1, 2011, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration invoked its “emergency scheduling authority” to make most “legal high” products illegal. The relatively inactive herbs used in these products are spiked with potent designer drugs. The DEA action applies to five of these drugs: JWH-018, JWH-073, JWH-200, CP-47,497, and cannabicyclohexanol. The drugs are now on the DEA’s Schedule I, meaning they have no accepted medical use and high potential for abuse. The emergency action will remain in effect for a year, during which time the government is expected to call for permanent control of the drugs.

John W. Huffman, PhD, inventor of  JWH-018 put it bluntly, saying, “It is like Russian roulette to use these drugs. We don’t know a darn thing about them for real.”

Some – if not all – of those drugs are unsafe. For example, JWH-018 and its many cousins have a chemical structure shared with known cancer-causing agents.

While the packets themselves are labeled “Not for human consumption,” and are sold as a type of incense, it does not stop people from selling it, or using it to get stoned. Further, the makers and marketers of K2 Spice claim they do not use any illegal chemicals.

 Navy Capt. J.A. “Cappy” Surette, spokesman for the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery described the cat-and-mouse game the illicit chemists play with detection by saying, “It’s a moving target.” Military hospitals and laboratories can calibrate equipment to test for five banned chemicals, he said, “but underground chemists can keep altering the properties and make up to more than 100 permutations.”

To further complicate efforts, the clandestine chemists use more than 200 other chemicals to create their illicit concoctions, and Navy doctors warn that the effects upon the mind and body are largely unknown. Further, because no two batches of the drug are the same, some users may describe a buzzy, lightheaded feeling, while others may have psychotic delusions for a week.

Of all branches of the military, the Navy has been most aggressive in prosecuting service members whom use K2 Spice. One person in the San Diego-based Third Fleet was caught with K2 Spice, and the resulting prosecution has led to nearly 100 prosecutions and dismissals from service.

The San Diego Naval Medical Center sees user cases weekly, and notes that users suffer everything ranging from vomiting, elevated blood pressure & seizures, to extreme agitation, anxiety and delusions.

Dr. Hurst said he witnessed behavior in many cases which seemed like schizophrenia. However, within minutes, the sailor would became completely lucid, yet would go in and out of such episodes for days.

He said that in his study of 10 cases, nine had lost a sense of reality. Seven babbled incoherently. Seven had symptoms lasting four to eight days. Three others are believed to now be schizophrenic. Dr. Hurst said he believed the drug may have triggered the symptoms in people with that genetic disposition. His findings were published in the American Journal of Psychiatry in October, and entitled Psychosis Associated With Synthetic Cannabinoid Agonists: A Case Series.

None of those terms are positive or encouraging. And certainly, none are like the sound of “Obamacare,” which is the derogatory castigating term foisted upon the Health Insurance reforms passed in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I remind the readers that it was Republicans, Republican sympathizers, TEA Party, TEA Party activists, and other Right Wing radicals whom invented the disparaging moniker.

Regular readers of this blog may recall a previous entry posted 22 January 2012 about the PPACA entitled “Ending Obamacare” in which several rights, responsibilities and benefits were enumerated – all which applied to Health Insurance companies and the Insured.

Perhaps more than anything, the purpose of this entry is to illustrate what I believe could justifiably be termed “hypocrisy.” Allow me to illustrate.

Recently, a May 2009 recording has emerged, in which Newt Gingrich is heard discussing healthcare and insurance reform, and says in part that,

“We believe that there should be must carry – that is, everybody should either have health insurance or if you’re an absolute libertarian, we would allow you to post a bond, but we would not allow people to be free riders failing to insure themselves and then showing up at the emergency room with no means of payment.”

That also is very similar to the type of idea and plan which Mr. Gingrich’s Republican rival Mitt Romney implemented in Massachusetts when he was then governor. It is also very similar to the plan which is enumerated in the PPACA. It requires accountability and responsibility from the individual.

The several states require drivers to demonstrate proof of automobile insurance as part of their responsibility and accountability, why is it not a good idea to require accountability and responsibility when it comes to health? We pass laws that regulate tobacco advertising, sales, and tobacco consumption in public – most notably smoking, though smokeless tobacco also has regulations – and we do so in the name of public health – but we do not want to require personal accountability nor responsibility from ourselves? Is that not crazy, disjointed, disjunct – even inconsistent – at best?

We gripe and complain that insurance companies kick us off their rolls when we get sick, but we gripe about the law that forbids them from doing that.

We gripe and complain about health insurance companies denying health insurance coverage for treatments to children born with certain conditions – yet we gripe and complain about the law that forbids that practice.

We bitch, moan, groan and complain about health insurance companies which raise their health insurance policy rates – even quadrupling them in some cases, and do so unannounced – yet we cry and whine about the law that requires them to justify any increases in their rates.

