Walking in America (Excercise)

Over 65 million walkers have made walking America's favorite exercise. The key to effective aerobic exercise is maintaining an elevated heart rate for a certain amount of time, at least 20 minutes, on a daily basis. So when were talking about walking for fitness, we're not talking about strolling through the mall, pausing to window shop, stopping for a latte. We mean walking with a purpose, at a pace fast enough that you're a bit challenged for at least 20 minutes. Walking briskly can definitely get your heart rate up, as long as you put a bit of "oomph" into it. In fact, it can do so without some of the side effects and effort of more strenuous workouts. Easier on the joints than running or jogging.
Remember, no special equipment or clothing needed. No special training needed. Walking for fitness can be done nearly anywhere, anytime!
Some creative ways to accomplish 10,000 steps a day? At work take a 30-minute walk with a co-worker during your lunch hour. Having a buddy will help keep you motivated! At work, when your shopping or even going to the zoo park further away from the door. Don’t take that juicy parking spot that’s closest! By parking farther away you can get in a few extra steps to and from your car. Working around the house can also be a great form of physical activity that includes a lot of walking. All that sweeping, mopping, dusting, vacuuming, raking leaves, etc… equals steps taken! So buy a cheap pedometer to count your steps, and get walking!

American Schools

Education is the key to any countries economic success. For a country to be economically sound, the business and industry within that country must be financially prosperous. In today’s high tech world economy, businesses and industries need well-educated employees to prosper. Therefore, the deterioration of a countries educational system should be considered a major economic problem. Between 1965 and 1980, the performance of American students dramatically declined, the educational system fell backwards, and it is affecting today’s schools, as well as the future of the US's work force. During that 15-year period, US students' test scores severely dropped in comparison to other industrial countries. After 1980, the dropping scores leveled off, and recently, they have begun in increase. But American students must play catch-up with the rest of the world, and today’s public school system is not prepared to facilitate the major leap forward that our educational system needs. Before 1965, America's public school system was producing better-educated students with less money and fewer supplies than today. Each class was approximately 40% larger than today's classes, and they functioned with about one-third of the real dollar expenditures of present day schools. They taught with fewer books and less equipment, and did not have any of today’s audio-visual material and equipment. Then, between 1965 and 1980, real dollar expenditures per student doubled as teacher to student ratio dropped by one forth. Yet, with More money and fewer students per class, student achievement deteriorated in every available measure. In 15 years, national SAT scores declined by 5 points annually. That 75-point drop has put the US behind greatly, and has left today’s students with a lot of ground to make up in order to reach other countries test score levels. The cause of this dramatic drop cannot be attributed to any one thing. The decline was sudden, sharp, and affected every region and socioeconomic group in the country. Because the 60's and 70's were a time of major changes, nothing that happened in that era can be ruled out. But a few major changes within the educational system have been linked to the decline. The first major change was the unionization of teachers. Before 1960, there were virtually no teacher's unions. Then, starting in 1960, there was a large movement of teacher's unions. By 1970, more than 50% of all teachers were members of one union or another. Today, around 75% of teachers are unionized. Teacher’s strikes, which were almost nonexistent before 1960, now seem to mark the beginning of fall. While the new unions help to give teachers more job security, higher pay, and pension plans, they often affected the educational process. Another major change in the educational system was that schools began to become more centralized. This started soon after WWII. After the wars end, there were approximately 100,000 school districts in the United States. By 1970, that number had reduced to less that 20,000. The physical unification of school was not as important as was the financial centralization of schools, which began in the 60's. Before the unifications, local school boards raised about 60% of their own school funds, mostly with real estate taxes. The bulk of the rest of The needed funds came from state government. By 1980, though, local school boards were receiving 60% of their funds