George S. Eccles Dinosaur Park Celebrates 25th Anniversary with “Land of the Lost Cast”
Special “Land of the Lost” Ogden UnCon celebrity appearance will be held at the George S. Eccles Dinosaur Park Thursday, June 6. Celebrity guests will include “Land of Lost” TV show cast members Wesley Eure, Kathy Coleman and Phillip Paley.
OGDEN, UT, May 20, 2019 — Celebrate the 25th Anniversary of the George S. Eccles Dinosaur Park and the 45th Anniversary of “Land of Lost” during an exclusive Ogden UnCon event the day before UnCon weekend. The celebrities from the iconic TV show will speak to this audience-interactive panel about their experience on the show and love for all things prehistoric. All ages are welcome.
What: Exclusive remote Ogden UnCon Anniversary with “Land of the Lost” cast members at the George S. Eccles Dinosaur Park.
When: Thursday, June 6, 12-4 PM
Where: George S. Eccles Dinosaur Park
1544 E Park Blvd
Ogden, Utah 84401
Who: “Land of the Lost” guests and respective roles listed below. The actors will not be available for individual interviews, but a representative from UnCon, listed below, will be available.
Guests:
Wesley Eure (Will Marshall)
Kathy Coleman: (Holly Marshall)
Phillip Paley: (Chakka)
Available for interview:
Russ Adams, Ogden UnCon Operations Manager
Why: Ogden UnCon wants to share the celebrity guests from its inaugural weekend with the community and celebrate two amazing anniversaries!
Visual: Celebrity hosted talk near museum exhibits, celebrity-hosted tour of the park and designated photo opportunities will occur during the event.
About Ogden UnCon
Ogden UnCon is a limited liability company and an annual event dedicated to the appreciation of pop culture, its creativity and art forms. Through their convention, they will shine a light on the arts, artists and the city of Ogden, Utah. The inaugural Ogden UnCon will be held June 7-9, 2019 at the Ogden Eccles Conference Center, The Monarch and the Ogden City Amphitheater.
============================
USDA Announces Loans to Improve Rural Electric Infrastructure and Upgrade Energy Efficiency
Approximately 450,000 Residential and Commercial Customers will Benefit
Contact:
Weldon Freeman (202) 690-1384
Jay Fletcher (202) 690-0498
WASHINGTON, May 30, 2019 – Acting Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development Joel Baxley today announced that USDA is providing $858 million in loans to upgrade rural electric systems in 17 states (PDF, 111 KB). The funding includes $64 million to finance smart grid technologies that improve system operations and monitor grid security.
“Investing in our nation’s electric infrastructure powers our economy, creates jobs and helps deliver services such as education, training and health care to build stronger rural communities,” Baxley said. “These loans will help rural electric cooperatives generate and distribute power to keep systems reliable and affordable for those who live and work in rural areas.”
==============
*For a review copy of the book or an interview with Elaine Biech, please contact Dottie DeHart, DeHart & Company Public Relations, at (828) 325-4966 or simply reply to this email.
The Partnership Dilemma:
Six Factors Every Consultant Should Consider Before Tying the Knot
After a certain amount of success, most consultants flirt with the idea of partnership.
Elaine Biech shares the advantages, disadvantages, and everything else you should consider before teaming up with someone else.
Hoboken, NJ (May 2019)—Working for yourself is one of the greatest perks of being a consultant. Without a doubt, it's great to be your own boss, set your own schedule, make your own decisions, and be responsible for you and only you. But once the business really starts rolling in, that may need to change. When you find yourself struggling to manage a massive workload, it's time to at least consider forming a partnership.
Admittedly this is a good problem to have. But proceed with caution, says Elaine Biech: If you decide to partner with someone, you're about to dramatically change your life.
"Never take this choice lightly," says Biech, author of The New Business of Consulting: The Basics and Beyond (Wiley, May 2019, ISBN: 978-1-119-55690-9, $30.00) and its companion workbook, The New Consultant's Quick Start Guide: An Action Plan for Your First Year in Business (Wiley, April 2019, ISBN: 978-1-119-55693-0, $28.00). "Even if you believe you will work well with another person, there are always growing pains at the beginning. Once all the bugs are worked out, a partnership can be really rewarding, but it could also go the other way."
Biech—who had a partner for five years but is currently on her own—says the relationship is more like a marriage than marriage itself. You and your partner must complement one another's skills, trust each other, be able to make decisions together, and communicate well.
"Being a consultant is far different from a 40-hour-a-week job," she adds. "You'll be spending a lot of time with the person, and his or her life will deeply intertwine with yours."
That said, here are six factors to consider before you form a partnership.
