Bay High Water

GLOBAL TRADE-How it affects You

2011-05-08T20:50:00.000-07:00

WHEN Peter lost his job with the multinational corporation where he had worked for 20 years, the dismissal notice put the blame squarely on "the globalization of the economy." When Thailand's currency, the baht, lost more than half its value, the finance minister of that country went on TV castigating "globalization." When the price of rice increased by 60 percent in a country in Southeast Asia, headlines at the news kiosk announced: "It's the Globalization!"

What exactly is the globalization of the economy? How and why does it affect your country as well as the money in your pocket? What is behind this trend?

What Is Globalization?

As an economic phenomenon, globalization is a shift from distinct national economies to a global economy. In today's "global village," the production of goods has been internationalized, and money flows freely and instantly across borders. It is virtually trade without borders. In this system multinational corporations wield vast power, while anonymous investors can foster material prosperity or cause devastating depression in any part of the world.

Globalization is both a cause and a result of the modern information revolution. It is driven by dramatic improvements in telecommunications, incredible increases in computing power, and the development of information networks, such as the Internet. These technologies are helping to overcome the barriers of physical distance. With what results?

Mixed Blessing?

     According to its proponents, globalization can be a whirlwind of trade and investment that builds economies and spurs development in even the world's poorest countries. For example, during the 1990's alone, foreign investors have poured one trillion dollars into developing economies. This phenomenal increase in international investment has made the building of roads, airports, and factories possible in poorer nations. Globalization has indeed been a force that has raised living standards for some across the world. Peter Sutherland, chairman of the Overseas Development Council, says that "until recently, it took at least two generations for living standards to double, but in China, living standards now double every 10 years." Globalization is perceived as bringing unprecedented opportunities to billions of people. The staggering expansion of world trade has induced a wave of productivity and efficiency and has created new jobs.

I     ts critics, however, counter that globalization can also bring down economies overnight. A few clicks of a computer mouse can devalue a national currency very quickly, washing away the life savings of millions of breadwinners. Ominous words from the mouth of an influential Wall Street analyst can instantly cause a herd of panicked investors to sell their stocks in Asia, creating a huge capital vacuum that could eventually drive millions into poverty. A board of directors can decide to close a plant in Mexico and open up one in Thailand instead—creating jobs in Asia while condemning hundreds of families in Latin America to destitution.

     Many point out that globalization has made life more difficult for large segments of human society and that it threatens to leave part of the world behind. "It is no coincidence that the disappointing economic performance in much of Sub-Saharan Africa reflects a failure to integrate into the world economy and, thus, to trade successfully and attract investment," said Sutherland.

     How does this concern you? Local, national, and regional economies have become interlocked and interdependent. Thus, disease symptoms in one economy may quickly spread to infect others—including your country's. For instance, the global financial storm that devastated Asia in 1997 and Russia and Latin America in 1998 and 1999 now threatens to inflict significant damage on the prosperity of the United States, countries in Europe, and many other financially stable nations. Economies that looked healthy one moment have become seriously ill the next—apparently not because of any new development within their own borders but because of a shock from abroad. Economists call this phenomenon "financial contagion." Says Lionel Barber of the Financial Times: "The financial shocks are occurring simultaneously and in many instances are mutually reinforcing. Contagion is no longer a risk; it is a fact of life."

     All over the world, therefore, globalization has increasingly stitched lives into a single economic quilt. Regardless of where you live, such contagion affects you in more ways than one. Consider the following examples. When Brazil floated its currency in January 1999, Argentine poultry farmers were shocked to realize that Brazilians were selling chickens cheaper than theirs to supermarkets in Buenos Aires. Moreover, the international economic slump had already slashed the price of Argentine wood, soy, fruit juice, beef, and cheese. Low prices and reduced demand led to the closing of dairies there, leaving hundreds unemployed.

     Meanwhile, hog farmers in Illinois, U.S.A., found that while they had enjoyed good pork exports to booming Asian countries in the past, now they had to lower their prices, since demand was low and competition was fierce. "We've never seen this heavy a loss in the pork industry, not even in the Depression," lamented one farmer. In the same country, steel workers were laid off, as their companies were facing a deluge of steel imports from China, Japan, Russia, Indonesia, and other countries—all of them with weak currencies that made their exported goods very cheap. Because of a lack of Asian buyers, unsold grain piled up in the United States, to the dismay of farmers in that country.

     The implications of globalization are further compounded by the fact that banks and pension funds in wealthy countries have lent to or invested heavily in "emerging markets"—a euphemism for some economies in the developing world. Thus, when such economies collapsed during the 1997-99 financial crisis, this had a direct bearing on ordinary citizens who either were pensioners or had savings in banks that had suffered losses. Almost everyone has felt the cold shiver of loss, directly or indirectly.

Globalization has been blamed for widening the gap between the rich and the poor.

For Richer, for Poorer

     A closer examination of the globalization process reveals that it has created expanding islands of wealth in poor countries and swelling seas of poverty in wealthy countries. How so? David Korten partly answers this question in his book When Corporations Rule the World: "Rapid economic growth in low-income countries brings modern airports, television, express highways, and air-conditioned shopping malls with sophisticated consumer electronics and fashion labels for the fortunate few. It rarely improves living conditions for the many. This kind of growth requires gearing the economy toward exports to earn the foreign exchange to buy the things that wealthy people desire. Thus, the lands of the poor are appropriated for export crops. The former tillers of these lands then find themselves subsisting in urban slums on starvation wages paid by sweatshops producing for export. Families are broken up, the social fabric is strained to the breaking point, and violence becomes endemic. Those whom growth has favored then need still more foreign exchange to import arms to protect themselves from the rage of the excluded."

     Universally, globalization has placed great pressure on working people as governments force down wages and labor standards in an attempt to attract foreign investment with the promise of low costs. While some newly industrialized countries have profited from increased exports as a result of freer global trade, poorer nations have been largely excluded from the feast.

     How grave has global inequality become? Just consider a single statistic quoted by Korten: "There are now [in 1998] 477 billionaires in the world, up from only 274 in 1991. Their combined assets are roughly equal to the combined annual incomes of the poorest half of humanity—2.8 billion people." The culprit? "This is a direct consequence of an unregulated global economy."

Driven by Greed—A Healthy Trend?

What is globalization's basic flaw? Commenting on the financial crisis of 1997-98, editor Jim Hoagland said that future historians "will find a trail of missed opportunities, flawed international cooperation and human greed." Some people ask: 'Can there be global peace and prosperity with an economic system that pits a wealthy minority against a poverty-stricken majority in a life-and-death struggle? Is it ethical for a small number of winners to enjoy extravagant wealth while a much larger number of losers are forced into humiliating deprivation?'

Truly, insatiable greed and moral deficiency have created a world of tremendous financial inequality. What a lawyer said 2,000 years ago is still true: "The love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things." (1 Timothy 6:10) Are human governments prepared to deal successfully with such inherent flaws in man's imperfect character? Fernando Cardoso, president of Brazil, voiced his concerns: "The task of providing a human dimension to development in the era of Globalization has become a major challenge, since all of us have to deal . . . with the ethical vacuum which the idolatry of the marketplace has caused."

"Epic Struggle of Power and Values"

In a lecture to the 22nd World Conference of the Society for International Development, Korten expressed his doubts about some of the beneficial effects of the global economy. He stated that there is "an epic struggle of power and values between people most everywhere and the institutions of the global economy. The outcome of this struggle will likely determine whether the 21st century marks the descent of our species into an anarchy of greed, violence, deprivation, and environmental destruction that could well lead to our own extinction. Or the emergence of prosperous life-centered civil societies in which all people are able to live without want in peace with one another and in balance with the planet."

Two Thoughts!!!!!!!!!!!

2011-05-01T21:15:00.000-07:00

1) How about Sarah Palin and Donald Thrump running for President and Vice-President?

What can they do for our country to help it get out of debt?

What can they do to help turn around 'solving the worlds problems' air that is all around us?

How about showing unity, can they do that?

Just how do they plan on showing us tax-payers how to have a real-life?

2) Why are we paying all these different counties large sums of money and yet we can not help our own country?

Is it that hard to take care of our our own place first?

It would seem that over the period of time that man has had to govern, he would learn how to make things better for us tax-payers who by the way help pay for the government so that it can run, but No it appears that they all want the headline but not the work to keep it.

For some reason I thought that we were suppose to take care of ourselves first.

So why are we so far off track?

Two thoughts from of old:

It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.

and

the making of many books there is no end.

And now the lastest:: "Osama Bin Laden is Dead" by news reports Sunday evening 5/1/2011

Will Green Chemistry help?

2011-04-21T05:00:00.000-07:00

How about this : GREEN CHEMISTRY

2011-04-21T02:05:00.000-07:00

     What is Green Chemistry?      Simply put, it seeks to design and invent the next generation of everyday materials and products by reducing or eliminating the use or generation of hazardous substances. Green chemistry means less waste, better energy efficiency and reduced risks for us and our environment. It’s an ongoing process of applying innovation, creativity and intelligence.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

     This article is about the concept of the environmentally friendly design of chemical products and processes. For the journal, see Green Chemistry (journal).

     Green chemistry, also called sustainable chemistry, is a philosophy of chemical research and engineering that encourages the design of products and processes that minimize the use and generation of hazardous substances.Whereas environmental chemistry is the chemistry of the natural environment, and of pollutant chemicals in nature, green chemistry seeks to reduce and prevent pollution at its source. In 1990 the Pollution Prevention Act was passed in the United States. This act helped create a modus operandi for dealing with pollution in an original and innovative way. It aims to avoid problems before they happen.

     As a chemical philosophy, green chemistry applies to organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, biochemistry, analytical chemistry, and even physical chemistry. While green chemistry seems to focus on industrial applications, it does apply to any chemistry choice. Click chemistry is often cited as a style of chemical synthesis that is consistent with the goals of green chemistry. The focus is on minimizing the hazard and maximizing the efficiency of any chemical choice. It is distinct from environmental chemistry which focuses on chemical phenomena in the environment.

     In 2005 Ryōji Noyori identified three key developments in green chemistry: use of supercritical carbon dioxide as green solvent, aqueous hydrogen peroxide for clean oxidations and the use of hydrogen in asymmetric synthesis. Examples of applied green chemistry are supercritical water oxidation, on water reactions, and dry media reactions.