from the government and generated only 40% of their own funds. Those schools that received increased government funds first were some of the first to decline. This added to the theory that a schools performance is hindered by the bureaucratic controls over them that are less responsive to the school and parents' concerns. As more money was coming from the government, the teachers and parents had less of a say in how those funds were spent. Recently, the educational system has shown improvement, and test scores are improving as well, but it is still not enough to bring us up to international levels. US students are playing catch-up with other countries. But many schools do not have the needed financial support to increase the learning environment. The government support is not available because taxes do not bring in enough to cover all of the governments needs. This lack of school funds forces schools to lay off teachers, which increases class sizes and puts more work on the already overworked teaching staff. Schools are also starting pay- to-play program with their sports and school-sponsored activities. Some schools are being forced to completely eliminate art and industrial education classes. Colleges are also affected by the shortage of funds. As government funding is cut, colleges must raise their tuition, which makes it harder for people to afford college. This causes a drop in college-educated workers. This drop will dramatically decrease the economic gain of many large businesses, which will affect the nations economy. Although schools are doing better and test scores are increasing, the rate of increase needs to accelerate significantly. There are a few ways to help increase our rate of recovery. One way is to increase government funds to schools. Lack of proper financial support has surpassed drug abuse as America's leading concern with public education. And 68% of the population says they would be willing to pay more taxes to schools. Many, 85%, support distributing funds more equally throughout each state by taking some of the funds from wealthier school districts and giving it to districts with greater need. This would even out the schools financially and allow poorer districts access to needed funds. A second way to increase our schools progress is to dramatically alter high school learning. Fashion high schools more like colleges. Make each class more challenging, and extend each class period to 90 minutes instead of 45 minutes, but make classes every-other day. While students would end up spending as much time in each class altogether, ninety minute classes are much more productive. They allow teachers to get more involved with each topic, and longer classes allow more time for teachers to help students one on one. Longer classes also allow students to have time to start homework in class. An increase in head start and preschool programs would help significantly as well. By starting children in the learning process early, they learn more rapidly and perform better in school. Although this is not a quick way to increase student skills, it is an effective way to insure good students later. Another way to improve students is to test them for graduation. Before any student graduates, they must first pass a test to rate their skills in different skills. In order to graduate, you must pass that test. Using the SAT's would be appropriate. Have taking the SAT 's mandatory and set a minimum to pass. If the student passes, then he/she graduates. This would insure that everyone who graduates from high school has at least a certain skill level. Allowing parents to choose which school their child attends could also help increase the effectiveness of our high schools. By allowing parents to choose, a competition is formed between schools. This competition could force schools to offer improved curriculums to attract students. Competition could streamline the educational system and make it more effective with less money. I believe that the best way to improve our future economy is to restructure our public high school system. America needs to increase funding of public schools, and the school system needs to be revamped, to better prepare students for college and the work force. As the system is today, most high school students are not graduating with the needed knowledge or study skills to succeed in college. Much of high school is spent goofing around, not learning. By using college classes as a model, high schools could prepare students more effectively, and increase the overall learning rate in public schools. The educational collapse of the 70's and 80's has left America with a lower learning rate and lower test scores. But with the restructuring of public teaching and the present increase in learning and test scores, America will be on its way to being a leader in education again. And with a well-educated work force, the US economy will continue to grow and prosper