We castigate insurance companies for all those things, and for their outrageously outlandish – even obscene – profits, and for their executives’ compensation packages and stockholder payouts – yet we are mealy-mouthed when it comes to requiring them to use at least 80% of our health insurance premiums for our own healthcare rather than for advertising, costs of business operations, CEO compensation and overhead expenses – none of which have any relation or bearing upon the delivery or provision of healthcare.

These all are inconsistencies in the public perception of “Obamacare,” which is the derogatory name given to the PPACA.

You, the readers, may be interested in reading – or should I write “hearing” – Mr. Gingrich speak about the issues of health insurance and health policies in the United States.

Here is a YouTube hosted recording of him discussing those issues.

iPhone security - ss1167

iPhone security – ss1167

Originally uploaded by SouthernBreeze

Via Flickr:
The 4our digit passkey is the one with which most may be familiar. Yet some iPhone owners may not be aware that there is another, more secure method of protecting their investment in that wonderfully powerful tool.

A more complex (and therefore secure) combination – one of the user’s own choosing – is able to be used. Not only is the creation of that passkey cAsE sEnSiTiVe, but numbers (0-9) and characters (such as # , $ ) @ + } ~ ? <, etc.) are able to be employed in the creation of the passkey.

There are several benefits to using such a system, not the least of which means that millions more choices for creating a passkey become available. By using 4our digits, there are automatically 10000 choices available, so a “brute force” attack could be readily and successfully executed by anyone with a few minutes of time.

Yet for many, the creation of secure passkeys remains not merely a source of frustration, but of mystery, as well. How does one create secure passkeys? In many secure environments such as government work, healthcare, or certain industrial environments, passkeys are generated for the computer user – which remains a source of frustration, because those passkeys are often nonsensical randomized combinations of upper and lower case letters, numbers and characters – making them all the more difficult to memorize.

Here are a few examples:
#1.) s[+&,?a`Z6Sx/v=u#+3g06-8VEG5f;+R;tQTM%UR<jCEQ{Ks<,~;S=e=7-
#2.) 8414CF5CDB1F5F0F74B2D0EA9480D5E053A0B151FD74FFD6B27767A143C40F4F
#3.) cTcIy3EGqHlQuiBiu5GNdqmRrId0H7S1TnZPM3LyA1v85K8TxQSJ6HDiT9CvZqa

However, when the opportunity for a human-generated passkey is given, many make very poor choices and sometimes use one word – which is readily broken by a brute force dictionary attack. Some authorities suggest that words, phrases and sequential numbers should not be used. But again, unless one is in an ultra-high security field which necessitates using RSA 1024 bit security, or higher, most passkeys can be created with a very significant degree of security.

Inventing passkeys can be as simple – or as complex – as reading this entry.

For example, using one’s name (ex., John James Audubon) and a calendar date (ex., January 27, 1851) the following key could be generated: 1Jn27Js51An
{The first and last letters of the first, middle & last names with the numerical date preceding each letter.}

An variation upon that theme using characters could be: (1Jn27Js)-51An
{The same routine, only with open & close parentheses.}

Another variation upon that same theme could be: Jn.1Js/27-51An
{The same routine, only with period, dash and slash.}

Other suitable options – but which experts may consider perhaps less secure, ultimately – could use phrases or sentences, such as: MyNameIsJohnJamesAudubon,&IDied1271851.

Another variation upon that theme could be: MyNameIsJohnJamesAudubon&I(d.1-27-1851)

Notice in both cases, UPPER & lower case letters were used, as were numbers and characters – the period, the ampersand, and open & close parentheses.

Here are two resources which can test the security, or strength of passwords:
Microsoft’s Password Checker
(Just so the reader will know, the passkey “MyNameIsJohnJamesAudubon&I(d.1-27-1851)” as illustrated above, checked BEST in strength on the Microsoft Password Checker.)
-AND-
Password Meter Password Strength Checker
(The same key as mentioned above, scored 100%, and rated “Very Strong” in Complexity on the Password Meter site.)

Remember, humans invented computers, and as such, are smarter than computers. The only problem with that is, that sometimes, we don’t want to remind ourselves of that fact.

UK Marriage News, July 2011

Is a cuddle better than sex?

Don’t panic if the passion is gone.

New research says it’s hugs not hanky-panky that keeps couples together.
 According to new research, the frequency of cuddling is a far better indicator of the strength of a relationship than how often you’re swinging from the chandeliers says the Daily Mail. “Cuddling provides not just sensual pleasure, but also a feeling of comfort, security and companionship, all of which are just as important to a relationship as sex,” explains Paula Hall, relationship expert for online dating service Parship.

In fact, maintaining an intimate connection without the wild abandon of the hormonal early days can be vital for a happy relationship.