     Bioengineering is also seen as a promising technique for achieving green chemistry goals. A number of important process chemicals can be synthesized in engineered organisms, such as shikimate, a Tamiflu precursor which is fermented by Roche in bacteria.

     There is some debate as to whether green chemistry includes a consideration of economics, but by definition, if green chemistry is not applied, it cannot accomplish the reduction in the "use or generation of hazardous substances."

     I believe green chemistry will be a powerful economic engine for the U.S. and for New England.

     Last summer, along with my colleague Paul Anastas, we began brainstorming how to bring together green chemistry leaders from the Northeast. We sought out John Warner of Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry , Amy Cannon of Beyond Benign , and New England leaders in government, academia and business to strategize what a sustainable green chemistry future might look like – and how we could make it happen in New England.

     The first step for making green chemistry an economic driver in New England was providing an opportunity for a variety of people involved in the subject to gather. With this goal first goal set, EPA hosted a Green Chemistry Networking Forum on Dec. 16, 2010.

     For green chemistry to really take off, we need a lot of well-coordinated aspects of society to engage. Education is essential, not only in universities, but also in early science education. At the Forum, we had both college students presenting their green chemistry work, and high school students participating. We were gratified to have all the New England state departments of environmental protection attend.

      Business and industry leaders who are adopting the 12 principles of green chemistry were there. Venture capitalists, who understand that innovative businesses that are guided by the green chemistry principles are a sound investment, were there. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) seeking safer, less-toxic chemicals to advance sustainability in our society were also there.

     The conversations that began at the Networking Forum will continue. Six groups that began talking about how to bring green chemistry into the future will continue to meet and create plans that they can implement. It’s a collaboration between government, business, academia and the NGOs that’s going to make New England the Green Chemistry Corridor. This is what the buzz is all about. Green chemistry is a way towards a sustainable future.

     New England is abuzz with discussions and planning to position the Northeast as a green chemistry force for the country and the world.

Please feel free to share a comment.

Where oh where is the "America Dream"?

2011-04-20T20:46:00.000-07:00

There is no Paradise here

American Dream!

What happened to it?

If things are so good here, then they must be really bad back in other countries.

We are suppose to be the riches,most healthy country on the planet.

But what happened?

Where are they?

If this is true than why is the government having to pay out so much for its citizens?

Why is the government having to take over on so many programs that effect our lives?

Why does all the big companies either private or government hate us citizans?

If they liked us then they wouldn't charge so much for their goods, like gas for our automobiles, oil for our homes, electricity for some much more?

And why can't the local counties take care of their own school system, some one in a neither city does not know about the local territory and the lives of that local county.

We are suppose to enjoy life not be stressed out.

Until something is done in a good way, clean way, that will benefit us all than what hope is there?

7 WAYS TO FIX AMERICA

2011-04-19T17:21:00.000-07:00

     While we wade through the economic mud of a weak recovery, our leaders dither. These steps from a think tank may not hold all the answers, but they could be a start.

Step 1. Fix health care and education

     We need to boost productivity in public and regulated sectors, including health care and education, which have been "persistent productivity laggards" and have the potential for large gains. By just about every standard, U.S. health care patients are overpaying for middling quality of care. Deutsche Bank economists led by Peter Hooper note that the United States "already puts far more resources into health care than any other country, and gets less for it on a number of different standards."

     The same goes for education. Previous research by McKinsey found that a persistent gap in academic achievement between children in the United States and those in other countries cost the U.S. economy over the long term. McKinsey estimated the cost of this education gap at upward of $2.3 trillion in lost output in 2008.

     Overall, these sectors represent 20% of the economy. And if we could get them to halve their productivity gap with the private sector, we could collectively save up to $300 billion annually. We need increased competitiveness, better use of technology, better management and new ways to think about how we pay for health care services to better align incentives and control costs.

Step 2. Increase innovation

     This one is all about research-and-development prowess. Many such advances are birthed via government programs like the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). But with the budget being squeezed, there is a risk we won't make critical investments in the future.

     For example, countries like China and Germany are taking the lead in funding alternative energy projects. In 2009, China has surpassed the United States in this area, spending nearly $35 billion, compared with $19 billion here. Germany is using the nuclear meltdown at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant as a catalyst to increase funding for wind energy projects.

     Keeping our scientists hard at work is critical. In his proposal "A Strategy for American Innovation," Obama has embraced a number of ideas in this area, from streamlining the patent process to expanding clean energy tax credits.

Step 3. Close the talent gap

     With the broad measure of unemployment at nearly 17%, it may be hard to believe, but a U.S. labor shortage is developing. McKinsey estimates that the United States may face a shortfall of 2 million technical and analytical workers, as well as a shortage of several hundred thousand nurses and as many as 100,000 doctors over the next decade. For aerospace, one of the nation's flagship industries, 60% of the workers are over the age of 45, compared with 40% in that age group in the overall economy.

     Small changes could have a big impact. Previous McKinsey research has shown that increasing the median retirement age in the economy by about two years over the next 30 years could add more than $12 trillion in economic growth over that period.

Solutions here include:

•Removing barriers to older workers staying in the workforce (mainly by controlling health care costs).

•Easing restrictions on skilled worker immigration.

•Improving access to vocational and technical training.

•More closely linking higher education and jobs.

Step 4. Fix the roads

     America's infrastructure has been in steady decline as our roads, rail lines and water systems fall into disrepair. We now rank 23rd in the world in this area, behind the likes of Oman, Singapore and Portugal. Our broadband Internet penetration lags South Korea and Hong Kong.

     Multinational corporations consistently say the quality of a country's infrastructure is among their top four considerations when deciding where to invest, and the United States is falling behind rapidly.

     It wasn't always this way. As recently as 2008, we were in the top 10, according to the World Economic Forum. Back in 2002, we were in the top five.

     It's not just a matter of throwing more money at the problem, though. Demand-management techniques such as congestion toll pricing and public-private financing partnerships should also be considered.

Step 5. Cut red tape

     At a time when businesses are easily able to relocate production and research centers -- picking and choosing between countries and localities -- the United States is slipping here, too. Businesses are facing a bureaucracy that's ever-harder to navigate, from more onerous oversight to lost tax credits and increased tax rates.

     A couple of examples: Big-box retailers can't sell pet medicines and automakers can't sell vehicles online. Restrictions like these reduce competition and increase costs.

Step 6. Solve the energy challenge

     My last column illustrated just how tight the world's crude-oil supply situation is. With demand rising quickly at a time when new energy sources are constrained, fast-growing economies are focused on reducing the amount of coal, oil and gas they need to run. Among the developed countries, the United States has the most energy-intensive economy.

     That can change. If, for instance, America adopts progressive increases in fuel economy standards like those in Europe and Japan, average gas use could increase by five miles a gallon by 2020. Such savings would be worth up to four million barrels of oil a day -- 20% of projected oil imports in 2020.

     Smart home energy meters and energy efficiency initiatives in both appliances and home heating and cooling are other action areas.

Step 7. Share ideas

     Although we're all Americans, the different regions and cities within the United States demonstrate remarkably different growth and productivity rates. McKinsey researcher believe there is "insufficient sharing" of the best ideas and practices across local and state levels.

     One solution would be for communities to form cross-region alliances to present business leaders with investment packages that harness the strengths of each region. One area would do the design work while another handled manufacturing, for example.

     I realize these steps may make the solutions to tough problems sound too easy. But they're also exactly what America needs to get back on track and create the jobs of the future, and they're more than Congress or the White House has put out lately.

     The simple fact is that until these structural issues are fixed and productivity bounces back, economic growth will disappoint. We'll find out just how disappointing on April 28, when first-quarter GDP figures are released.

ENERGY-Why Essential for Life

2011-04-10T22:04:00.000-07:00

BABY Micah was born in August 2003.

A gasoline-powered car rushed his mother to the maternity ward.

A coal-burning power station lit the hospital in which he entered the world.

A central heating system burning natural gas warmed the room in which he took his first breath.

If any one of these traditional power sources had failed, little Micah’s life could have been jeopardized.

The modern civilization into which Micah was born depends on a variety of energy sources for its very existence. Every day we rely on fossil fuels in some way—to transport us to work, to cook our food, or to light, heat, and cool our homes. The World Resources Institute says that fossil fuels are used to “meet about 90 percent of global commercial-energy demand.” A report published by the Institute in 2000 says: “In energy terms, oil makes the single largest contribution to world energy supply, at 40 percent, followed by coal at 26 percent and natural gas at about 24 percent.”

The journal Bioscience says: “On average, every year each American uses about 93,000 kilowatt-hours [of power], equivalent to 8000 liters of oil, for all purposes, including transportation, heating, and cooling.” In Australia, China, Poland, and South Africa, more than 75 percent of the electricity used comes from coal-fired generators. India relies on coal for 60 percent of its electric power, while the United States and Germany burn coal to supply more than half their electricity.

“It’s less well known that the world’s food is now nourished by oil,” states journalist Jeremiah Creedon in an article entitled “Life After Oil.” “Petroleum and natural gas are crucial at every step of modern agriculture, from making fertilizer to shipping crops.” (Utne Reader magazine) But how secure are these energy sources from which modern society draws its life and livelihood? Are there any cleaner alternatives available?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The patient's condition is serious. Symptoms are multiple. Now what?

2011-04-06T23:00:00.000-07:00

     The patient's condition is serious. Symptoms are multiple. His breath is noxious. He has a fever, higher than ever before. Efforts to bring it down are not working. Poison has been found in body fluids. When symptoms are treated in one area, more pop up in other body parts. If this were a usual patient, doctors would be inclined to declare the multiple sicknesses as chronic and terminal. Not knowing what else to do, they would just take steps to make the patient as comfortable as possible until the end came.

     HOWEVER, this is not a human patient. It is our home—the earth. The above scenario well illustrates what is happening to our planet. Dirty air, global warming, polluted waters, and toxic wastes are just a few of the maladies of our very ill earth. Like the doctors mentioned above, the experts are in a quandary as to what to do.

     The media regularly call attention to earth's poor health with such headlines and captions as: "Blast fishing turns seabeds into killing fields." A "Billion Asians Could Be Parched in 24 Years." "Forty million tons of toxic trash a year trades globally." "Nearly two thirds of the 1,800 wells in Japan are contaminated with poisons." "Ozone Hole Over Antarctic Is Back and Bigger."