American Vision

It is my understanding that the Libertarian, Neo Liberal, the compassionate Conservative and the Progressive share one thing in common even though it may see that way. All seek the means to find a "Just Society" in which this nation can benefit economically and socially. The view point of the Libertarian on W2, would use the argument of it is not fare for those whom had to work hard for what they have. Why should somebody who is able to work should be given another chance to better themselves. Not only did my taxes try to help you, but you didn't even take advantage of it. The underclass that did not take in to full consideration of what was being given to them. They shouldn't be given help, its their problem that they are where they are and why should I pay for their mistakes? The means of making yourself a better citizen and working force are there. If I worked hard why cant you? The view point of the Libertarian is strong in saying you must take action for your responsibility as a working citizen that is able to fend for themselves. And it is not the governments role to help you live your life. Instead helping the underclass it making matters worse not only is government making people believe that government is there to pay for your mistakes, especially when its my hard earned money on the line. In order to really help the underclass is by giving the power to non profit organizations, churches, community centers where people really are affected, not in some building that will make you think, " Oh I can afford to quit my job, because I know that I get that welfare check and the food stamps." The final thought from the Liberal is that it doesn't see that governments role is to make life easier. The Neo-Liberal, " We must talk about such things as efficiency and effectiveness is we ever want to achieve social justice". The question the N.L. would raise is why haven't these people better themselves? ? it is our responsibility as leaders and as citizens to help fellow Americans. Thus we must find what went wrong. The N.L., which I will admit I don't fully understand its view points that well. I would say is a lot more willing to spend tax payers money on more programs such as W2, to help those of the underclass to obtain a better living standard. But programs that help, meaning that it just doesn't make people who need it but keeping the main idea that, to create "effectiveness". Effectiveness in which we can see the results, and do away with biased programs such as affirmative action which are in reality unjust and unethical. The compassionate Conservative main idea and focus to my understanding is "free market". The C.C. would say that the government shouldn't create another program to help those that for some reason did not benefit from it. To help the underclass by doing away with such programs that don't help, but in fact make their situation worse. These individuals were given the chance, no, the opportunity to better themselves. Why should government continue to give a free ride to these individuals that do not take the individual responsibility. Let the individual take action for his or her responsibility to make it in the free market . And not waiting for the government to continue it's free ride. Its view points is that government is not doing its duty by helping the free market , by creating more programs with tax payers money that don't affect the root of the problem, the community. You cant change a person, but you can change the environment in which they live. Also I see that it is more willing to give power to the churches and community centers. Rather than to create more programs that do not help the free market , but create more social problems , i.e. teen pregnancies and welfare abuse. The Progressives view point is that the key to social justice os the barrier of racism. That the biggest problem in the underclass is black America. It is a common stereotype that it is black America that faces this problem. The reality is that it isn't just minorities its also is the white Americans. In order to do away with this problem the view point of the Progressive is the encouragement of racial diversity. Therefore creating tolerance for one another would reach the goal of a just society and get rid of this idea that its just the black or just the whites, or whomever it is that is placed under basic stereotypes. The other focus is that we must come together as a community and as a nation to help one another to better ourselves as a whole and not as individuals. Power to the people by uniting as a whole you do away with all these social problems. Once we do away with underclass stereotype and see that it can be anybody in that situation. We can do away with all these problems. My point of view with what I have seen and heard is the following, when it all comes down to it, it is the individual whom decides what role he or she wants to play in our society, all means to become under class and even high class are there. This nation is truly the land of opportunity and gives the chance to any individual to obtain and achieve the American dream. I believe this because I have witnessed it with my own eyes I am the product of underclass that has been given the chance to be something in life. I have witnessed both urban and suburbia America. Private and public schools I have both been in. I have met a diversity of people and I have come to the conclusion that no matter what government role should play in our lives it is doing it. Wether or not we notice it, its there government will always be there. The role it plays now is perfect. Our society seems to disagree but the truth is this, we live in country where we have the right to doing anything we want. You could even get away with murder, my point is this that no matter what side of the city you live and no matter how you live you still have the opportunity to do what you wish. American eyes, view the world through American eyes and you would see that the truth is that we live in a country that there are no limitations, just restrictions that protect us from ourselves. And still you will find that people do not realize that America is the only place in the world that you can express your self and live a life that is not like any other even if you are on welfare, this a democracy were even he poor have a chance. The underclass can achieve a place in our society that gives them respect. In conclusion, the political parties that I have read about and comprehend what they are about is this that it is in the dollar sign that will make us who we want to be in this society and the only way we can achieve a true just society is to get rid of certain ideas that force us to think that money is what gives the right to live and right to die. When the true essence is that we were created equal, maybe not in the eyes of man but in the image of God.