“The advantage of non-sexual intimacy is that couples often use this time together to talk about their emotional lives,” says Paula. “Whereas when sex is their only way of getting close, couples who find emotional openness difficult often rely on making love to help them connect. They can find themselves missing out on other levels of intimacy.“

If sex is the focus, it can mean that emotional problems are never discussed – whereas non-sexual touching, such as cuddling and stroking, encourages more relaxed bonding and intimate conversation, due in large part to the crucial ‘cuddle hormone‘ oxytocin.

“Oxytocin is produced by touch and, as well as making us feel good, it also inspires us to touch more,” says Paula. “That means that the more you touch, the closer you feel and the more you want to touch.” Once assumed to be related only to childbirth, because of the role it plays in both encouraging contractions and then chemically bonding mother and newborn, recent research suggests that oxytocin’s ability to promote feelings of calm, love and connection also extends to couples in monogamous relationships. The feeling of ‘melding’ that happens when you gaze into a loved one’s eyes, and the after-effects of calm and well-being that follow even non-sexual physical intimacy, could all be down to this miraculous hormone.

“Couples who find emotional openness difficult often rely on making love to help them connect, missing out on other levels of intimacy. We used to think that oxytocin was found only in the pregnant uterus, but in fact it’s found in many sites in the body,” says clinical psychiatrist and author Dr. Brenda Davies. “It’s been called ‘the love hormone’ and its levels in our blood certainly increase when we hug, when we feel loving and even when we stroke a beloved pet. So it has a huge role to play in intimacy – and not just of the sexual kind.“

This wonder-hormone may even help you to broach difficult subjects. New research suggests that oxytocin can prevent the body’s ‘freeze’ response to threat, and reduce ‘fight-or-flight’ panic. So if you have a tricky discussion about money or the kids coming up, a big cuddle before you begin talking is the perfect way to approach a difficult subject.

Oxytocin has also been shown to decrease blood pressure and the stress hormone cortisol, which has been linked to weight gain and a depressed immune system. “It even plays a part in raising our self-esteem and, therefore, improves our capacity to have healthy, close relationships,” says Dr. Davies.

“It’s also a powerful natural anti-inflammatory, and has anti-ageing properties - one reason why people living isolated lives, with little human touch, can age prematurely.”

Experiments with animals have shown that it can play a major role in ‘pair-bonding’ among certain species – like the adoring prairie vole, which mates for life and ‘cuddles’ its chosen partner during lengthy grooming sessions. The same urge to be physically close without necessarily having sex is evident in humans. One study suggests that after the intense sexual passion of the first few months, partners become ‘imprinted’ on each other. Once bonded, just the sight of your partner triggers a surge of oxytocin and a need for physical closeness that can be satisfied simply by cuddling.

This is good news for couples who still love each other but can’t summon the energy for seduction on a nightly basis. While men and women produce equal amounts of oxytocin, its effects are intensified by estrogen, meaning women tend to have functionally higher concentrations of the hormone. A Cambridge University study found that men who were given higher doses of oxytocin displayed greater levels of empathy with other’s emotions.

“The great advantage of cuddling is that, unlike sex, you can do it anywhere, any time. When this hormone’s flowing freely, it puts us in a peaceful, happy state of mind,” says Dr. Keith Kendrick, who led the study. “It helps us feel emotionally connected to whoever’s the source of that touch and gets men’s oxytocin levels on a par with women’s. For many women, you could say oxytocin is a godsend, as it makes men more empathetic.“

Paula Hall says: “Inevitably, there are times when sex isn’t an option due to illness or stress. By keeping in touch with hugging, a couple can continue to express their love and affection for each other.”

Who’d a-thunk it, eh?

How to be romantic without being romantic?

So… what’s up with that?

Read on!

10 Ways Budgeting Saved My Marriage

By Tim Maurer, Forbes Contributor

Eleven years ago, my wife and I sat across the table from an experienced married couple squirming in their seats uncomfortably as though they feared we were about to deliver some terrible news. But the source of their discomfort was the bomb they were about to drop on us.

You see, we were not yet married, but engaged, and the couple across the table was our mentor couple in our pre-marital class. Upon review of our personality profiles and piles of personal baggage, they felt it their duty to discourage us from further pursuing the sacred vows of matrimony. They’d never seen a hopeful couple more innately disparate, more inevitably destined for failure.

We are indeed vastly different, but one thing my wife, Andrea, and I share in common is a penchant for resisting authority. So with the blessing and support of family and friends, I’m thrilled to report we’ll be celebrating our eleventh anniversary this April with our two wonderful boys, Kieran and Connor, ages six and eight.

We have never forgotten, however, the well-intended admonishment of our mentor couple; indeed, we see much of life from vastly different perspectives, foremost among them our view of things financial. And apparently, we’re not alone. Over 50% of marriages end in divorce. Over 50% of those splits cite financial disputes as the primary reason for the break-up.

100% of marriages deal with money as a daily necessity.