     Some people become accustomed to frequent news of danger to the environment, perhaps even thinking, 'That is not of great concern as long as it does not affect me.' However, whether we realize it or not, the wholesale destruction of the earth's environment affects the vast majority of people. Since contamination of our planet is now so pervasive, it likely already affects more than one aspect of our lives. Thus, all should be concerned about the health and preservation of our home. After all, where else would we live?

     Just how widespread is the problem? How sick is the earth? How are people's lives affected? Let us take a look at just a few factors that help us to understand why our earth is not just mildly indisposed but, instead, seriously ill.

     THE OCEANS: Large sections of ocean are overfished. A report by the United Nations Environment Programme says that "70 percent of marine fisheries are so exploited that reproduction cannot or can just barely keep up." For example, populations of cod, hake, haddock, and flounder in the North Atlantic fell by as much as 95 percent between 1989 and 1994. If this continues, what will it mean for millions who depend on the sea as a major source of their food?

     Additionally, each year an estimated 20 million to 40 million tons of sea life are caught and thrown back into the ocean—usually wounded or dead. Why? They are caught along with target fish but are not wanted.

     FORESTS: Deforestation has many negative sides to it. Loss of trees results in a reduction in the earth's capacity to absorb carbon dioxide, and this is said to be a cause of global warming. Certain species of plants, the potential source of lifesaving medicines, will disappear. Nevertheless, forest destruction continues unabated. In fact, the rate of destruction has increased in recent years. Some authorities feel that if this persists, tropical forests could disappear in about 20 years.

     TOXIC WASTES: Dumping of harmful materials both on land and in the sea is a serious problem that has the potential for bringing great harm to millions. Radioactive wastes, heavy metals, and by-products of plastics are among elements that can cause abnormalities, sickness, or death in humans and animals.

     CHEMICALS: During the past 100 years, close to 100,000 new chemicals have come into use. These chemicals find their way into our air, soil, water, and food. Relatively few of them have been tested for their health effects on humans. However, of the ones that have, a significant number have been found to be carcinogenic or to cause disease in other ways.

     There are many more threats to our environment: air pollution, untreated sewage, acid rain, lack of clean water. The few already mentioned suffice to show that the earth is really sick. Can the patient be saved, or is the battle already lost?

Who? That's right Who?

2011-04-02T01:30:00.000-07:00

I would like to know who on this earth would come to United States aid when they need it?

We seem to be going to everyones else's help.

But what about us, who is going to come to our aid, if and when we need it?

Can you provide an answer? Which county? Which Land? What Power? Yes WHO?

Something to think about!

2011-03-28T02:07:00.000-07:00

No one can top our "Earth"

2011-03-28T02:02:00.000-07:00

There is no Paradise here

2011-03-28T01:46:00.001-07:00

American Dream!

     What happened to it?

     If things are so good here, then they must be really bad back in other countries.

     We are suppose to be the riches,most healthy country on the planet.

     But what happened?

     Where are they?

     If this is true than why is the government having to pay out so much for its citizens?

     Why is the government having to take over on so many programs that effect our lives?

     Why does all the big companies either private or government hate us citizans?

     If they liked us then they wouldn't charge so much for their goods, like gas for our automobiles, oil for our homes, electricity for some much more?

     And why can't the local counties take care of their own school system, some one in a neither city does not know about the local territory and the lives of that local county.

     We are suppose to enjoy life not be stressed out. Until something is done in a good way, clean way, that will benefit us all than what hope is there?

SUPER POWER-UNITED STATES

2011-03-26T17:09:00.000-07:00

     The United States and Soviet Union were the two superpowers during the Cold War. Here, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev meet in 1985. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States was left as the sole world superpower.A superpower is a state with a dominant position in the international system which has the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests. A superpower is traditionally considered to be a step higher than a great power.

     Alice Lyman Miller (Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School), defines a superpower as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemony."

     It was a term first applied in 1944 to the United States, the Soviet Union, and the British Empire. Following World War II, as the British Empire transformed itself into the Commonwealth and its territories became independent, the Soviet Union and the United States generally came to be regarded as the only two superpowers, and confronted each other in the Cold War.

     After the Cold War, the most common belief held was that only the United States fulfilled the criteria to be considered a world superpower, although it is a matter of debate whether it is a hegemon or if it is a besieged global power. Brazil, China, the European Union, India, and Russia are also thought to have the potential of achieving superpower status within the 21st century.

     Others doubt the existence of superpowers in the post Cold War era altogether, stating that today's complex global marketplace and the rising interdependency between the world's nations has made the concept of a superpower an idea of the past and that the world is now multipolar.

     The term superpower was used to describe nations with greater than great power status as early as 1944, but only gained its specific meaning with regard to the United States, the British Empire and the Soviet Union after World War II. This was because the United States and the Soviet Union had proved themselves to be capable of casting great influence in global politics.

     There have been attempts to apply the term superpower retrospectively, and sometimes very loosely, to a variety of past entities such as Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, China, India, the Persian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, Portuguese Empire, the Spanish Empire, France, the Dutch Republic and the British Empire.

     Recognition by historians of these older states as superpowers may focus on various superlative traits exhibited by them. For example, at its peak the British Empire was the largest in history with 1 in every 4 people in the world living under its flag.

     Essentially the United States naval-based advanced military with the highest military expenditure in the world, the world's largest navy surpassing the next 13 largest navies combined, bases all over the world, particularly in an incomplete "ring" bordering the Warsaw Pact to the West, South and East. Largest nuclear arsenal in the world during the first half of the Cold War. One of the largest armies in the world. One of the two largest and most advanced air forces in the world. Powerful military allies in Western Europe (NATO) with their own nuclear capabilities. Global intelligence network, the CIA. Ties with paramilitary and guerrilla groups in the developing world. Large armament production through defence contractors along with its developed allies for the global market.

     Largest economy in the world. Capitalist free market economic theory based on supply and demand: production determined by customers' demands. Enormous industrial base and a large and modernized farming industry. Large volume of imports and exports. Large resources of minerals, energy resources, metals, and timber. High standard of living with accessibility to many manufactured goods. Home to many large global corporations. U.S. Dollar as the dominant world reserve currency under Bretton Woods Conference. Allied with G7 major economies. Supported allied countries' economies via such programmes as the Marshall Plan.

     So we have all this "Peace Power" , The United Nation, Nato, Super Power United States, yet where, yes where is this "PEACE AND SECURITY" that we are suppose to have?

NATO

2011-03-23T23:51:00.000-07:00

We have the "UNITED NATIONS"and then we have "NATO"

     The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948.[9] However, participation of the United States was thought necessary in order to counter the military power of the USSR, and therefore talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately.

     These talks resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states, as well as the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland. Popular support for the Treaty was not unanimous; some Icelanders commenced a pro-neutrality, anti-membership riot in March 1949.

     “ The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America[note 1] shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. ”

     "Such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force" does not necessarily mean that other member states will respond with military action against the aggressor(s). Rather they are obliged to respond, but maintain the freedom to choose how they will respond. This differs from Article IV of the Treaty of Brussels (which founded the Western European Union) which clearly states that the response will be military in nature. However, it is often assumed that NATO members will aid the attacked member militarily. Further, the North Atlantic Treaty limits the organization's scope to regions above the Tropic of Cancer,[note 1] which explains why the Falklands War did not result in NATO involvement.

     The creation of NATO brought about some standardization of allied military terminology, procedures, and technology, which in many cases meant European countries adopting U.S. practices. The roughly 1300 Standardization Agreements (STANAGs) codifies the standardization that NATO has achieved. Hence, the 7.62×51 NATO rifle cartridge was introduced in the 1950s as a standard firearm cartridge among many NATO countries. Fabrique Nationale de Herstal's FAL became the most popular 7.62 NATO rifle in Europe and served into the early 1990s. Also, aircraft marshalling signals were standardized, so that any NATO aircraft could land at any NATO base. Other standards such as the NATO phonetic alphabet have made their way beyond NATO into civilian use.

What about the UNITED NATIONS?

2011-03-10T22:52:00.000-08:00

     The United Nations Organization (UNO) or simply the United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions.

     There are currently 192 member states, including every sovereign state in the world but the Vatican City. From its offices around the world, the UN and its specialized agencies decide on substantive and administrative issues in regular meetings held throughout the year. The organization has six principal organs: the General Assembly (the main deliberative assembly); the Security Council (for deciding certain resolutions for peace and security); the Economic and Social Council (for assisting in promoting international economic and social cooperation and development); the Secretariat (for providing studies, information, and facilities needed by the UN); the International Court of Justice (the primary judicial organ); and the United Nations Trusteeship Council (which is currently inactive). Other prominent UN System agencies include the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Food Programme (WFP) and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). The UN's most visible public figure is the Secretary-General, currently Ban Ki-moon of South Korea, who attained the post in 2007. The organization is financed from assessed and voluntary contributions from its member states, and has six official languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish.
PEACEKEEPING AND SECURITY

     The UN, after approval by the Security Council, sends peacekeepers to regions where armed conflict has recently ceased or paused to enforce the terms of peace agreements and to discourage combatants from resuming hostilities. Since the UN does not maintain its own military, peacekeeping forces are voluntarily provided by member states of the UN. The forces, also called the "Blue Helmets", who enforce UN accords, are awarded United Nations Medals, which are considered international decorations instead of military decorations. The peacekeeping force as a whole received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988.

     The founders of the UN had envisaged that the organization would act to prevent conflicts between nations and make future wars impossible, however the outbreak of the Cold War made peacekeeping agreements extremely difficult because of the division of the world into hostile camps. Following the end of the Cold War, there were renewed calls for the UN to become the agency for achieving world peace, as there are several dozen ongoing conflicts that continue to rage around the globe.

     A 2005 RAND Corp study found the UN to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping efforts. It compared UN nation-building efforts to those of the United States, and found that seven out of eight UN cases are at peace, as compared with four out of eight US cases at peace. Also in 2005, the Human Security Report documented a decline in the number of wars, genocides and human rights abuses since the end of the Cold War, and presented evidence, albeit circumstantial, that international activism—mostly spearheaded by the UN—has been the main cause of the decline in armed conflict since the end of the Cold War. Situations where the UN has not only acted to keep the peace but also occasionally intervened include the Korean War (1950–1953), and the authorization of intervention in Iraq after the Persian Gulf War in 1990.

