Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Raylene Richards.mpeg

What contract? A common employee or a pharmacist? At the end they always win ... There

Is it coincidence or causality that more employees request the pharmacy, pharmacy students pharmacists that true?
How many pharmacists are covering these times that open pharmacies in each locality?
Are they enough?
"working in pharmacies and even more run time, which operate 24 hours. have at least one pharmacist is always present?
"In addition to serving as required, may supervise non-professional employees?
believe that the answers to each of these questions is more than obvious.
population's health is at stake not only when drugs are sold at a kiosk. In these cases also. And curiously (or not so) is not doing anything.

analysis is quite complex but here are some details:
* You might think that the employer, looking at his own expense, take an employee that "in theory" it costs less than a pharmacist, taking risks and exposing themselves to very serious problems that this can lead (faults to inspections, bad practice, etc.). * On the other hand
we also know that the assets of a professional employee of a pharmaceutical and not far from each other (thanks to the passivity of the colleges and put our noses to the professional level unions useless), so that it could be concluded that almost the same cost, without much thought, it should absolutely take pharmaceuticals.

How is it possible that they live two conclusions as antagonistic to each other?
The answer, at least ours is simple: Cadeneros, franchisors, hidden and pharmacy owners are betting big on both employees and pharmaceutical professionals but at a rate inconsistent with a claim itself health services such as pharmacy. In this way continue to influence both their own fees, and have historically been "very close" to negotiations (and we never use words like "fixing" or "trans") with the same unions and colleges with whom they should maintain maximum possible harmony, so that numbers close to one side.
unions continue to receive contributions from employees and pharmacists (and unlawful forced the latter) and the schools continue to receive their registration fees by professionals who "say" group.

Who lost in all this?
The community which is increasingly exposed to voices ignorant and unskilled hands handling your health (and here no longer talk about Kiosquero).
Also, and again, the very professional pharmacist, who as we have grown accustomed to his absolute passivity, fear, inaction and complete lack of attitude to meet and discuss with their peers to confront those who should, finds herself less and less valued, needed and recognized as a health professional. Finally
us, that we express through this medium, because we do not give any other place, perhaps because we are absolutely front and the naked truth as the only flag. Because they still support their everyday actions, that the only way to silence who think they have, is threats, flaming, insulting, disqualified, trying to get all dirty from behind, recommending to all colleagues fragile thought and character not to get involved with those who think so , which does not allow us to exercise, do not give us work place, so being marginalized in the profession. Ever sincerely believed, to be spectators of these acts of meanness and inferiority complexes, to the point of avoiding confrontation, knowing losers in the debate, and be aware that you missed all those who trusted them and change the wrongs for his back which cowardly and treacherous stab. They have their rearguard so dirty that more and more people avoid not only the debate but also the greeting, look to the eyes, the living minimum. They can not against the truth, make water and collapse at a time before we were and will always be "imcomprables" with "snake oil" and superficialities which anyway will end up "eating" the vast majority of colleagues later still blinded by their own inability or convenience, even knowing that this "I shit on my colleague" means inevitably, sooner or a disadvantage.

As ever express through these channels, even leaving the side of the practice of the profession, absolutely ignored and neglected, we will have even better insight and strength to continue analyzing, discussing and denouncing especially as we have done so far, all actions that continue to grow this true terminal tumor diagnosed with more than critical, the death sentence to our profession for many years.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Navy Retirement Party

Criminal Policy. LIVE

Todos los días, la información más resaltante en los medios de comunicación tiene que ver con la seguridad pública, podemos percibir a través de ellos que se vive en anarquía, inseguridad, infracciones, crímenes y más crímenes.

Esto viéndolo desde el positive side, this indicates that there is a social problem is that so SHOULD provoked debate and discussions on the causes and measures to solve the existing problem. As a starting point we must recognize the problem and then give a structural treatment to it is there where it enters the CRIMINAL POLICY main rule of how the state must address the insecurity in the penal system to coordinate its operation in all aspects from origin to be consistent and have the expected result.

paper on the subject I could find at the International Centre for the Prevention of Crime in Montreal in 2004, performed an interesting research paper on the increase of crime in Latin America, which highlights some similarities. THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC POLICY SHOULD CONSIDER:

1. More young people = more crime . And ours is a region that has averaged more than 40% of its population between 0 and 18

2. More leisure in young people, defined as time away from family and school = more crime. Latin American Average more than 50% of adolescents in secondary school age are out of school.

3. More unemployment = more crime. This correlation is given in our countries, so-called "developing", not in high-income countries that have systems of welfare state or welfare state, with adequate pension systems and unemployment insurance (Carranza et al . 1997, p. 30).

4. More urbanization (the shuffle) = more crime. And ours is a region of rapid migration to large cities (causing crowding).

5 .- Possession or carrying of a weapon = More crime. shockingly Our region is the most uncontrolled of this variable.

With these analogies, the sensible thing would act on the variables that are linked to crime to reduce its incidence. Thus, we saw that the younger the population of a country, the more crime there, and we also saw that the more time outside of school and family, also the greater the incidence of crime.

policy is reasonable then to actions aimed at any age person School is out of school. It corresponds not only to prevent crime, but because education is a fundamental human right, established as a principle in our Constitution and way less expensive.

regard to the possession and carrying of firearms, numerous studies show that it is a variable that directly affects the increase in violence. The ideal is that firearms are exclusively in the hands of the uniformed police. Logically, there is a goal to be achievable in the short term, but we must start with incremental steps. In the world there are several countries that have succeeded, exhibiting very low rates of homicide see Singapore, Oman, Morocco, Greece.

What I have said so far we can not continue to ignore progress in this area get down to work. You must set an example as to what was done in New York implementing the Manifesto "zero tolerance" setting a first point of security policies that established zero tolerance for any criminal offenses to be minimum .

That is the challenge facing us all as part of the state but requires the application of CRIMINAL POLICY, to reduce crime because the future "Is not going to happen" , is what we "want to happen."



Joseph F. Monaza M.
Attorney
UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL EXPERIMENTAL "Romulo Gallegos" SUCRE
FOUNDATION MISSION

Monday, November 15, 2010

Vhs Vcr Tape Recorder

case ... Do not learn more ... We would have liked

Did not realize that while my esteemed colleagues continue to publish editorials on websites that respond to the government in turn, will continue taking place as long as these editorials serve to "entertain" touching issues that maybe partially or tangentially affect us, and that when they try to treat or speak on the "real" issues that affect us today, to call things by name and engage (read escrachar) specifically the current leaders, are going to censor or lucky, "suggest" that readdress and reconsider how to express themselves?
And do not talk about assumptions ... I speak with experience ...
Let
boludeando and entertaining each other with nonsense and superfluous topics, in the meantime the big guys are taking it all ...
not learn more ... We remain the shame of health professionals.