This thought occurred several times when preparing my recent posts on budgeting on Forbes.com (How To Spend $1 Million At Starbucks) and TimMaurer.com (A Burdensome Yoke…Or A Path To Peace?).  It struck me that budgeting ranked right up there with prayer and counseling as a precious few factors that have helped keep us together.

Here are the top 10 ways budgeting has saved, and continues to save, our marriage:

10. Budgeting forces us to collaborate.

It seems that as parents of young children, the level of commitments between work, school, church, sports and the arts leaves us functioning more as independent business partners than spouses. We’re almost always in short supply of adult conversation and genuine collaboration, and (strange as it may seem) budgeting gives us the context for both.

9. It offers healthy accountability.

Ronald Reagan famously said, “Trust, but verify,” and while 100% verification of trust in our marriage would be stifling, we’ve found periodic accountability to be a healthy way to build faith and trust in each other. Our joint budgeting effort means all of our expenditures are accessible to the other. Scrutinizing every penny spent would be unfair (a-hem, note to self), but knowing everything is visible is likely to encourage us each to spend more responsibly.

8. It humbles us.

I’ve not found a more helpful tool in the pursuit of a successful marriage than humility, and since the use of money is so pervasive in our lives, small mistakes are the norm, not the exception. Rarely a weekly cycle goes by in which we don’t each humbly acknowledge that we erred in some capacity, humbly submitting our mistake to the other. And of course, a good budget is designed to withstand these small mistakes.

7. It provides an opportunity for reconciliation.

The prevalence of small errors in our budgeting, however, provides fertile ground for a destructive tendency: that we’d develop a scorecard, real or implied, and shame the more regular offender (because there normally is one in most households). So for us it’s very important that a humility ground-rule is established: Any time an offending spouse submits in humility to an irreversible mistake, forgiveness and reconciliation is the only way forward.

6. It gives us reason to celebrate.

For each mistake, there are several successes in each budget cycle. The long-term success of our marriage is often built on a series of small victories, and we should never withhold an affirmation for completing a project under budget or enjoying the security of a buffer when an emergency arises.

5. It cuts down on surprises.

So many aspects of our life are subject to variability and volatility. We can’t necessarily reduce the number of those surprises, but we can certainly reduce their negative impact by being financial prepared for them.  Financial strain, and especially shock, pushes many marriages to (and over) the brink.

4. It makes us better parents.

All of us parents could probably agree that it’s possible to spend too little OR too much on our children, right?  We’re responsible to determine what the right levels of spending are for our children, and budgeting allows us to deliberately set aside appropriate levels of funding for education, clothing, sports, music and fun.

3. It shows our dependence on each other.  

Andrea and I do think very differently, and this inevitably leads to divisive thoughts like these: “You know, I think I could do this better on my own!” But this decries the very essence of marriage as an institution in which each partner’s primary objective is to serve the other. The process of budgeting puts our (literal and emotional) dependence on each other on full display. That makes us vulnerable, but it’s good.

2. It preserves a healthy level of independence.  

The income production in most households is almost never perfectly equitable. Andrea sacrificed a successful career in the financial industry when she chose to stay home with our young children. This has been an incredible blessing in our family, but it’s also a breeding ground for insecurity and manipulation as I might have a tendency to overestimate my contribution to the family’s finances and underestimate Andrea’s. It is imperative, then, that part of our budget is the preservation of a certain amount of financial independence for each spouse. To offset this income inequity, we’ve established “His and Hers” accounts with unilateral privileges. Many shun budgeting as too restrictive, but properly implemented, it actually gives us room to breathe financially, and we all need room to breathe.

1. It preserves date night!

One of the interactions I’ve enjoyed most throughout my career was with a client who is a generation or two my senior. He and his wife have five kids(!) and appear to be more in love today than they’ve ever been. So at the close of one meeting, I got up the nerve to ask this gentleman what his secret to marriage and parenting was. His answer? They never fail to set aside time – and money – for each other as a couple. He made a convincing case that we are better parents when we deliberately setting aside time to be together, away from the kids, and not just for date nights, but also long-weekends and even week-long vacations to remind ourselves that before we were parents we were lovers. This proved especially difficult for Andrea and me because by the time we got to the end of most months, we’d already spent our discretionary cash on the rest of life and felt like we were taking funding away from other things to line-up a babysitter and enjoy a night or weekend out. So now, much as we have preserved His and Hers accounts, we also have an Ours account.

Budgeting is not the slightest bit romantic, but it has the ability to promote and preserve the romance in our marriages and keep us on the right side of that daunting 50% divorce statistic.

There are as many good ways to manage this process as there are couples!

The audio post follows…

Here’s a 2008 Business Week article on his water idea. – http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_25/b4089040017753.htm

If you’re not familiar with “The Pickens Plan” – a path and course of action for American energy independence – I wholeheartedly suggest you familiarize yourself with it’s common sense and eco-friendly strategies.