     The UN has also drawn criticism for perceived failures. In many cases, member states have shown reluctance to achieve or enforce Security Council resolutions, an issue that stems from the UN's intergovernmental nature—seen by some as simply an association of 192 member states who must reach consensus, not an independent organization. Disagreements in the Security Council about military action and intervention are seen as having failed to prevent the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, failed to provide humanitarian aid and intervene in the Second Congo War, failed to intervene in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre and protect a refugee haven by authorizing peacekeepers to use force, failure to deliver food to starving people in Somalia, failure to implement provisions of Security Council resolutions related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and continuing failure to prevent genocide or provide assistance in Darfur. UN peacekeepers have also been accused of child rape, sexual abuse or soliciting prostitutes during various peacekeeping missions, starting in 2003, in the Congo, Haiti, Liberia, Sudan, Burundi and Côte d'Ivoire. In 2004, former Israeli ambassador to the UN Dore Gold criticized what it called the organization's moral relativism in the face of (and occasional support of) genocide and terrorism that occurred between the moral clarity of its founding period and the present day. Gold specifically mentions Yasser Arafat's 1988 invitation to address the General Assembly as a low point in the UN's history.

   In addition to peacekeeping, the UN is also active in encouraging disarmament. Regulation of armaments was included in the writing of the UN Charter in 1945 and was envisioned as a way of limiting the use of human and economic resources for the creation of them.] However, the advent of nuclear weapons came only weeks after the signing of the charter and immediately halted concepts of arms limitation and disarmament, resulting in the first resolution of the first ever General Assembly meeting calling for specific proposals for "the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction". The principal forums for disarmament issues are the General Assembly First Committee, the UN Disarmament Commission, and the Conference on Disarmament, and considerations have been made of the merits of a ban on testing nuclear weapons, outer space arms control, the banning of chemical weapons and land mines, nuclear and conventional disarmament, nuclear-weapon-free zones, the reduction of military budgets, and measures to strengthen international security.

     The UN is one of the official supporters of the World Security Forum, a major international conference on the effects of global catastrophes and disasters, taking place in the United Arab Emirates, in October 2008.

EFFECTIVENESS

     Some have questioned whether or not the UN might be relevant in the 21st century. While the UN’s first and second Charter mandates require the UN : “To maintain international peace and security.... (and if necessary to enforce the peace by) taking preventive or enforcement action,” due to its restrictive administrative structure, the permanent members of the Security Council themselves have sometimes prevented the UN from fully carrying out its first two mandates. Without the unanimous approval, support (or minimally abstention) of all 5 of the permanent members of the UN's Security Council, the UN's charter only enables it to "observe", report on, and make recommendations regarding international conflicts. Such unanimity on the Security Council regarding the authorization of armed UN enforcement actions has not always been reached in time to prevent the outbreak of international wars. Even with all of these restraints and limitations in place on the UN’s abilities to respond to situations of conflict, still various studies have found the UN to have had many notable successes in the 65 years of its existence.

     In 1962 UN secretary general U Thant provided valuable assistance and took a great deal of time, energy and initiative as the primary negotiator between Nikita Khrushchev and John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, thus providing a critical link in the prevention of a nuclear Armageddon at that time. A 2005 RAND Corporation study found the UN to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping efforts. It compared UN nation-building efforts to those of the United States, and found that seven out of eight UN cases are at peace, as opposed to four out of eight US cases at peace. Also in 2005, the Human Security Report documented a decline in the number of wars, genocides and human rights abuses since the end of the Cold War, and presented evidence, albeit circumstantial, that international activism — mostly spearheaded by the UN — has been the main cause of the decline in armed conflict since the end of the Cold War.

     So my question is this: Why doesn’t the UN take care of these countries that are fighting each other and leave the USA alone. We don’t have the MONEY or MANPOWER to take care of them. PURPOSE

CLEANLINESS

2011-03-09T21:03:00.000-08:00

WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?

     For thousands of years, plagues and pestilences have afflicted mankind. Some people assumed that these were a sign of the wrath of God and were sent to punish wrongdoers. Patient observation and painstaking research over many centuries have revealed that the culprits were often small creatures that live alongside us.

     Medical researchers discovered that rats, mice, cockroaches, flies, and mosquitoes can all serve as hosts for transmitting disease. They also found that people often invite infectious diseases simply by a lack of hygiene. Cleanliness, it seems, can make the difference between life and death.

     Obviously, standards of cleanliness vary according to customs and circumstances. In areas where there is no running water or adequate sewage disposal, hygiene can be a real challenge. Nevertheless, God gave the ancient Israelites instructions on cleanliness while they were traveling through the wilderness—some of the most difficult circumstances imaginable for practicing good hygiene!

     Why does cleanliness matter to God? What is a reasonable view of cleanliness? What simple precautions can you and your family take to reduce disease?

     SCHOOL is over, and little Max*, who lives in Cameroon, arrives back home. Hungry and thirsty, he enters the humble home where he lives, gives his waiting dog a hug, puts his schoolbag on the dining-room table, sits down, and eagerly waits for his food.

     Mother, who is in the kitchen, hears Max come in and brings a plate of hot rice and beans for him. But her expression changes when she sees his schoolbag on the clean table. She looks at her son and slowly utters one single word, “Maaaax!” Her son understands, quickly takes the bag away, and rushes out to wash his hands. Soon he returns for his long-awaited meal. “Sorry, Mum. I forgot,” he mumbles guiltily.

     A caring mother can do a lot when it comes to health and cleanliness, although she needs the cooperation of all members of her household. As the account about Max illustrates, long-term training is necessary because cleanliness requires tireless effort and children need constant reminders.

     A caring mother can do much when it comes to the cleanliness of her household

     Max’s mother realizes that food can get contaminated in various ways. So she not only washes her own hands carefully before handling food but also keeps food covered to prevent contamination by flies. By making sure that food does not sit unprotected and by keeping the house neat and clean, she has few problems with rats, mice, and cockroaches.

     One important reason Max’s mother takes such care is that she wants to please God. “The Bible says that God’s people must be holy because God is holy,” she explains. (1 Peter 1:16) “Holiness is similar to cleanliness,” she adds. “So I want my home to be clean, and I want my family to look clean. Of course, this is possible only because everyone in the family helps.”

Family Cooperation Essential

As Max’s mother observes, family hygiene is a family project. From time to time, some families sit down together to discuss what their needs are and what improvements can be made, both inside and outside the home. This also serves to unite the family and to remind each one of his or her share in caring for the welfare of all. For example, Mother may explain to the older children why they must wash their hands after using the toilet and handling things like money and before eating. They, in turn, can make sure that the younger ones take the matter seriously.

Different chores could be divided among all in the family. The family may decide to clean the house regularly each week and to schedule a thorough cleaning once or twice a year. And how about outside the house? Conservationist Stewart L. Udall, referring to the United States, said: “We live in a land of vanishing beauty, of increasing ugliness, of shrinking open space, and of an overall environment that is diminished daily by pollution and noise and blight.”

God Requires Cleanliness

     During their wilderness trek, the Israelites were instructed to take great care when disposing of human waste. (Deuteronomy 23:12-14) This must have been a tiresome chore in view of the size of the camp, but it doubtless helped prevent such diseases as typhoid fever and cholera.

     The people were commanded to wash or destroy any item that came in contact with a dead body. Though they might not have understood the reason for this, the Israelites were thus helped to avoid infection and disease.—Leviticus 11:32-38.

     The priests were to wash both their hands and their feet before performing their duties at the tabernacle. Filling the copper basin that contained the water for this purpose could not have been easy, but washing was a strict requirement.—Exodus 30:17-21.

     Do you have the same impression of your surroundings? In the old days and in some towns in Central Africa even today, a town crier rings a bell in order to get people’s attention. In a loud voice, he reminds the citizens to clean up the town, empty the sewer (drainage or gutters), trim the trees, pull out the weeds, and take care of the garbage.

     The disposal of garbage is a worldwide problem and a nightmare for many authorities. Some municipalities fall behind in collecting garbage, which then piles up in the streets. Local citizens may be invited to help. As good citizens, Christians are among the first to respond and comply with Caesar’s laws without complaining. (Romans 13:3, 5-7) True Christians are willing to go the extra mile to make a contribution in this regard. They are interested in a clean environment and take the initiative in cleaning up, not always needing a town crier to remind them. They understand that cleanliness is a reflection of good training and responsible behavior. It starts with each individual and each family. Simple application of sanitation and cleanliness around the house will lead to better health as well as improve the overall appearance of the neighborhood.

Christians take the initiative to clean up their surroundings

Clean and dignified personal appearance is a reflection of our worship and often attracts attention. A group of about 15 young men and women entered a restaurant after attending a convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Toulouse, France. An elderly couple at the table next to them expected the worst—noisy talking and heckling. However, they were impressed by the orderly conduct and pleasant conversation of these nicely dressed young people. When the group was ready to leave, the couple commended them for their fine behavior and told one of the young men that such exemplary conduct is rare these days.

Visitors to the branch offices, printeries, and residence facilities of Jehovah’s Witnesses are often impressed by the cleanliness they see there. Clean clothes and regular washing and showering are requirements for the volunteers who work and live at these places. Deodorants and perfumes cannot take the place of good bodily hygiene. When these volunteers, who are full-time ministers, preach to their neighbors in the evenings or on weekends, their clean appearance also reflects favorably on the message they bear.

“Become Imitators of God”

Christians are urged to “become imitators of God.” (Ephesians 5:1) The prophet Isaiah recorded a vision in which angels described the Creator with the words “Holy, holy, holy.” (Isaiah 6:3) This description emphasizes God’s superlative purity and cleanness. That being the case, God requires that all his servants be holy, clean. “You must be holy, because I am holy,” he tells them.—1 Peter 1:16.

Washing your clothes helps prevent skin problems and disease

The Bible encourages Christians to “dress in becoming manner.” (1 Timothy 2:9, The New English Bible) Not surprisingly, in the book of Revelation, “bright, clean, fine linen” is said to represent the righteous acts of ones whom God considers holy. (Revelation 19:8) On the other hand, sin is often illustrated in the Scriptures by a stain or by dirt.—Proverbs 15:26; Isaiah 1:16; James 1:27.

Today, millions of people have to live in areas where it is a constant struggle to keep physically, morally, and spiritually clean. The final solution to this problem will come when God ‘makes all things new.’ (Revelation 21:5) When that promise is fulfilled, filth and uncleanliness of all sorts will disappear forever.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Name has been changed.