Global Warming

The beginning of the Industrial Revolution brought many new, exciting inventions into our lives to simplify our lives and made them more efficient. Such inventions included cars, household appliances and plants that burn solid waste, fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas, and coal, and wood and wood products for fuel. Before the Industrial Revolution, human activities caused very few gases to be released into the atmosphere, but now scientists say, through the burning of fossil fuels, a large population growth and deforestation, humans are affecting the mixture of gases in the atmosphere. This mixture of gases in the atmosphere is causing the worldwide problem known as Global Warming. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the earth has a natural “greenhouse effect” which is caused by energy from the sun controlling the earth’s weather and climate, and heats the earth’s surface. In response to the sun, the earth radiates energy back into space. Atmospheric greenhouse gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other gases, trap the energy leaving the earth and retaining it as heat, much like a greenhouse ceiling. This is a natural and necessary effect, without it temperatures on earth would be much lower than they are now and life as it is today would not be possible, but with the greenhouse effect the earth’s average temperature is a more comfortable and life-supporting 60 degrees Fahrenheit. The problems that have arisen with the greenhouse effect have occurred due to the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases. The EPA reports that data collected over the last 100 years shows that the average land surface temperature has risen between .8 and one degree Fahrenheit, precipitation has increased around one percent over the globe and the sea level has risen approximately 6-8 inches, approximately 1-2 inches of the rise caused by melting mountain glaciers and another 1-4 inches has resulted from the expansion of the ocean water as a result of the warmer ocean temperatures. Scientists believe that the increase in greenhouse gas concentration, especially of carbon dioxide, is being caused by the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities. Fossil fuels burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses, and power factories are responsible for about 98% of the total U.S. emission of carbon dioxide, 24% of the methane emissions and 18% of nitrous oxide emissions. Also contributing a significant share of emissions is the increase in agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production, and mining. Scientists predicted that in 1997 the United States was responsible for the emission of about one-fifth of the total global greenhouse gases. The total amount of future emissions depends on a range of factors, such as demographic, economic, and technological policy and institutional developments, making it difficult to estimate future emissions. Despite the difficulty scientists have made some predictions; they predict that by the year 2100, without emissions control policies, carbon dioxide concentrations will be 30-150% higher than they are today. Scientists also expect that the earth’s average surface temperature could ride 1.6 – 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. It is also expected that the sea level is likely to rise two feet along most the U.S. coast. Today, according to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), for every one person out of the six billion people on Earth, almost six tons of carbon dioxide re released into the atmosphere each year. Because of human activities, the atmospheric concentration of this greenhouse gas has risen by over 30% over the last 250 years. According to the EDS, people can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases being mixed into the atmosphere. Using public transportation, walking or biking to school or work, or if you must drive, join a carpool and use a car that gets high mileage are suggested to lower carbon dioxide levels. The EDS also recommends using energy-efficient appliances in your house, weatherizing your home and using renewable energy sources, like solar heat or wind power. Natural gas releases the least amount of carbon dioxide and therefore is recommended to replace coal and oil in power plants and factories. Climate change, such as global warming, is a global problem that requires actions of improvement from the entire international community. According to the EPA countries from around the world, including the United States, are working together to share technologies, experience, resources and talent to lower total greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the threat of global warming. These efforts, commonly referred to as Technology Cooperation, can occur between nations, private entities, and organizations around the world. International efforts are in progress to try to establish practices for land use, land use change and forestry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase carbon sinks. Locally, according to the EPA, cities and states around the U.S. are preparing or have already prepared greenhouse gas inventories, and are currently pursuing programs and policies that are hoped to result in the decrease of greenhouse gas emissions. The Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS, explains that one of the most important actions that need to be taken at any level is the amount of fossil fuels burned for energy at any level. It is suggested by many organizations that natural gases should replace other fuels such as coal, oil and gasoline, and that we should still limit the burning of even natural gases. It is also suggested that the government should create car-less cities, where citizens can only walk, ride bikes or use public transportation to get around inside the city. Yet another suggestion is to require citizens to drive electric cars, or electric hybrid cars, to reduce the amount of pollution put into the atmosphere by driving. A less popular action would be to limit the amount of gasoline available to each citizen over a certain amount of time, making them unable to contribute any more pollutants than anyone else is allowed. Transportation is not the only area where action can be taken, household appliances, heating or cooling equipment, consumer electronics, or office equipment also have an affect on the environment. According to the Consumer Federation of America Foundation, CFAF, the average home causes more air pollution than the average car. The CFAF also states that a household that buys “energy efficient equipment” instead of standard new equipment can considerably lower the emissions of carbon dioxide over the lifetime of the appliances, that is a pollution savings comparable to taking a car off the road for seven years. As well as lowering the amount of pollutants being put into the air, citizens can reduce their energy bills by around 30% by replacing their home appliances by energy efficient products in their home. Individuals can make a big difference in global warming also. Citizens can get involved with organizations to attract the attention of the government as well as following a couple of the suggestions made above. People can drive less, or use more efficient cars, smoke less, even cigarette and pipe smoke are pollutants, and replace their appliances and household products with more energy efficient ones. Global warming is a problem, and it won’t go away without the cooperation of the world and it’s inhabitants.