There are too many reasons not to hate it.

But let me be more precise, and explain what’s wrong with Wikipedia.

To be certain, what you’re about to read is in no way a defense of Wikipedia.

Instead, I will bash it unashamedly, and will explain why it is unreliable, and supply reasons for others to look askance at it. This critique is no casually jaundiced glace, but rather scathing.

It can be difficult to know exactly where to begin, but I think it possible to start with reliability, and move tangentially to toward other areas.

Wikipedia calls itself “the encyclopedia anyone can edit.” Such a description is accurate only on one account, which is that “anyone can edit.”

Among researchers, academicians and others for whom reliability is paramount, Wikipedia is a mere joke – a “wanna be” in the world of knowledge.

It is literally a “moving target,” which means that even in one day – and in some cases, within hours – an entire article can literally be obliterated, not from vandalism (though that remains a well-known problem for Wikipedia), but from the volume of even-minor changes that are made to it. And that problem itself is perhaps the solitary greatest problem for the website.

That issue is one of reliability, from which flows credibility. To understand why, let’s examine the word “encylopedia.”

An “encyclopedia” is defined as “a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically.” The origin and derivation of the word “encyclopedia” comes from the 1530s, and means “course of instruction.” The word itself is from the Modern Latin word “encyclopaedia” (c.1500), and is thought to be a false reading by Latin authors of the Greek words “enkyklios paideia” which was broadly interpreted as “general education,” but is literally defined as “training in a circle,” i.e. the “circle” of arts and sciences, the essentials of a liberal education. Those two words come from “enkyklios,” meaning “circular,” and “general” (from en “in” + kyklos “circle”) + paideia, meaning “education, child-rearing,” and emerges from pais (generally, paidos) “child.” The modern sense of “reference work arranged alphabetically” is from 1640s, and is often applied specifically to the French “Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des Sciences, des Arts, et des Métiers” (1751-65).

In essence, Wikipedia bills itself as a “reference work” … “on many subjects, or on many aspects of one subect,” which is arranged alphabetically.

Now, let’s consider what it means to be a “reference work.”

When used as a noun in the sense that Wikipedia prefers to use about itself, “reference” is “the action of mentioning or alluding to something,” and/or “use of a source of information in order to ascertain something.” Terms synonymous with “reference” include “source, citation, authority,” and “credit.”

When used as a verb, “reference” means to “provide (a book or article) with citations of authorities.”

An “authority” is “the power to influence others, especially because of one’s commanding manner or one’s recognized knowledge about something.”

Terms synonymous with “authority” include “expert, specialist, aficionado, pundit, guru, sage,” and more.

(The reader will please bear with through these definitions as I make the case. It is necessary to understand what these words mean, all which have direct bearing upon all that is “Wiki.”)

Again, what we’re really dealing with in the Wikipedia case is truth, credibility and reliability. Veracity – conformity to truth – has little or no bearing in Wikipedia. I’ll explain why as we continue. However, for brevity sake, it may be necessary to continue that aspect of criticism in a separate entry.

A recent case in point which perfectly illustrates credibility and reliability is the situation with the Costa Concordia – the luxury cruise liner which grounded and capsized off the western Italian coast.

A history of the article shows it was started in 2006.

• (cur | prev) 11:58, 4 April 2006‎ Splamo (talk | contribs)‎ (121 bytes) (new)

Until recently, it had relatively little activity. Then, in January 2012, all Hell broke loose. Just browse through the pages and see where there are – on some days – hundreds of “edits” and “revisions,” that little by little, eventually yet wholly obliterate the article until there remains no resemblance of any original article whatsoever.

The link is set to show 500 edits, and on January 14, 2012 alone, there were several hundred on that day alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Costa_Concordia&dir=prev&limit=500&action=history

Here is a sampling of the description of edits:
(remove (again) uncited and distracting parenthetical)
(Removed badly spelled and unsourced additions.)
(- uncited parenthetical)
(Amenities: + preterite tense needed)
(What does “partially” capsized mean?)
(preterite tense needed)(Unclear whether can sail again.
(wording, less “now” emphasis)
(del duplicated and inconsistent casualty figures and history)
(grammar correction)
(dead include a crew member, not all were passengers)
(Replaced content with ‘Glug glug glug glug glug glug. THAT SHIP IS A GONER!’)
vandalism

Now, compare all that to any website – even a news website – and it’s quite easy to understand why Wikipedia is NEITHER a credible, nor reliable source.

We’ll continue Wikipedia criticism by addressing veracity – conformity to truth – and other problems in an upcoming separate entry.

They make many very valid points. Those same folks have expressed concerns that instead, very real and tangible things should be done for consumers because in some cases, health insurance companies have gotten out of hand.