Reminders From a Medical Doctor

Water is essential to life, but contaminated water can be the source of sickness and death. Dr. J. Mbangue Lobe, chief of the medical department at the port of Douala, Cameroon, offered some practical pointers in an interview.

“Boil your drinking water when in doubt.” But he warned: “The use of bleach or other chemicals are all right but may be hazardous if not handled properly. Always wash your hands with soap and water before a meal and after using the toilet. A bar of soap does not cost a fortune, so even poor people can afford it. Wash your clothes often, using hot water if you have skin problems or diseases.”

“Good hygiene in and around the house must be observed by all members of the family,” continued the doctor. “Toilets and outhouses are often neglected and automatically become a haven for roaches and flies.” Adding one important observation concerning children, he cautioned: “Beware of bathing in those small creeks in your neighborhood. They are full of dangerous microbes. Wash nightly at home before going to bed, brush your teeth well at night, and sleep under a mosquito net.” The general idea behind all these remarks is to think ahead, take action, and avoid trouble.

A Global Menace RESISTANT GERMS

2011-03-09T10:10:00.000-08:00

How Great Is the Menace?

     IN October 1997, Hollie Mullin, a three-week-old baby, contracted an ear infection. When it failed to clear up in a few days, her doctor prescribed a modern antibiotic. It should have been a routine cure, but it wasn't. The infection returned and continued to do so after each course of antibiotics.

     In her first year, Hollie had 17 courses of various antibiotics. Then, at 21 months of age, she got her worst infection. After 14 days of intravenous administration of an antibiotic of last resort, the infection finally cleared up.

     Scenarios like this have become increasingly common and not just among babies and the elderly. People of all ages are getting sick and even dying from infections that were once easily cured with antibiotics. Actually, germs that survive antibiotic assault have been a serious problem in some hospitals since the 1950's. Then during the 1960's and 1970's, germs resistant to antibiotics spread into communities.

     In time, medical researchers began to cite overuse of antibiotics in humans and animals as the principal cause of the increase in germs that are resistant to antibiotics. In 1978 one of these medical personnel described antibiotic overuse as "completely out of hand." So by the 1990's, headlines like the following were appearing worldwide: "Super-bugs Arrive," "Superbugs Take Hold," "Dangerous Drugs—Antibiotic Overuse Is Spawning Superbugs."

     Sensationalism? Not according to respected medical organizations. In a report on infectious diseases in 2000, the director general of the World Health Organization (WHO) stated: "At the dawn of a new millennium, humanity is faced with another crisis. Formerly curable diseases . . . are now arrayed in the increasingly impenetrable armour of antimicrobial resistance."

     How serious is the crisis? "This disturbing development [of drug-resistant germs] is closing the windows of opportunity to treat infectious diseases," WHO reported. A number of authorities today even speak of humanity's return to a "pre-antibiotic age," when there were no antibiotics for curing infections.

     How have resistant microorganisms been able, in effect, to colonize the world, outmaneuvering sophisticated scientific advances? Is there anything an individual can do to protect himself or others? And what solutions are in the offing to combat germs that are resistant to antibiotics?

Protecting your Family From THE FLU

2011-03-08T09:21:00.000-08:00

     In Jesus’ prophecy concerning the end of the present system of things, he foretold “outbreaks of disease in many places.” (Luke 21:11, The New Testament in Plain English) The flu, or influenza, has proved to be one such disease.

     THE flu is caused by a virus, which is a microscopic agent that infiltrates living cells and commandeers their machinery to reproduce more viruses. The flu virus, which attacks the respiratory system, is passed from one person to another primarily in droplets of bodily fluids expelled when the infected person sneezes, coughs, or even talks. A pandemic occurs when an outbreak affects many people over a wide area.

     Magnified view of the H1N1 influenza virus

     Viruses affect not only humans but also animals and birds. Flu viruses are categorized as types A, B, or C. Type A is the most common cause of influenza. Virus strains are classified mainly according to two proteins found on the surface of the virus: hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N).

     The biggest concerns regarding flu viruses are that they may reproduce very rapidly with constantly changing variations and that different strains can combine and produce a new strain. If a strain is sufficiently unique, the human immune system may have no defenses against it.

     The flu is usually more common during the colder months. Recent research indicates that at cool temperatures the outer membrane of a virus becomes a protective gel that prolongs the survival of the virus in the air but then melts in the higher temperatures of the human respiratory tract, causing infection. Cold air does not cause viral infections, but it can create the setting that helps them to spread.

     A SEVERE FORM OF FLU

     The flu that was first identified in Mexico in 2009 is of the H1N1 variety, similar to the Spanish flu of 1918, which killed tens of millions. However, it also contains elements found in the viruses that affect pigs and birds.

     Measures of Protection

     Recognizing the need to be prepared, many governments have action plans already in place. But what can you do? Let’s review three basic protective steps:

     Strengthen the body: Make sure that your family gets sufficient sleep and eats foods that will help the body strengthen its defenses. Your diet should emphasize fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and lean proteins, which supply the amino acids needed to build up the immune system.

     Create an environment unfriendly to germs: To the extent possible, keep your counters and tables thoroughly clean daily. Wash cooking and eating utensils after every use, and regularly wash bedclothes. Disinfect things that people touch: doorknobs, telephones, remote controls. Maintain good ventilation, if possible.

     Practice good habits of personal cleanliness: Wash your hands diligently with soap and water or with an alcohol-based hand cleaner. (If practical, carry a small bottle of hand sanitizer with you.) Try not to share towels with anyone for drying hands or face, not even with other family members.

     Do not touch your eyes, nose, or mouth with unwashed hands. If possible, use disposable tissues to cover your mouth and nose when coughing or sneezing and throw them away immediately. Avoid sharing devices that can readily spread germs, such as telephones. Children need to be thoroughly trained in these practices. Such habits are good all the time but especially so during the flu season.

     WHEN A HEALTH EMERGENCY OCCURS

     First, follow instructions of health officials. Do not panic or overreact. Reinforce the good habits discussed here. If possible, avoid crowds of people. If you are sick, an appropriate face mask may be helpful. Clean your hands frequently. Have about two weeks’ worth of nonperishable food items on hand as well as health and hygiene products in case you cannot get to the store.

     When at work, places of worship, or any place where you are around a lot of people, follow the suggestions provided. Also, try to keep your surroundings well ventilated.

     Show Consideration for Others

     It is possible to start infecting others a day before you show any symptoms and up to five days after getting sick. Symptoms are similar to the common cold but much more intense. They include fever (usually high), headache, extreme tiredness, dry cough, and muscle aches. Runny nose and stomach symptoms—such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea—are more common in children than in adults. If you have symptoms, stay home if possible and avoid infecting others.

     Get plenty of rest and drink lots of fluids. Antiviral drugs can be helpful but only if taken soon after the onset of symptoms. Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) should not be given to children who have the flu. Seek emergency medical care if you show pneumonialike symptoms, such as trouble breathing, chest pain, or severe persisting headache.

     Having the flu can be an unnerving event. Being prepared may help you get through it better. But more than that, you can look forward to the time when, as the Bible promises, “no resident will say: ‘I am sick.’”—Isaiah 33:24.

Can Money Bring You the Real Life?

2011-03-07T11:25:00.000-08:00

Can Money Bring You the Real Life?

Your Money or Your Life?

How Can You Keep a Balanced View of Money?

Related topics:

Can Riches Make You Happy?

Is It Wise to Invest in the Stock Market?

Why So Much Corruption?

     You may have heard about bandits who waved guns in their victim's face, demanding: "Your money or your life!" Today, this legendary demand is echoed in a challenging dilemma facing all of us—especially those of us living in affluent lands. This time, however, it is no bandit that presses the demand. Rather, it is the increased emphasis that society places on money and material success.

     SUCH emphasis has raised a whole new set of issues and concerns. At what cost should money and material things be pursued? Could we be content with less? Are people actually sacrificing "the real life" on the altar of materialism? Is money the ticket to a happy life?

Money Mania

     Among human desires and passions—legitimate or otherwise—the love of money vies for the lead. Unlike the desire for sex and food, the mania for money can be constant and unending. Old age does not seem to assuage it. In many cases advancing years may actually increase a person's interest in or concern about money and what it can buy.

     Greed seems to be escalating. The main character in one popular movie said: "Greed works. Greed is good." Although many referred to the 1980's as the Age of Greed, what came before and after shows that human reaction to money has changed little through the years.

     What probably is new is that so many people see opportunities to satisfy instantly the desire for more. It seems that much of the world most of the time spends most of its energy producing and acquiring more and more things. You may agree that having material possessions and spending money have become a passionate—and often most imaginative—endeavor in modern-day life.

     But are people happier as a result? Answering that question, wise and very wealthy King Solomon wrote 3,000 years ago: "A mere lover of silver will not be satisfied with silver, neither any lover of wealth with income. This too is vanity." (Ecclesiastes 5:10) Modern social studies provide similarly interesting conclusions.

Money and Happiness

     One of the most surprising findings regarding human behavior is that the accumulation of money and material things does not necessarily provide a corresponding increase in satisfaction and happiness. What many researchers have come to realize is that once a person reaches a certain level of affluence, his sense of well-being is independent of how many material goods are available to him.

     Thus, the unbridled pursuit of material goods and money leaves many wondering, 'We seem to enjoy each of the new things we buy; yet, why is it, when all is said and done, that these pleasures do not add up to any greater sense of satisfaction?'

     Material possessions do not bring lasting happiness

     In his book Happy People, author Jonathan Freedman notes: "Once some minimal income is attained, the amount of money you have matters little in terms of bringing happiness. Above the poverty level, the relationship between income and happiness is remarkably small." Many have come to realize that what really matters for individual happiness is that one has spiritual assets, meaningful pursuits in life, and moral values. Also important are human relationships and freedom from the conflicts or constrictions that could prevent us from enjoying what we have.

     Many see at the root of most of the present social ills the tendency to try to use material prosperity to solve what are really inner troubles. Some social commentators speak of a general mood of pessimism and discontent. They also note the increased tendency of people in affluent societies to consult therapists or to seek meaning and inner harmony from gurus, cults, and quasi-therapeutic groups. This attests to the failure of material goods to add real meaning to life.

Power and Powerlessness of Money

     Granted, money has power. It can buy fine homes, elegant wardrobes, and dazzling furnishings. It may also buy adulation, compliance, or flattery, even producing a few temporary and obliging friends. But that is about as far as the power of money goes. What we need most, money cannot buy—the love of one true human friend, peace of mind, a crumb of heartfelt solace in the hour of death. And for those who cherish their relationship with the Creator, money cannot buy God's approval.