Buy a Hybrid next go around top 10 list

Top 10 Best-Selling Hybrids of 2006
Hybrid cars are like the little engine that could. When the technology was first introduced to the U.S. market (fittingly, mass-produced hybrids made their debut on American shores at the dawn of the new millennium), buyers had the choice of, well, one vehicle: the cramped, eccentric Honda Insight. Sales figures reflected this narrow range, as well as the public's initial cautiousness regarding this new technology. In 2000, only 9,350 hybrid cars were sold.Six years later, the picture has changed dramatically. Automakers have gotten on board. The selection of hybrids on the market currently numbers in the double digits, with manufacturers like Ford, Honda, Lexus and Toyota each offering a take on the increasingly popular green machines. There are hybrid coupes and sedans, and even hybrid SUVs.Consumers have gotten on board as well. Hybrid sales have increased steadily since 2000, and by 2005, the segment had grown a whopping 2,200 percent since the technology's debut; 205,749 of the eco-friendly fuel-sippers made it off the lot last year. This trend doesn't seem likely to lose steam anytime soon. Hybrid vehicle sales figures for the first six months of 2006 have been robust, and stand at just over 116,000 units. Currently, hybrids constitute just over 1 percent of total vehicle sales, but some predict a much stronger market presence in the years ahead.So which vehicles are at the forefront of this hybrid revolution? Here are the 10 that topped the sales chart for the first six months of 2006.
Toyota Prius — 48,156 unitsThe second oldest hybrid on the market, the Prius is also the most widely known, and it shows. The sedan is far and away the market leader, with sales that account for nearly 50 percent of the hybrid segment.
Toyota Highlander Hybrid — 18,127 units Introduced in June 2005 for the 2006 model year, the Highlander Hybrid is new, but that hasn't stopped it from shoring up an impressive fan base. Toyota's second hybrid outsold older hybrid SUVs like the Ford Escape to cruise into the No. 2 spot.
Honda Civic Hybrid — 15,755 units The prudent Civic has an even more prudent sibling: the Civic Hybrid. It was the second best-selling hybrid in the nation last year, but thus far, 2006 finds it taking the bronze.
Lexus RX 400h — 11,193 units Based on the popular RX 330, the RX 400h was the first luxury hybrid SUV. Luxury clearly has its supporters. The ute was the third best-selling hybrid last year, and this year it maintains its foothold in the upper reaches of the sales chart.
Ford Escape Hybrid — 10,190 units Ford proved that SUVs can be green, too, when it introduced the Escape Hybrid, the nation's first hybrid SUV, back in 2001. Five years later, the compact ute continues to rack up impressive sales.
Toyota Camry Hybrid — 7,386 units Toyota continues its domination of the hybrid segment with the Camry Hybrid. The sedan has only been on the market since May, but it's off to an exceptional start. Sales figures for May and June are second only to those of the Prius.
Honda Accord Hybrid — 3,245 units Equipped with a V6, the Accord Hybrid was the first hybrid built with driving enthusiasts in mind. Fuel economy suffers, though; the car gets about the same mileage as a four-cylinder Accord. Perhaps that's why sales have been somewhat disappointing.
Mercury Mariner Hybrid — 1,461 units Introduced for model-year 2006, the Mariner Hybrid shares the Escape Hybrid's basic structure, platform and powertrain, but seeks to offer a more upscale driving experience via a more stylish exterior and a luxurious cabin. Thus far, it hasn't been nearly as successful as its twin.
Lexus GS 450h — 525 unitsIntroduced just a couple of months ago, the GS 450h is the nation's first luxury/sport sedan hybrid. Its powertrain offers V8 power paired with the fuel economy of a small V6.
Honda Insight — 489 units The Insight is the hybrid that launched the segment; it's also the one that gets the best mileage. Sadly, its tight quarters and less-than-brisk horsepower prevented it from finding mainstream success. The Insight was discontinued in September 2006; Honda plans to introduce a new hybrid-specific model in 2009. Sources: Electric Drive Transportation Association, Hybridcars.com and Ford Motor Company