For example, many people believe that health insurance companies should not be able to deny coverage to children born with diabetes, heart defects, or other health problems. After all, it wasn’t their fault they have those problems. And they believe that adults should not be denied coverage when they change insurance companies, or because their family history predisposes them to certain health problems.

Also, women should not be denied treatment or coverage for breast or cervical cancer. Nor should men be denied coverage or treatment for prostate cancer. And neither men nor women should be kicked off insurance rolls once they get sick, or make a health insurance claim.

Another thing many believe should be reigned in is the practice of “cherry picking” – the practice of determining who decides who gets health insurance, and who does not.

Insurance companies should not deny payment for procedures based upon a simple honest mistake made on an insurance application – such as overlooking a line, not checking a box, misspelling a word, or forgetting to dot an “i” or cross a “t.”

Most folks also say they would feel better if their health insurance company didn’t surprise them with unannounced rate increases – like doubling or tripling the policy premiums without justifying them – and if they used at least 80% of the premiums to pay for coverage of procedures and medicines, rather than being used to pay for CEO compensation, stockholder payout, advertising, operating expenses and overhead.

Yes, instead of passing Obamacare, those are the things people want and need.

But, did you know that all those provisions and many more good ones like them are what constitute “Obamacare”?

For example, there are rewards and incentives to hospitals for increasing efficiency, decreasing waste, punishing fraud and abuse, and increasing accountability. Why should Medicare or Medicaid pay for a problem that was caused by a careless surgeon, or infection caused by a sloppy nurse? Under the new rules to soon take effect, neither hospitals nor physicians will be paid for costs associated with treating such ineptitude.

When a patient is discharged from a hospital stay, why should anyone be compensated when that same patient is readmitted to the hospital for the same problem less than 30 days later? Under the new rules soon to take effect, they won’t.

Yes, those are just a few of the many good things that will occur as part of “Obamacare.”

Which of them would you like to eliminate?

Ten Sex Secrets of Really Happy Couples

They don’t do it every day (whew!). They believe in quickies (yay!). Read on for other reassuring truths about what a sexually healthy marriage looks like.

By Lisa Lombardi

Being an enlightened married girl, you know the latest thinking on what makes for a happy marriage: Fight fair. Give him solo time — and find your own. Never roll your eyes at him (even if he just declared Monster Garage the best show on TV). But what do happy couples do right in the bedroom? To find out, we picked the brains of top marriage and sex experts. These moves aren’t exotic, they don’t defy gravity — they’re not even all sex moves, per se — but they’ll make you feel closer to him than ever before.

1. They get busy, period.

You don’t have to do the deed every day — or every six days, for that matter — to have a great marriage. But there’s no way around this fact: “The happiest couples have sex on a regular basis,” says Tina Tessina, Ph.D., author of How to Be a Couple and Still Be Free.

Avoiding a sex drought is crucial, because healthy sex reinforces and deepens closeness. “Couples who don’t keep sex going leave a wide-open space where other people start to look attractive,” notes Tessina.

And regular sex sessions are especially important for guys. “One of the primary ways a man feels close to his partner is by being sexually close to her; it’s how he arrives at intimacy,” says Laura Berman, Ph.D., director of the Berman Center in Chicago.

When a guy doesn’t get that regular body-bonding, he isn’t inspired to be romantic, which tends to cause his wife’s libido to wane, creating a vicious circle, explains Berman. That said, there’s no need to stress if you sometimes let a week or two go by without sex. In fact, in some amazing marriages, sex is a once-every-other-week occurrence.

What’s key is that you’re both happy with your number. If you’re connecting sexually once a month or less, though, you may want to start a “meeting of the minds” with him to make sure neither one of you is secretly craving more action. And if you are? Check out #2, below, and ease into a sexier marriage.

2. They touch out of bed, too.

They’re not the scary PDA couple, feeling each other up in the frozen food aisle. But they are the sort to hug for no reason, swap foot rubs just because and even make foreplay the main course. “There are five degrees of touch, and couples in the best marriages regularly do at least four of them,” says Barry McCarthy, Ph.D., marriage and sex therapist and author of Rekindling Desire.

“Many couples have two modes of affection: nothing or intercourse, and when that’s the case, ‘nothing’ usually wins out,” he explains. Why? When a kiss or back rub always leads to sex, spouses may end up avoiding contact unless they want sex. A better idea: Get hands-on when you’re not hoping to get it on. “Your sex will become much more natural, because one kind of touch flows into another,” says McCarthy.

By physically connecting in small ways throughout the day, you stay warmed up for intense action later. And you’ll still feel close on those inevitable nights when you’re too stressed or tired (or both!) for the main event.

3. They have forgive-and-forget sex.

Makeup sex may not always be madly passionate, but couples who do it have an emotional advantage. Why? You’re keeping up intimacy during tough times, which is a key to making love last, says Tessina.