Do you truly understand the pros and cons of partnering? Consulting is a lonely business, and the thought of having a partner to bounce ideas off of and cover for you if you become ill (or just want to go on vacation) can seem like the perfect answer. Partnering broadens your business capabilities, expertise, skills, and experience. When you take on a partner, you send a message to the world that the person you have partnered with is at least your equal—critical if your present clients are to accept that this person is a qualified substitute for you.
Yet there are plenty of disadvantages as well. One of the biggest is also one of the advantages, depending on how much you value independence: You must share decision-making with someone. Depending on your agreement, each of you will probably need to check with the other before making a change. Also, you will need to share resources. This can be a concern, especially if one of the partners is either generating or billing a greater proportion than the other.
Can you really work together? (Don't just guess at the answer!) Biech highly recommends forming a trial relationship to explore the likelihood of a successful permanent one. Make an arrangement that allows you and your potential partner to work together for 6 to 12 months before making the relationship permanent.
How would you configure your partnership? Both parties should agree upon the way you will legally set up your partnership as well as how you will handle its ownership.
"My partner and I chose to incorporate legally as a subchapter S corporation," says Biech. "We decided that because I had more equity and eight years in the company, I would maintain slightly more than half of the ownership. And although we didn't consider it at the time, my slight edge of more than half of the ownership meant that the company would be a woman-owned business. Some organizations use that designation to make final decisions for awarding contracts."
Does your potential partner have the right qualities? Make sure your potential partner:
How will you decide on salary? Both parties need to feel fairly compensated for their work. So figure out the monetary arrangement early. Will you both earn equal salary? Will you have a different arrangement?
"Prior to becoming an official partnership, my partner and I agreed that he would work for at least one year at a reduced salary," says Biech. "The salary not taken was his way of buying into the company. We agreed that we would draw the same salary after the partnership was formed. The split of dividends, of course, is governed by law. We would each receive an amount proportionate to the percentage of ownership."
How will you divide responsibilities? Dividing responsibilities and roles is often the most difficult task. Do all you can to create roles and titles that clearly define the responsibilities. For example, a founding partner can focus on work with major clients and maintain the corporate vision, while a managing partner can manage the daily operation of the company, including taking over responsibility for sales and profitability.
"In my case, my partner and I were separated geographically: My office was in Wisconsin, and his office was in Virginia," notes Biech. "Each of the offices was responsible for different aspects of the business—for example, invoicing clients, bookkeeping, or producing client materials. Each of us had responsibility for running an office and managing the staff at its location."
One more note: If, after weighing all these factors, you do decide to bring in a partner, be sure to plan for the possibility that something could go wrong in the future.
"Put all agreements in writing and devise a plan for the details of a breakup, should one be necessary," says Biech. "Depending on your situation, you may want to tap your attorney to help make it official.
"I loved working with my partner and would do it again if I could find another exactly like him," she adds. "I share all of this information not to be negative about taking on a partner but to encourage consultants to think carefully, not rush into anything, and plan ahead. If you decide you're ready to move forward, you'll be glad you took the time to weigh the pros and cons and will feel confident that you've made the right decision."
# # #
About the Author:
Elaine Biech is the author of The New Business of Consulting: The Basics and Beyond. She is a dedicated lifelong learner who believes that excellence isn't optional. As a consultant, trainer, and president of ebb associates for more than 35 years, she helps global organizations to work through large-scale change and leaders to maximize their effectiveness. She has published 85 books, including the Washington Post #1 bestseller The Art and Science of Training. She is the recipient of numerous professional awards and accolades, including ATD's inaugural CPLP Fellow Honoree, ISA's Broomfield Award, and Wisconsin's Women Entrepreneur's Mentor Award. Elaine, a consummate professional, has been instrumental in leading the talent development profession during most of her career and has served on several boards, including ASTD, CCL, ISA, and others. She is a designer and facilitator for the online course "How to Build Your Successful Training Consulting Business" and has been featured in publications such as the Wall Street Journal, Harvard Management Update, Investor's Business Daily, and Fortune.
Customizing all of her work for individual clients, she conducts strategic planning sessions and is particularly adept at turning dysfunctional teams into productive ones. As a management consultant, trainer, and designer, she provides services globally to public- and private-sector organizations to prepare them for the challenges of the future.
For more information, please visit www.elainebiech.com.
About the Books:
The New Business of Consulting: The Basics and Beyond (Wiley, May 2019, ISBN: 978-1-119-55690-9, $30.00) and its companion workbook, The New Consultant's Quick Start Guide: An Action Plan for Your First Year in Business (Wiley, April 2019, ISBN: 978-1-119-55693-0, $28.00), are available at bookstores nationwide, from major online booksellers, and direct from the publisher by calling 800-225-5945. In Canada, call 800-567-4797. For more information, please visit the book's page and the workbook's page on www.wiley.com.