San Diego Wild Fires and Chargers

San Diego recently went through hell. Wind gusts of over 70 miles an hour carried flames a quarter mile away making it almost impossible to stop. The people in San Diego are great, and I found it disturbing that many people on MSN's/Fox sport page article regarding the Charger's victory over the Texans had so many ignorant things to say about the devistation. At the bottom of these article a person can sound off about the article. What was in there was hurtful and hateful. Regardless of our feelings of any region of the country, we should never wish ill upon our fellow Americans. I wish the people of San Diego a quick recovery.

Jones Soda and Obesity in America

Well, America keeps getting fatter? Diabetes is on the rise? So why would I endorse Jones Soda which is made with Sugar? Coke, Pepsi, and almost every other soda as well as snack foods now uses High Frutose Corn Syrup instead of Sugar, which hardens the arteries and increase your chance of diabetes by 5 over Sugar. HFCS also makes you crave junk food unlike sugar, it's kind of like nicotine for junk food.

Read the following and check out Oprah's site and see what Dr. Oz says about HFCS.

P.S. Jones Soda tastes better then Coke and Pepsi and comes in many great flavors.

Soda Warning? High-fructose Corn Syrup Linked To Diabetes, New Study Suggests
ScienceDaily (Aug. 23, 2007) — Researchers have found new evidence that soft drinks sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) may contribute to the development of diabetes, particularly in children. In a laboratory study of commonly consumed carbonated beverages, the scientists found that drinks containing the syrup had high levels of reactive compounds that have been shown by others to have the potential to trigger cell and tissue damage that could cause the disease, which is at epidemic levels.