Whether you actually fool around or just kiss and cuddle, “makeup sex heals a rift,” she adds. Reaching across the divide and touching your guy lets him know in a very powerful, nonverbal way that though you disagree with him, your love isn’t on the line.

So it can put an insignificant squabble in perspective, as Janine, 32, a writer in Brooklyn, discovered. “Bill and I used to have endless fights about small things, so at one point I said, ‘Next time we’re fighting about something stupid, just kiss me and it’ll be over,’” she says. He didn’t believe something so simple would work, she says, but “we’ve found holding and kissing each other can bridge the gap more effectively than hours of discussion about whether we’re seeing each other’s point of view.”

4. They never withhold sex as punishment.

Warning: “Expressing anger by never being in the mood will doom your sex life,” says Tessina.

Withholding sex turns what should be a loving and giving act into a commodity. Once sex becomes part of a couple’s power struggle, so much resentment builds that soon neither partner wants sex.

So instead of feigning fatigue or rolling away from your guy next time you’re annoyed, speak up and clear the air — without sex being on the table.

5. They don’t expect Hollywood sex.

We can all picture it: candles glowing, white 1,000-thread-count bedsheets billowing, lovely lovemaking culminating in simultaneous, earthshaking orgasms. The only thing is, that almost never happens, says Barry McCarthy. And the duos who are most likely to succeed wisely know not to expect it.

“When you’re living together and have two kids, two jobs, etc., if you’re having Hollywood sex once a month, you’re doing great,” he says.

How great? According to McCarthy, among happily married couples, up to 15 percent of erotic encounters are not even enjoyable for one or both spouses. Maybe the sex is hurried, physically uncomfortable or doesn’t lead to the final fireworks.

Secure couples are able to roll with off-nights, rather than taking them as a sign that something’s wrong with their relationship.

And they don’t postpone sex until all the planets are perfectly aligned, either.

6. But they shoot for “special sex” anyway.

You have special “anniversary sex” on your anniversary, sure. But if you also orchestrate sexy adventures a few other times a year, you’re doing your marriage a huge favor.

“Happy couples sometimes pull out all the romantic stops,” says Berman. Not because romantic sex is more bonding, but because the act of making the effort — whether it’s booking a Bed & Breakfast or wearing a pretty new nightie rather than your threadbare PJs — sends a crucial message to your guy that you still care, says Berman.

And variety is the spice of a good sex life. “The latest research has found that one of the keys to sexual satisfaction is a sense of sexual adventurousness,” says Berman.

Plan a romantic adventure and the thrill of the new will give you both a rush — a hormone rush, that is.

“Sleeping on new sheets (at home or in a hotel), trying a new position or anything new will actually inspire the same dopamine response in your brain that made you feel addicted to each other early in the relationship,” says Berman.

If you want to kick his lust hormones into high gear, plan a mystery date, a favorite move of Amy, 30, a newlywed in Santa Barbara, California. “When I feel a night of romance is in order, I create a sexy email address from a free account, like Hotmail. To make the name recognizable (so he doesn’t delete it), the name always includes our lucky number, 23,” she says. “I don’t write anything in the email except an address and time. When he shows up at the restaurant, I’m waiting alone at the bar. Then I take him to another restaurant, just to keep him guessing. He says it drives him wild.”

7. They do the ultimate intimate move.

Four words: Eye contact during orgasm.

“It’s such a vulnerable moment that sharing it adds a huge degree of intimacy to your relationship,” says Berman, who notes that a lot of long-term couples can’t master this seemingly simple bedroom move.

Locking eyes during lovemaking can also make you feel — and act — sexier, says Christine, 31, who lives in Middletown, New Jersey. “I feel more attractive when my husband is looking at me during sex,” she says. “And that makes me more relaxed and open in bed.”

8. They know how to get from dog poop to passion.

“One of the hardest things to do is to transition from, say, paying bills to being sexy with each other,” says Tessina.

Successful couples find remarkably unremarkable ways to snap each other out of daily grind mode. How? They figure out their own shorthand for “let’s be sexy together.” Maybe your man stretches out on the sofa after the kids are in bed and invites you to hop up next to him. Or you swat his butt. Or say, “Gosh, there’s nothing on TV tonight, I wonder how we could ever fill the time?!”

9. They’re playful.

Sure, super couples can be intense when it counts (see #7), but they’re also silly with each other on a daily basis.

And having that playful streak is a prerequisite for passion. “A shared sense of humor is a very intimate thing,” says Tessina, “because it shows you have great communication and understand how the other thinks.”

In fact, Tessina has found that the intense passion of the courtship days often turns into silliness — which is actually a form of flirting. Amelia, 31, and her husband Jeff, 32, of New York City, get a kick out of exchanging over-the-top romantic greeting cards. “Neither of us is into mushy things, so when Jeff first bought me an oversize Valentine’s Day card with glittery roses and poems on it, I cracked up,” says Amelia, married three years. “Now we always surprise each other with the sappiest cards we can find.”