===========================
Russia wins, but it isn’t over yet
By Wim Laven
788 words
On May 29th, Robert Mueller, Special Counsel of the Department of Justice told us: “If we had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
It was a truth we already knew.
Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) expressed it in concrete terms: “I think it's really important that we do our job as a Congress, that we not allow misconduct to go undeterred. That we not just say, someone can violate the public trust and that there are no consequences to it…”
Amash notes that reaching the conclusion that Trump needs to be impeached only required two things: taking his oath of office seriously and reading the Mueller Report. He is “confident that if you read Volume II, you'll be appalled at much of the conduct,” and I agree. There is no means by which one can take their oath seriously and reach any other conclusion. There is no doubt about the findings in the report.
To Mueller and Amash I owe a debt of gratitude. I hope that they do not carry the weight of regret in the future—it is the citizens who must own the irresponsibility that we—as a whole—needed to do more. But it is not necessary to give up; as clear as it is that Trump has committed crimes, and that he is unlikely to face consequences from spineless elected officials, there is power in the hands of the people.
Mueller and Amash have reminded the public and placed emphasis on the truth: Russia attacked American democracy on behalf of Donald J. “I love Wikileaks” Trump.
Since Mueller noted that the Department of Justice cannot indict a sitting president, there is only one option if we don’t believe any president should be above the law: impeachment proceedings.
Sadly, Republican cowardice is so great that Amash will face reprisals for an insistence on doing the right thing. The Republican Senate has promised to fail the public on articles of impeachment, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) vows“it would be disposed of very quickly.” But his concession to Russia, and the threats to those willing to stand up for what is right should not cause us to lose hope.
The praise Amash deserves, and he is receiving standing ovations, for proclaiming the importance of serving the public trust is because it comes at personal cost. Toeing the Republican line is easy and comes with rewards, there is incentive for supporting the Russian attack. Lindsey Graham, for example, used to defend the US in the face of Trump’s lunacy, but he became a traitor when he saw opposing Trump was hurting his numbers. The praise comes from a willingness to make sacrifice.
Russia has won, but it is not a permanent defeat of American democracy unless we forfeit. There are still a handful of representatives presenting moral fiber and the courage to act, but, more importantly, there are millions of outraged citizens. Believe it or not, this is a formula for success!
Russia’s victory in installing its preferred candidate is but a single victory in a much larger struggle. The US can win through organized resistance.
The truth is that real positive change can be produced through strong moral commitments from small minorities. Evidence provides robust proof of this point, Erica Chenoweth, Professor of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School, has found the 3.5% rule—“the notion that no government can withstand a challenge of 3.5% of its population without either accommodating the movement or (in extreme cases) disintegrating.”
The track record of nonviolent struggle scares the right. This is why violence is so frequently promoted. Hate crimes are up under the Trump administration, etc… Extremist chatrooms are full of discussions of another civil war… But, We the Peoplewield power through the practice of nonviolence, and there are too many examples to list them all: Civil Rights in the US; the People Power Movement in the Philippines led to Marcos’ resignation; the Protest on Rosenstrasse opposing Nazi Germany; the Rose Revolutionousted Eduard Shevardnadze in Georgia; the Velvet or Gentle Revolution in what was then Czechoslovakia; this year the presidents of Sudan and Algeria stepped down because of nonviolent resistance…
Citizens, it is time to fight back. We must look to the wisdom of our heroes—Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, and Martin Luther King Jr., and more—and commit ourselves to the causes of justice. We must unite in our demands that Donald Trump is not above the law despite the refusal of our elected officials to live up to our oaths. We must support each other. The cost for inaction is clear, complete defeat at the hands of Vladimir Putin’s Russia, all of our freedoms hang in the balance—we cannot give up!
~~~~~~~~
Wim Laven, Ph.D., syndicated by PeaceVoice, teaches courses in political science and conflict resolution.
========================
Shattering the context of war
By Robert C. Koehler
993 words
The U.S. government protects itself, not democracy. That’s what is most apparent about its 18-count indictment of Julian Assange, not to mention the ongoing imprisonment of Chelsea Manning, for the leaking and release of State Department and military documents and videos a decade ago.
The current reporting on the indictment is mostly about Assange himself: his expulsion from the Ecuadoran embassy in London after he’d been holed up there for seven years; the sexual assault charges against him in Sweden; and, of course, his role as a “tool” of the Russians, along with his flip-flopping appeal to both the political left and right (depending on the nature of the controversy WikiLeaks is stirring up). What a story!