HFCS is a sweetener found in many foods and beverages, including non-diet soda pop, baked goods, and condiments. It is has become the sweetener of choice for many food manufacturers because it is considered more economical, sweeter and more easy to blend into beverages than table sugar. Some researchers have suggested that high-fructose corn syrup may contribute to an increased risk of diabetes as well as obesity, a claim which the food industry disputes. Until now, little laboratory evidence has been available on the topic.
In the current study, Chi-Tang Ho, Ph.D., conducted chemical tests among 11 different carbonated soft drinks containing HFCS. He found 'astonishingly high' levels of reactive carbonyls in those beverages. These undesirable and highly-reactive compounds associated with "unbound" fructose and glucose molecules are believed to cause tissue damage, says Ho, a professor of food science at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. By contrast, reactive carbonyls are not present in table sugar, whose fructose and glucose components are "bound" and chemically stable, the researcher notes.
Reactive carbonyls also are elevated in the blood of individuals with diabetes and linked to the complications of that disease. Based on the study data, Ho estimates that a single can of soda contains about five times the concentration of reactive carbonyls than the concentration found in the blood of an adult person with diabetes.
Ho and his associates also found that adding tea components to drinks containing HFCS may help lower the levels of reactive carbonyls. The scientists found that adding epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), a compound in tea, significantly reduced the levels of reactive carbonyl species in a dose-dependent manner when added to the carbonated soft drinks studied. In some cases, the levels of reactive carbonyls were reduced by half, the researchers say.
"People consume too much high-fructose corn syrup in this country," says Ho. "It's in way too many food and drink products and there's growing evidence that it's bad for you." The tea-derived supplement provides a promising way to counter its potentially toxic effects, especially in children who consume a lot of carbonated beverages, he says.
But eliminating or reducing consumption of HFCS is preferable, the researchers note. They are currently exploring the chemical mechanisms by which tea appears to neutralize the reactivity of the syrup.Ho's group is also probing the mechanisms by which carbonation increases the amount of reactive carbonyls formed in sodas containing HFCS. They note that non-carbonated fruit juices containing HFCS have one-third the amount of reactive carbonyl species found in carbonated sodas with HFCS, while non-carbonated tea beverages containing high-fructose corn syrup, which already contain EGCG, have only about one-sixth the levels of carbonyls found in regular soda.
In the future, food and drink manufacturers could reduce concerns about HFCS by adding more EGCG, using less HFCS, or replacing the syrup with alternatives such as regular table sugar, Ho and his associates say. Funding for this study was provided by the Center for Advanced Food Technology of Rutgers University. Other researchers involved in the study include Chih-Yu Lo, Ph.D.; Shiming Li, Ph.D.; Di Tan, Ph.D.; and Yu Wang, a doctoral student.
This research was reported August 23 at the 234th national meeting of the American Chemical Society, during the symposium, "Food Bioactives and Nutraceuticals: Production, Chemistry, Analysis and Health Effects: Health Effects."

SCA and DBA providing medical care?

The Service Contract Act and Davis Bacon Acts provide for an hourly fringe rate to be paid toward health and welfare benefits for government contractors providing services or construction to government facilities. The current hourly fringe for the SCA is $3.16 an hour and DBA fringe varies depending on the job and location but is ussually higher than the SCA fringe. The sad truth is that over 50% of SCA contractors and almost all DBA contractors choose to pay the fringe out in cash, which is alowed in lieu of benefits, the contractor must then pick up the additional payroll tax burden which is not compensated by the government. This option is a lose for all involved, and the loop hole needs to be closed. The employee is expected to purchase his or her benefits with the money or put it toward retirement, but it is more often then not used for regular expenses. with over 300,000 people working on these contracts the government is spending over $2,000,000,000 to ensure medical coverage is provided to this group, but the vast majority can be counted as the America's uninsured. Companies such as FCE Benefit Administrators, and the Boon Group speacialize in group plans geared to the hourly fringe for the responsible contractors.



Service Contract ActRead the text of the amended McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act of 1965 on the Department of Labor’s web site.
Labor Standards for the Service Contract ActFind out about labor standards as contained in Chapter 6, Title 41 of the United States Code. Access pertinent text by clicking on the appropriate code section.
Davis-Bacon ActThis Act was originally approved on March 3, 1931. It mandates that all federal government construction contracts and most contracts for federally assisted construction over $2,000.00 must contain the appropriate Davis-Bacon wage determinations. Read the text of this amended Act on the Department of Labor’s