     King Solomon, who had all the good things that money could buy in his day, recognized that trusting in material possessions does not lead to lasting happiness. (Ecclesiastes 5:12-15) Money can be lost through bank failure or inflation. Real estate can be destroyed by severe storms. Insurance policies, while partially replacing material losses, do not make up for emotional losses. Stocks and bonds can become worthless overnight in a sudden economic crash. Even a well-paying job can be here today and gone tomorrow.

USCIS Announces Proposed H-1B Electronic Registration System

2011-03-06T12:36:00.000-08:00

USCIS Announces Proposed H-1B Electronic Registration System
March 2, 2011

WASHINGTON—
     U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is publishing tomorrow a proposed rule that could save U.S. businesses more than $23 million over the next 10 years by establishing an advance registration process for U.S. employers seeking to file H-1B petitions for foreign workers in specialty occupations. The proposed electronic system would minimize administrative burdens and expenses related to the H-1B petition process—including reducing the need for employers to submit petitions for which visas would not be available under the statutory visa cap.

     USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas today announced the opening of a 60-day comment period that will allow businesses and the general public to provide input on the proposed system in order to ensure it best meets the needs of employers that rely on H-1B visas to bring in foreign workers for specialty occupations.

     “The proposed rule would create a more efficient and cost-effective process for businesses interested in bringing workers in specialty occupations to the United States,” he said. “Improving the H-1B petition process is part of USCIS’s ongoing efforts to leverage new ideas and innovation to streamline our operations and enhance customer service.”

     Under the proposed rule, employers seeking to petition for H-1B workers subject to the statutory cap would register electronically with USCIS—a process that would take an estimated 30 minutes to complete. Before the petition filing period begins, USCIS would select the number of registrations predicted to exhaust all available visas. Employers would then file petitions only for the selected registrations. The registration system would save employers the effort and expense of filing H-1B petitions, as well as Labor Condition Applications, for workers who would be unable to obtain visas under the statutory cap.

     The proposed rule, which posted to the Federal Register today for public viewing, contains complete details about the registration system and estimated cost savings. USCIS encourages formal comments on the proposed rule through www.regulations.gov. The comment period runs for 60 days, beginning March 3, 2011, and ending on May 2, 2011.

     For more information on the proposed H-1B rule, please see the accompanying Fact Sheet. For more information on USCIS and its programs, visit www.uscis.gov.

Year Around

2011-03-06T12:26:00.000-08:00

“Glory in the heights above to God, and upon earth peace among men of goodwill.”—Luke 2:14.

     MILLIONS of people are familiar with these words of God’s angels announcing the birth of Jesus to shepherds who were watching over their flocks by night. At about the date that the churches claim that Jesus was born, many nominal Christians make a special effort to improve their behavior. The seasonal attention to joy, peace, and goodwill—qualities mentioned in the angelic proclamation—is often referred to as the Christmas spirit.

     Such positive sentiments even attract people who attribute no religious significance to Christmas. They too appreciate the warm feelings that the celebration seems to foster. Where Christmas means time off from school or work, the holiday offers people an opportunity to relax, to spend time with their families and friends, or simply to enjoy themselves. Of course, many sincere people view Christmas principally as a time to honor Jesus Christ.

     Whatever significance they attach to Christmas, most are willing to admit that any positive feelings engendered by the holiday are often short-lived. People quickly revert to their normal pattern of behavior. An essay entitled “The Spirit of Christmas,” published by the Royal Bank of Canada, stated: “All too many ‘Christians’ only qualify for that description conceptually for a few weeks every year, oozing good will towards their fellow men until after the New Year, when they can go back to their dog-eat-dog existence and their indifference to the plight of other human beings.” What is “essentially wrong” with the Christmas spirit, continued the same letter, is that people do not have it “all year round.”

     Whether you agree with that analysis or not, it does raise important questions. Will people ever be capable of manifesting generosity and understanding toward one another on a permanent basis? Is there any realistic hope that the angelic proclamation on the night of Jesus’ birth will be fulfilled? Or is the hope of true peace nothing more than a dream?

AN END TO WAR!

2011-02-07T16:54:00.000-08:00

     'We are only 12 years old. We can't influence politics and the war, but we want to live! We wait for peace. Will we live to see it?'

—A class of fifth-grade schoolchildren.

     'We want to attend school and to visit our friends and family without fear of abduction. I hope the government will listen. We want a better life. We want peace.'

—Alhaji, age 14

     THESE poignant words convey the heartfelt hope of young people who have suffered for years as a result of civil strife. Their only desire is to live a normal life. But converting hope into reality is no easy task. Will we ever live to see a world without war?

     In recent years, there have been international efforts to resolve some civil wars by pressuring opposing sides to sign a peace accord. Some countries have provided peace-keeping forces to effect such agreements. But few nations have the money or the inclination to police faraway countries where deep-seated hatred and suspicion make any agreement between warring factions fragile at best. Not infrequently, the flames of conflict flare up again just a few weeks or months after a cease-fire is signed. As the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute points out, "peace is difficult to achieve when combatants have the will and capacity to continue to fight."

     At the same time, these intractable conflicts that plague so many parts of the earth remind Christians of a Bible prophecy. The book of Revelation speaks of a critical period in history during which a symbolic horseman would "take peace away from the earth." (Revelation 6:4) This picture of unremitting warfare is part of a composite sign that indicates that we are now living in a time described in the Bible as "the last days."* (2 Timothy 3:1) God's Word assures us, however, that these last days are a prelude to peace.

     The Bible explains at Psalm 46:9 that real peace requires an end of war, not in just one region of the globe, but in all the earth. Furthermore, this same psalm specifically mentions the destruction of the weapons of Bible times—the bow and the spear. The weapons that proliferate nowadays must likewise be destroyed if mankind is ever to live in peace.

     Ultimately, though, it is hatred and greed rather than bullets and rifles that fuel the flames of war. Covetousness, or greediness, is a fundamental cause of war, and hatred frequently leads to violence. To uproot these destructive feelings, people need to change the way they think. They need to be educated in the ways of peace. Thus, the ancient prophet Isaiah realistically states that war will cease only when people 'do not learn war anymore.'—Isaiah 2:4.

     However, at present we live in a world that teaches adults and children, not the value of peace, but the glory of war. Sadly, even children are being trained to kill.

They Learned to Kill

     At the age of 14, Alhaji became a decommissioned soldier. He was only ten years old when rebel troops captured him and trained him to fight with an AK-47 assault rifle. As a forced recruit, he went on food raids and burned down houses. He also killed and mutilated people. Today, Alhaji finds it difficult to forget war and to adjust to civilian life. Abraham, another child soldier, also learned to kill and was reluctant to turn over his weapon. He said: "If they tell me to go away without my gun, I don't know what I will do, how I will eat."

     More than 300,000 child soldiers—both boys and girls—are still fighting and dying in the endless civil conflicts that plague our planet. Explained one rebel leader: "They obey orders; they are not concerned about getting back to their wife or family; and they don't know fear." Yet, these children want and deserve a better life.

     In developed countries, the appalling situation of the child soldier may seem a world away. Even so, many Western children are learning to wage war in the comfort of their homes. In what way?

     Take José from southeastern Spain as an example. He was a teenager who enjoyed practicing martial arts. His prize possession was a samurai sword that his father had bought him for Christmas. And he loved video games, especially violent ones. On April 1, 2000, he emulated in real life the aggression of his screen hero. In an orgy of violence, he killed his father, his mother, and his sister with the very sword his father had given him. "I wanted to be alone in the world; I didn't want my parents looking for me," he explained to the police.

     Commenting on the effects of violent entertainment, author and military officer Dave Grossman noted: "We are reaching that stage of desensitization at which the inflicting of pain and suffering has become a source of entertainment: vicarious pleasure rather than revulsion. We are learning to kill, and we are learning to like it."

     Both Alhaji and José learned to kill. Neither set out to be killers, but training of one sort or another warped their thinking. Such training—whether for children or for adults—sows the seeds of violence and war.

LOVE OF NEIGHBOR- Has Grown Cold

2011-02-07T16:34:00.000-08:00

     MILLIONS feel lost and miserable, with nowhere to turn. A retired businesswoman observed: 'One evening a widow who lives on my floor knocked on my door and said she was lonely. I told her politely but bluntly that I was busy. She apologized for bothering me and left.'

Sadly, that very night, the widow committed suicide. Afterward, the businesswoman said that she had learned a "hard lesson."

     Lack of neighbor love is often tragic. During ethnic conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, formerly part of Yugoslavia, over a million were forced from their homes and tens of thousands were killed. By whom? "Our neighbors," lamented a girl who had been driven from her village. "We knew them."

    In Rwanda hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered, often by their own neighbors. "Hutu and Tutsi [lived] together, intermarrying, not caring or not even knowing who was a Hutu and who a Tutsi," reported The New York Times. "Then something snapped," and "the killings began."

     Similarly, Jews and Arabs in Israel live side by side, but many hate one another. The situation is the same with many Catholics and Protestants in Ireland and growing numbers of peoples in other countries. Never before in history has the world been so lacking in love.

Why Has Love of Neighbor Cooled Off?

     Our Creator gives the answer. His Word, the Bible, calls the time in which we live "the last days." This is a period during which, Bible prophecy says, people would have "no natural affection." Regarding these "critical times hard to deal with," also called in the Scriptures "the conclusion of the system of things," Jesus Christ foretold that "the love of the greater number will cool off."—2 Timothy 3:1-5; Matthew 24:3, 12.

     Today's lack of love, therefore, is part of the evidence that we are living in the last days of this world. Happily, it also means that this world of ungodly people will soon be replaced by a righteous new world ruled by love.—Matthew 24:3-14; 2 Peter 2:5; 3:7, 13.

But do we really have reason to believe that such a change is possible—that all people can learn to love one another and to live together at peace with one another?

War Has Changed Its Face

2011-02-07T16:29:00.000-08:00

What Hope for Peace in Our Time?

     WAR has always been brutal. It has always ruined the lives of soldiers and has always brought suffering to civilians. But in recent years, war has changed its face. In what way?