Almost entirely missing is anything about the leaks themselves, except vague references to them, such as this comment by John Demers, assistant attorney general for national security: “This release made our adversaries stronger and more knowledgeable, and the United States less secure.”
These words are remarkable bullshit and have resonance only to the extent that the actual leaked data is missing from the discussion, such as the infamous Apache helicopter video of 11 unarmed men (in U.S. military parlance, “insurgents”) — including a Reuters photographer and his driver — being shot and killed from above on a street in Baghdad, and two children being injured.
The video shows the killings as they occur, with helicopter crewmen talking and laughing between bursts of machinegun fire, as though they’re playing a videogame:
“Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards.”
“Nice.”
We see a wounded man crawling for cover, only to be taunted from above: “Come on, buddy. All you gotta do is pick up a weapon.”
A van shows up and some men start picking up the bodies. We listen to the crewmen asking for permission to shoot — “engage” — and finally start firing at the van, in which, it turns out, two children are sitting. When that little detail becomes apparent, a crewman comments: “Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids to a battle.”
And when some Bradley tanks arrive at the scene, a crewman comments, laughing: “I think a tank just drove over a body.”
At the time the video was released, in 2010, three years after the incident occurred, Defense Secretary Robert Gates complained that its impact was unfair because the public was seeing it “out of context” — which of course it was! It was sheer, raw war, shown as it was in progress. The Department of Defense is supposed to have total control over context; on the home front, war is 100 percent public relations. The public’s role is to be spectators, consumers of orchestrated news; they can watch smart bombs dropped from on high and be told that this is protecting them from terrorism and spreading democracy. That’s context.
After the video came out, the New York Times attempted to restore some of the shattered context, quoting a psychologist who explained that soldiers need to distance themselves from what they’re doing to maintain their sanity: “. . . their job is to destroy the enemy, and one way they’re able to do that is to see it as a game, so that the people don’t seem real.”
But the searing takeaway from the video wasn’t the laughter, it was the killing — the destruction of “the enemy,” who in this case were a group of seemingly unarmed men standing around and talking. Two of them were journalists, photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and his driver, Saeed Chmagh. After the incident, Reuters tried to learn the details of what happened and filed a freedom of information request, but that went nowhere. The details only became known when WikiLeaks released the classified video.
All of which brings me back to the Demers quote: “This release made our adversaries stronger and more knowledgeable, and the United States less secure.”
These words need to be translated. By “our adversaries,” he means the public (American and global). By “the United States,” he means the U.S. government, particularly the executive branch.
And of course the Apache helicopter video was just a drop in the bucket of what was released, which is the basis of Assange’s indictment. Der Spiegel, one of five international publications that got advance copies of more than 250,000 State Department cables, wrote at the time: “Never before in history has a superpower lost control of such vast amounts of such sensitive information — data that can help paint a picture of the foundation upon which US foreign policy is built.”
Reflecting on all this, I wrote: “The revelations so far seem less significant than the fact that the American government’s bin of secrets has — once again — been raided, and that the raw data of diplomacy has been strewn across cyberspace, for the likes of you and me to ogle and, if we choose, draw our own conclusions. We get to have real-time looks at how geopolitics actually works.
“While temporary secrecy, or at least privacy, is sometimes necessary in any endeavor, permanent secrecy — secrecy as entitlement — is nothing but dangerous.”
Assange’s indictment is his red badge of courage. We can’t depend on large institutions to stand up for democracy. The larger the institution, the more absorbed it is likely to be in its own preservation and the success of its agenda. Democracy requires people outside the circle of power, both governmental and corporate, to maintain an adversarial relationship with power and endlessly dig for its secrets. This is called journalism.
Demers, justifying the government’s indictment, paid lip service to the sacredness of journalism, explaining: “The department takes seriously the role of journalists in our democracy, and we thank you for it. It is not and never has been the department’s policy to target them for reporting. But Julian Assange is no journalist.”
There you have it. What better proof could you ask for that he is a journalist, and that the secrets he has ripped out of hiding require serious public scrutiny?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~end~~~~~~~~~~
Robert Koehler (koehlercw@gmail.com), syndicated by PeaceVoice, is a Chicago award-winning journalist and editor. He is the author of Courage Grows Strong at the Wound.
Could A Better Diet Cool Your Inflammation? Avoid These 5 Food Groups
Chronic inflammation is associated with such diseases as obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, and can harm people in numerous other ways, from painful joints to dental problems and aging skin.