10. They believe in quickies.

Fast sex can be good sex.

“Quickies are essential because they’re efficient,” says Tessina. “We just don’t have endless hours to make love.”

Amen, says Lori, 33, an accountant in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, who relies on short and sweet sex to stay connected to her husband during tax season. “When I come home at 10 at night, I am so exhausted that sex with lots of foreplay isn’t an option,” she says. “So I ask him, in the sexiest voice I can muster, ‘Want to have a quickie?’ Of course he’s always up for it, so it works for both of us.” And that’s key.

Because though sex isn’t everything, says Berman, when it isn’t working, it’s a huge factor that creates problems that wouldn’t otherwise be there. “Couples who are connecting sexually are more compassionate and forgiving, more romantic and intimate, less lonely and sad, and much less susceptible to conflict,” she says. “They have this amazing connecting fiber holding them together.”

For more Marriage Tips and information on strengthening your marriage, go to HuntsvilleMarriage.com

If you’re honest, there has to be at least one time in your life in which the above has been true for you. However, as we mature, we realize that eavesdropping is nothing more than an effort to control, and that in many cases, we have little or no control over many – if not most – events and people in our lives. Certainly, we have no control over others’ thoughts or actions.

Eavesdropping on communication is and remains a hallmark of international espionage, and constitutes the basis and bulk of many international relationships. Eavesdropping on communications is not done among friends. It only accompanies enemies.

Acknowledging that fact is but one reason why love is so good. It is mutually reciprocated and wholly voluntary. Relationships of all type in life – business and personal – are made better by voluntary cooperation and the mutual respect and honesty that naturally accompanies it.

Unfortunately however, not all are so empowered by love. And unfortunately, that spills over into other areas of their lives – most notably even in business. For example, how can one perform at maximal efficiency and capacity if their personal life is in disarray or turmoil? For the healthy person, it’s not possible.

Recently, a dear friend of mine lost a job. We became friends during our tenure with each other as professional colleagues. After it had occurred to me that things probably weren’t as they seemed, I wrote a letter as a source of encouragement. It is my hope that this note may be a source of encouragement for you dear reader, as well.

It occurred to me that the “rationale” given for your firing – as you suggest – is suspect, but not for the reasons given to you. Yes, it’s probably true that to some extent sexism and racism played a role in the entire event. However, you and I – and the recruiters for various travel nursing agencies – realize that staffing issues are not necessarily because of any shortage of nurses. True, there may be difficulty staffing various hospitals, but again, I would dare say that such staffing problems may have less to do with any lack of qualified personnel, but rather how personnel are treated.

Allow me to be more realistic and specific.

From a business perspective - that was the exclusive relationship the Agency which you had contracted with had with the Hospital – hospitals have to pay a significantly greater amount of money to agencies with whom they contract. The hospital staff knows that, as well – and in many cases, it’s no small source of jealousy. Consider for a moment the following, which you and I both know to be true.

The Agency has a Master Contract with the Hospital under which you contract with the Agency. Typically, contracts have performance clauses – just as the contract you have with the Agency. Such performance clauses in the Master Contract specify what the Hospital will do if and when the Agency meets or exceeds the specified guidelines with regard to staffing. Staffing means the Agency must present qualified personnel for interviews with Hospital Department Managers, whom in turn give the yea or nay to hiring. Upon successful completion of the contract, there may be an extra amount of money paid if the Agency exceeded the Hospital’s guidelines. As well, to some extent, those bonuses are passed along to the individual Registered Nurses whom contact with the Agency to perform work for the Hospital.

Now, if the Hospital can make a verified and documented claim to the Agency that a certain percentage of the hires were not suitable and therefore, for whatever reason, did not complete their contract term, the Hospital can save a significant amount of money, simply because the Hospital will not have to pay.

Of course all claims made against you are heresay and “bullshit.” Why, and how do I and others know that? Because if there was even one shred of truth to any claim – that is, if there was a substantive claim – neither the Hospital nor Agency would waste an instant filing a complaint against the Professional License of the hire with the State Board of Nursing. But, because there is NO SUBSTANCE to any claim anyone at the Hospital may make – and all parties to the contract, Agency, Hospital and RN know this – no one (in this case, the Hospital) will initiate a complaint simply because of the volumes of necessary documentation required. This is a cheap, substandard and wretched means for the hospital to “legitimately” avoid paying extra money to an Agency, which is quite likely excellently performing the contract. As I began with, this speaks more to “how personnel are treated” than anything else.

Again, I have a strong suspicion that your firing was merely a play, and that this most unfortunate turn of events was nothing more than a strategy in corporate gamesmanship involving the Hospital’s contractual business relationship with the Agency. In other words, it’s not about you; it’s all about the money. You are unfortunately caught in the middle.