     Today's wars are mainly civil wars—wars between opposing groups of citizens of the same country. And civil wars often last longer, leave the population more traumatized, and destroy countries more thoroughly than wars fought between nations. "Civil wars are cruel, bloody operations that result in thousands of deaths, sexual assaults, forced exile and, in the most extreme cases, genocide," notes Spanish historian Julián Casanova. Indeed, when atrocities are committed by neighbor against neighbor, the wounds may take centuries to heal.

     Since the end of the Cold War, relatively few wars have been fought between national armies. "All but three of the major armed conflicts registered for 1990-2000 were internal," reports the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

     Granted, internal conflicts may seem less threatening and may be largely ignored by the international media, but the pain and destruction caused by such hostilities are devastating all the same. Millions of people have died in internal conflicts. In fact, during the last two decades, nearly five million people lost their lives in just three war-torn countries—Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sudan. In the Balkans, fierce ethnic fighting cost the lives of almost 250,000 people, and prolonged guerrilla warfare in Colombia has left 100,000 dead.

    Nowhere is the brutality of civil war more evident than in its effect on children. During the last decade, over two million children lost their lives in civil conflicts, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Another six million were wounded. A growing number of children have been turned into soldiers. Says one child soldier: "They gave me training. They gave me a gun. I took drugs. I killed civilians. Lots. It was just war . . . I only took orders. I knew it was bad. It was not my wish."

     Many children in countries where civil war has become a way of life are growing up without ever having known peace. They live in a world where schools have been destroyed and where dialogue takes place through the mouths of guns. Says 14-year-old Dunja: "So many people have been killed . . . No longer can you hear the singing of the birds, only the sound of the children crying for a lost mother or father, a brother or a sister."
The Tragic Toll of Civil Wars

     In low-tech but brutal civil wars, 90 percent of the casualties are civilians rather than combatants. "It is clear that increasingly, children are targets, not incidental casualties, of armed conflict," notes Graça Machel, the United Nations Secretary-General's Expert on the Impact of Armed Conflicts on Children.

     Rape has become a military tactic. In some war-torn areas, insurgents rape virtually every adolescent girl found in the villages they overrun. The goal of such rapists is to spread panic or to destroy family ties.

     Famine and disease follow in the wake of war. A civil war means that few crops will get planted and harvested, few if any medical services will function, and little international aid will get to the needy. One study of an African civil war revealed that 20 percent of the casualties died from disease and 78 percent from hunger. Only 2 percent died as a direct result of the fighting.

     On an average, every 22 minutes someone loses a limb or his life by stepping on a land mine. There are an estimated 60 million to 70 million land mines scattered about in over 60 countries.

     People are forced to flee their homes. Around the world, there are now 50 million refugees and displaced persons—half of them children.

What Are the Causes?

     What fuels the fires of such cruel civil wars? Ethnic and tribal hatred, religious differences, injustice, and political turmoil are all significant factors. Another root cause is greed—greed for power and greed for money. Political leaders, often motivated by greed, stir up the hatred that fuels the fighting. A report published by SIPRI states that many participants in armed conflicts "are motivated by personal gain." The report adds: "Greed is manifested in many forms, from large-scale diamond trading by military and political leaders to village-level pillage by youths with guns."

     The ready availability of cheap but lethal weapons adds to the carnage. About 500,000 deaths a year—mainly women and children—are attributed to so-called small arms. In one African country, an AK-47 assault rifle can be bought for the price of a chicken. Sad to say, in some places rifles are becoming almost as plentiful as these domestic birds. Worldwide there are now an estimated 500 million small arms and light weapons—1 for every 12 persons alive.

     Will bitter civil conflicts become the hallmark of the 21st century? Can civil wars be controlled? Will people eventually stop the killing?

WHY MANY DOUBT-That Religion Can Unite Mankind

2011-02-07T16:20:00.000-08:00

     “LOVE your neighbor.” (Matthew 22:39) This basic rule of conduct is acclaimed by many religions. If such religions were effective in teaching their members to love their neighbor, their flocks would be drawn together and be united. However, is that what you have observed? Are religions a force for unity? A recent survey in Germany asked the question: “Do religions unite people, or are they more likely to separate them?” Of the respondents, 22 percent felt that religions unite, whereas 52 percent felt that they divide, or separate. Perhaps people in your country feel much the same way.

     Why do many have little confidence that religion can unite mankind? Perhaps because of what they know from history. Instead of drawing people together, religion has often pushed them apart. In some instances, religion has been the cover under which the most dreadful atrocities have been committed. Consider some examples from just the last 100 years.

Influenced by Religion

     During the second world war, Roman Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans were at one another’s throats. Both groups claimed to follow Jesus, who taught his followers to love their neighbor. Yet, their conflict led to “one of the most appalling civilian massacres known to history,” as one researcher put it. The world was aghast at the death toll of more than 500,000 men, women, and children.

     In 1947 the Indian subcontinent was home to some 400 million people—about a fifth of humanity—mainly Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs. When India was partitioned, the Islamic nation of Pakistan was born. At the time, hundreds of thousands of refugees from both countries were burned, beaten, tortured, and shot in a series of religious massacres.

     As if the foregoing examples were not disturbing enough, the turn of the century brought to the fore the threat of terrorism. Today, terrorism has put the whole world on alert, and many terrorist groups claim to have religious ties. Religion is not viewed as a promoter of unity. Instead, it is often associated with violence and disunity. Small wonder, therefore, that the German newsmagazine FOCUS compared the world’s major religions—Buddhism, Christendom, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Taoism—to gunpowder.

Internal Squabbles

     While some religions are at war with one another, others are beset by internal squabbles. For instance, in recent years the churches of Christendom have been split by ongoing debates on matters of doctrine. Clergy and laity alike ask: Is birth control permitted? What about abortion? Should women be ordained as priests? How ought the church to view homosexuality? Should a religion sanction war? In view of such disunity, many wonder, ‘How can a religion unite mankind if it cannot unite even its own members?’

Clearly, religion in general has failed to be a force for unity. But are all religions marked by divisions?

Look at Our Federal Clock!

2011-01-16T03:18:00.000-08:00

http://www.usdebtclock.org/.

Our Federal Budget

2011-01-16T03:07:00.001-08:00

http://www.federalbudget.com/

Twelve Principles of Green Chemistry!!!!!

2011-01-07T00:35:00.000-08:00

Twelve Principles of Green Chemistry *

Prevention:

     It is better to prevent waste than to treat or clean up waste after it has been created.

Atom Economy:

     Synthetic methods should be designed to maximize the incorporation of all materials used in the process into the final product.

Less Hazardous Chemical Syntheses:

     Wherever practicable, synthetic methods should be designed to use and generate substances that possess little or no toxicity to human health and the environment.

Designing Safer Chemicals:

     Chemical products should be designed to effect their desired function while minimizing their toxicity.

Safer Solvents and Auxiliaries:

     The use of auxiliary substances (e.g., solvents, separation agents, etc.) should be made unnecessary wherever possible and innocuous when used.

Design for Energy Efficiency:

     Energy requirements of chemical processes should be recognized for their environmental and economic impacts and should be minimized. If possible, synthetic methods should be conducted at ambient temperature and pressure.

Use of Renewable Feedstocks:

     A raw material or feedstock should be renewable rather than depleting whenever technically and economically practicable.

Reduce Derivatives:

     Unnecessary derivatization (use of blocking groups, protection/ deprotection, temporary modification of physical/chemical processes) should be minimized or avoided if possible, because such steps require additional reagents and can generate waste.

Catalysis:

     Catalytic reagents (as selective as possible) are superior to stoichiometric reagents.

Design for Degradation:

     Chemical products should be designed so that at the end of their function they break down into innocuous degradation products and do not persist in the environment.

Real-time analysis for Pollution Prevention:

     Analytical methodologies need to be further developed to allow for real-time, in-process monitoring and control prior to the formation of hazardous substances.

Inherently Safer Chemistry for Accident Prevention:

     Substances and the form of a substance used in a chemical process should be chosen to minimize the potential for chemical accidents, including releases, explosions, and fires.

Share some comments if possible.

Kids and the Gulf Coast’s Future!

2011-01-06T22:57:00.000-08:00

     There are lots of conflicting opinions about oil drilling. Some people are really against and some are in favor of oil drilling. Did you know there are some people who think a moratorium on oil drilling could actually have harmful effects in their communities? Before you wonder how anyone could think that, let me tell you about some kids who feel that way….

     A group of action-oriented teenagers from Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes in Louisiana have formed a group, Future Leaders of America’s Gulf (FLAG). They are living with the day to day impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill but they are also listening to and talking with people to exchange ideas about the Gulf Coast’s future. FLAG members are learning about the importance and hazards of deep water oil drilling and how the fishing and oil industries on the Gulf Coast impact so many lives in so many ways. They are sharing what they learn with others through social networking and in-person meetings.

     These high school students know, and remind others, that THEY are the future. While the Deepwater Horizon oil spill may be off the front pages of most newspapers and not getting top billing on the national television news telecasts, FLAG members know the spill will impact their futures. They aren’t planning on leaving the Gulf Coast area. No way! They are planning to stick around and stand up for their communities. The Gulf Coast culture and traditional industries are a part of their future – they plan to remain in or return as adults even if their education and early career training take them elsewhere.

     One student, James Michael, sums it up: “I’m worried about five years from now when I’m in college – 15 years from now when I have a family. The oil industry and the fishing industry are intertwined. They help each other to prosper.” Knowing that their culture is tied up with the environment has made them aware that “everything is connected to everything else.” And they plan to do something about it.

Feel free to comment!

Wash Your Hands!

2011-01-06T22:52:00.000-08:00

     Winter is commonly referred to as the cold and flu season. Given the cold temperatures, increasingly people will stay indoors where they may be more exposed to others who already have colds. No doubt that indoor air quality is essential for our health. So, what can we do to prevent these colds and the flu? Maintaining a distance from those who are sick may be helpful, but what do you do when a close family member is sick or you come in contact with someone who still doesn’t show signs of a cold? Well, preventing colds may be easier than you think. Point of advice: wash your hands often!

     Keeping hands clean is one of the best ways of preventing the spread of germs including those of the common cold. It’s important to wash hands before, during and after preparing food as well as eating. Also, wash your hand after coughing or sneezing to avoid spreading your own germs. Although hand sanitizers can reduce germs in some situations, good old fashion water and soap still remains the best cleaning method.