It can even disturb your slumber, since inflammation can impact the breathing airways during sleep, resulting in sleep apnea among other potential issues, says Dr. Lynn Lipskis (www.drlipskis.com), director of the TMJ & Sleep Therapy Centre and co-author with her husband, Dr. Edmund Lipskis, of Breathe, Sleep, Live, Smile: Integrative Treatments for TMJ/TMD, Sleep Apnea, Orthodontics.
Yet, with all the potential complications, not everyone may realize that one effective way to combat inflammation is through better nutrition, Dr. Lipskis says.
“Inflammation can come from a variety of issues, but diet undoubtedly is one of the bigger factors,” she says. “Some people unwisely put dietary compliance at the bottom of their priority list. While some patients with better diets don’t have a lot of inflammation, others are so inflamed they can’t breathe at all through their nose.”
Dr. Lynn Lipskis and Dr. Edmund Lipskis suggest a list of inflammatory foods to avoid:
Gluten. Foods containing gluten can be some of the most inflammatory. “Generally,” Dr. Lynn Lipskis says, “gluten is the protein part of a grain. A lot of people will react to gluten by experiencing increased inflammation. Gluten-free eating has become popular because so many people who adopt it find that they feel better. Symptoms of sensitivity to gluten include fatigue, diarrhea, constipation, achy joints and brain fog.”
Dairy. “Dairy products promote mucus production,” Dr. Ed Lipskis says. “That inflames tissue and mucous clogs the nasal passages. There are mixed reviews on whether people should consume dairy products and to what extent. I recommend an elimination diet to see how it affects you.”
Processed carbohydrates. These include a litany of foods people love, but the Lipskis team says the eventual harm outweighs the enjoyment. “It may mean saying good-bye to pasta, breads, cookies, candies,” Dr. Ed Lipskis says. “People often believe that whole wheat bread is better than white bread, but whole wheat is actually just as inflammatory because of the carbohydrate in wheat, known as amylopectin A.” Similarly, Lipskis says most people mistakenly believe brown rice to be a better choice than white rice. “But like whole wheat,” he says, “the husk of brown rice contains the allergens and proteins that can cause inflammation.”
Alcohol (red wine). “People who have sleep apnea are assured a bad night’s sleep after drinking alcohol,” Dr. Lynn Lipskis says. “Red wine targets the nasal membrane, causing swelling and limiting the opening for air flow. This inflammation can last six to eight hours, ruining a full night’s sleep.”
Refined sugars. “Sugar is everywhere,” Dr. Ed Lipskis says. “While sugar is known for negatives – rotting teeth, packing on the pounds, providing no nutrition – the biggest reason you should say good-bye to sugar is that it’s one of the most inflammatory parts of many foods. And be careful with fruit, which is generally thought of as healthy but contains naturally occurring fructose. The less fiber there is in a fruit, the less healthy it is.”
“We should be eating a normal, balanced diet of real food – not processed foods,” Dr. Lynn Lipskis says. “It’s tough to avoid the occasional bagel, bag of chips, or glass of red wine, but going off the wagon, so to speak, can lead to immediate inflammation and long-term problems. Listen to your body - it will let you know the effect that each type of food has.”
About Dr. Edmund Lipskis, DDS, MS and Dr. Lynn Lipskis, DDS
Dr. Edmund Lipskis (www.drlipskis.com) is the director of The Centre for Integrative Orthodontics and co-author, with his wife, Dr. Lynn Lipskis, of Breathe, Sleep, Live, Smile: Integrative Treatments for TMJ/TMD, Sleep Apnea, Orthodontics. He is a Master Senior Instructor in the International Board of Orthodontics and board-certified by the International Board of Orthodontics and the American Board of Craniofacial Pain. Co-founder of St. Charles Family Dentistry Ltd. and the TMJ & Sleep Therapy Centre of Chicago, he has lectured internationally on phase-two treatment (via orthodontics) of chronic-pain individuals and airway-focused orthodontics.
Dr. Lynn Lipskis (www.drlipskis.com), a graduate of Loyola University School of Dentistry, is director of the TMJ & Sleep Therapy Centre. She co-founded St. Charles Family Dentistry Ltd. with her husband, with whom she has practiced dentistry for 30 years. She was a clinical instructor in pediatric dentistry at Loyola University School of Dentistry until it closed in 1993. She is a Diplomate of the American Board of Craniofacial Sleep Medicine and the American Academy of Dental Sleep Medicine. She is also board-certified by the American Board of Craniofacial Pain. Since 2011, she has concentrated her professional attention on the practice of dental sleep medicine and the treatment of TMJ and chronic pain. The Lipskis’ host a doctors’ course on airway-focused orthodontics on an annual basis.