     As a child, I was always prone to colds. I didn’t completely outgrow them, but I have noticed that in the last year or two they have become less frequent. What have I done differently? Well, after I go to the bathroom and wash my hands, I keep a clean paper towel to open the doors along the way, thus preventing exposure to some hard surfaces like door knobs and elevator buttons which might be contaminated with cold germs. I cannot say scientifically if the combination of increased hand washing plus the paper towel is the main cause, but I’ve definitely seen the benefits by suffering less colds.

     Since small children tend to put their hands and objects in their mouth, teaching them to wash their hands well and often will be good preventing medicine. Washing hands often is a good habit that applies to people of all ages. Have a health year!

     About the author: Lina Younes has been working for EPA since 2002 and chairs EPA’s Multilingual Communications Task Force. Prior to joining EPA, she was the Washington bureau chief for two Puerto Rican newspapers and she has worked for several government agencies.

Please share comments!

Things going on with Green Power Purchases

2011-01-06T22:50:00.000-08:00

Green Power Purchases

Chevrolet Pledges $40 Million to Reduce Carbon

     Chevrolet announced a new campaign to support $40 million renewable energy, energy efficiency, and carbon reduction projects. The projects are expected to reduce 8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Chevrolet is working with Bonneville Environmental Foundation to invest in projects over the next couple of years.

     Currently, the car company has a wind turbine project to help power several schools and two landfill gas capture and destruction projects in the planning stages. It is also exploring two community wind projects in the Midwest.

     InterContinental New York Barclay Hotel Purchases 100% Wind

     The InterContinental New York Barclay hotel purchased more than 6.3 million kilowatt-hours of wind energy, which is enough to meet 100 percent of the hotel's annual electricity needs. Sterling Planet will supply the hotel with Green-e Energy certified renewable energy certificates (RECs) from nationwide wind resources.

GREEN CHEMISTRY!

2011-01-06T22:44:00.000-08:00

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

     This article is about the concept of the environmentally friendly design of chemical products and processes. For the journal, see Green Chemistry (journal).

      Green chemistry, also called sustainable chemistry, is a philosophy of chemical research and engineering that encourages the design of products and processes that minimize the use and generation of hazardous substances.[1] Whereas environmental chemistry is the chemistry of the natural environment, and of pollutant chemicals in nature, green chemistry seeks to reduce and prevent pollution at its source. In 1990 the Pollution Prevention Act was passed in the United States. This act helped create a modus operandi for dealing with pollution in an original and innovative way. It aims to avoid problems before they happen.

     As a chemical philosophy, green chemistry applies to organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, biochemistry, analytical chemistry, and even physical chemistry. While green chemistry seems to focus on industrial applications, it does apply to any chemistry choice. Click chemistry is often cited as a style of chemical synthesis that is consistent with the goals of green chemistry. The focus is on minimizing the hazard and maximizing the efficiency of any chemical choice. It is distinct from environmental chemistry which focuses on chemical phenomena in the environment.

     In 2005 Ryōji Noyori identified three key developments in green chemistry: use of supercritical carbon dioxide as green solvent, aqueous hydrogen peroxide for clean oxidations and the use of hydrogen in asymmetric synthesis.[2] Examples of applied green chemistry are supercritical water oxidation, on water reactions, and dry media reactions.

     Bioengineering is also seen as a promising technique for achieving green chemistry goals. A number of important process chemicals can be synthesized in engineered organisms, such as shikimate, a Tamiflu precursor which is fermented by Roche in bacteria.

     There is some debate as to whether green chemistry includes a consideration of economics, but by definition, if green chemistry is not applied, it cannot accomplish the reduction in the "use or generation of hazardous substances."

     I believe green chemistry will be a powerful economic engine for the U.S. and for New England.

     Last summer, along with my colleague Paul Anastas, we began brainstorming how to bring together green chemistry leaders from the Northeast. We sought out John Warner of Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry , Amy Cannon of Beyond Benign , and New England leaders in government, academia and business to strategize what a sustainable green chemistry future might look like – and how we could make it happen in New England.

     The first step for making green chemistry an economic driver in New England was providing an opportunity for a variety of people involved in the subject to gather. With this goal first goal set, EPA hosted a Green Chemistry Networking Forum on Dec. 16, 2010.

     For green chemistry to really take off, we need a lot of well-coordinated aspects of society to engage. Education is essential, not only in universities, but also in early science education. At the Forum, we had both college students presenting their green chemistry work, and high school students participating. We were gratified to have all the New England state departments of environmental protection attend.

     Business and industry leaders who are adopting the 12 principles of green chemistry were there. Venture capitalists, who understand that innovative businesses that are guided by the green chemistry principles are a sound investment, were there. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) seeking safer, less-toxic chemicals to advance sustainability in our society were also there.

     The conversations that began at the Networking Forum will continue. Six groups that began talking about how to bring green chemistry into the future will continue to meet and create plans that they can implement. It’s a collaboration between government, business, academia and the NGOs that’s going to make New England the Green Chemistry Corridor. This is what the buzz is all about. Green chemistry is a way towards a sustainable future.

     New England is abuzz with discussions and planning to position the Northeast as a green chemistry force for the country and the world.

     Please feel free to share a comment.

The Choice We All Face

2010-12-18T22:37:00.000-08:00

The Choice We All Face

     SURELY you, like most persons today, want peace and security. People everywhere are weary of war, tension and turmoil. They long for relief. Would you not rejoice to see this earth become a pleasant, secure home for all of its inhabitants?

    There is every reason to believe that the longed-for relief is now at hand! From what source?

    World leaders today are confidently foretelling the entry of a ‘new era’ in world history. They say that the threat of global war and nuclear destruction is past. Why? Because, they declare, a dramatic change in relations between the world’s great powers is bringing in a time of peace and security such as the world has never seen. In January of 1973 a prominent statesman said: “We have made a breakthrough toward creating in the world what the world has not known before—a structure of peace that can last, not merely for our time, but for generations to come.”1

   The question is: What is required in order to make the peace and security genuine? How can it make your life secure? To accomplish that, would it not have to reach into your neighborhood and your home and solve the problems that seriously affect you? Would it not also have to solve the problems of growing crime and drug addiction, rising food costs and heavy taxation, spreading pollution and the steady weakening of family ties? Surely, as long as any of these situations continue, they are a threat to your personal peace and security.

    Men today offer the hope that they can overcome the major problems afflicting mankind. They say that, freed from the crushing burdens of war, they can direct wealth, research and manpower far more energetically toward finding remedies for such things as crime, disease, hunger, poverty and bad housing.

    Do you believe this? Is there any solid evidence from the past or from the present to show that men are able to bring such solutions? What does human history show? What does your own experience in life tell you?

    ‘But if men do not have the solution, what remains?’ you may ask. ‘What choice do we have?’ Well, what about God? There is the undeniable fact that the earth and the living things on it give evidence of intelligent design. (Hebrews 3:4) So, then, where does God enter the picture? Is he concerned? Will he take a hand in human affairs?

   In view of what is at stake, is it not worth your while to examine what the Bible says on this matter? You may realize that the Bible is the most widely translated and circulated book on earth. But did you know that it discusses the very matters that are of greatest concern to us in this twentieth century?

    Many people have heard that it foretells a coming world destruction, and this may disturb them. But few know what it says as to when that destruction will come or about its prophecies of life right here on earth afterward. (Matthew 24:21, 22; 2 Peter 3:11-13) They may have prayed for ‘God’s kingdom to come.’ But few realize that the Bible speaks of that kingdom as an actual government, one that will shortly replace all present political systems.—Daniel 2:44.

   There is a vast difference between the peace and security the Bible shows that God’s kingdom will bring and what human leaders of our day promise. Today men speak in terms of a reduction of arms by treaties and peace pacts. The Bible, by contrast, says that soon God will bring a complete end to all armaments and remove the root causes of war. The security that God promises is not just from war between nations. It is from enemies of any kind, anywhere, so that no one need be in fear, day or night. (Micah 4:3, 4) Men are now concerned with bringing crime under control, but God’s declared purpose is to wipe out even the sources of crime, rooting out the attitudes and conditions with which crime begins. (Psalm 37:8-11 [36:8-11, Catholic Douay Version]; Galatians 5:19-21) The nations speak of progress in medical research and improved care of the sick and aged. But the Bible explains how God’s government will bring about full and lasting health, yes, even overcoming the problems of aging and death. (Revelation 21:3, 4) Under the kind of rulership described in the Bible, a person’s work will mean more than just getting money or possessions—it will make life meaningful, filled with purpose, bringing real satisfaction. For, after all, no matter what you are paid, how happy can you be if your work is monotonous, if you feel frustrated and without a true sense of accomplishment in life?—Romans 8:19-21; Isaiah 65:21-23.

   Which would you prefer? Which do you believe offers true peace and security? By going along with what the world in general accepts, have you really found what you want in life? If you let yourself be carried along with what may currently be popular, may you find that you have trusted in a false peace, a fraudulent security that leaves you, not only disillusioned, but also in grave danger? On the other hand, can you rely on what the Bible promises as something believable, practical, realistic?

    The choice we each face is not one of minor consequence. Our very lives are at stake. Surely, then, the answer to the questions raised deserves your thoughtful examination.

What do you think?

2010-11-28T23:16:00.000-08:00

Do You Yearn for the Time When...

you can feel safe and secure in your home--no matter what the time of day?

there will be no need for locks, bars, alarms,peepholes, fences, guards, watchdogs, and other security measures?

you can walk the streets alone in perfect safety, even at night?

harmful drugs and all their related problems will be but a distant memory?

all wars will have ceased, and weapons will be neither made nor stockpiled?

you no longer have to worry about polluted food, air, and water?

terrorism, the taking of hostages, and bomb threats will be completely eliminated?

earth's natural resources will be protected, maintained, and used wisely for the common good?

greed and selfishness will no longer be the motivating forces among mankind?

children will maintain their innocence and be respectful of others and their property?

women will not be oppressed and victimized?

laws and regulations will be fair and will be justly administered for the good of all?

governments will make decisions based on genuine needs and not on politics?

freedom and equality will be not only preached but also practiced?

poverty will no longer exist, but all will have whatever is needed for their health, welfare, and happiness?

children will be wanted and cared for and never abused or abandoned?

disease and death will have been conquered, and there will be no dreadful plagues?

every one's life will be truly valued, and all can find lasting happiness?

every one you meet will be kind, helpful, and trustworthy?

religion will no longer be a divisive force, leading to bigotry, hatred, and wars?

all will have adequate and pleasant places to live, and homelessness ill be a thing of the past?

WELL, DO YOU?