The Democratic Candidates

Hillary Clinton:
Invest in alternative energy; jobs that won't be outsourced. (Aug 2007)
End Big Oil tax break; $50 billion for strategic energy fund. (Jul 2007)
Agnostic about nuclear power until waste & cost issue solved. (Jul 2007)
FactCheck: There was no Big Oil tax break under Bush-Cheney. (Jul 2007)
Energy Independence 2020: $50B for Strategic Energy Fund. (Jun 2007)
Will make big oil fund alternative energy research. (Feb 2007)
$50B strategic energy fund from taxing oil companies. (Oct 2006)
Remove energy dependence on countries who would harm us. (Jun 2006)
Supports oil reserve release & fund conservation. (Oct 2000)
Ratify Kyoto; more mass tranist. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)

Support green-collar job training. (Aug 2007)
Put someone in charge of Katrina recovery who actually cares. (Aug 2007)
Overcome almost criminal indifference to Katrina rebuilding. (Jun 2007)
Stands for clean air and funding the EPA. (Sep 2000)
Reduce air pollution to improve children’s health. (Jun 1998)
Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Remove PCBs from Hudson River by dredging 200 miles. (Apr 2001)
Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
EPA must do better on mercury clean-up. (Apr 2004)



Barack Obama:
Explore nuclear power as part of alternative energy mix. (Jul 2007)
Cheney met environmentalists once; but Big Oil 40 times. (Jul 2007)
Cap-and-trade carbon emissions; raise CAFE standard. (Jun 2007)
Stop sending $800M a day to Mideast dictators for oil. (Mar 2007)
Wants Detroit to build more hybrids & use more ethanol. (Oct 2006)
We cannot drill our way out of our addiction to oil. (Oct 2006)
3-way win: economy, environment, & stop funding terror. (Jun 2006)
Conserve, develop alternative fuels, increase efficiencies. (Oct 2004)
Sponsored legislations that improve energy efficiency. (Sep 2004)
20% nation's power supply from renewable sources by 2020. (Sep 2004)
20% renewable energy by 2020. (Jul 2004)
Invest in alternative energy sources. (Jun 2004)
Increase CAFE to 40 mpg. (Jun 2004)
Tradable credits for renewable energy. (Jun 2004)
Renewable Fuels Standard: require ethanol in fuel supply. (May 2004)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)

Reduce mercury and lead to protect community health. (Aug 2007)
Protect the Great Lakes & our National Parks and Forests. (Aug 2007)
Give Katrina contracts to locals, not to Halliburton. (Jun 2007)
Three months working on minority students recycling. (Aug 1996)
Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)


Joe Biden:
Make every automobile sold be a flex-fuel automobile. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
America should guarantee Katrina reconstruction. (Jun 2007)
Take away the billions of subsidy to the oil companies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Voted NO on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999)
Voted YES on transportation demo projects. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (Sep 1997)
Voted YES on continuing desert protection in California. (Oct 1994)
Voted YES on requiring EPA risk assessments. (May 1994)
End commercial whaling and illegal trade in whale meat. (Jun 2001)
Rated 95% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
EPA must do better on mercury clean-up. (Apr 2004)



John Edwards:
Give up SUVs & other sacrifices, to deal with climate crisis. (Sep 2007)
No new nuclear power plants; no liquified coal either. (Jul 2007)
80% greenhouse emissions reductions by the year 2050. (Jun 2007)
Bold transformation to stop importing 12M bbl of oil per day. (Apr 2007)
Cap carbon emissions & invest in carbon sequestration. (Apr 2007)
Store nuclear waste near nuclear plants, not in Yucca Mt. (Feb 2007)
Supports real increases in CAFE standards. (Jan 2004)
Convert agricultural waste into energy products. (Aug 2003)
Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Keep climate change in EPA "State of the Environment" report. (Jun 2003)
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
Pay New Orleans residents to rebuild from Katrina. (Jun 2007)
Victims in New Orlean's Ninth Ward were "shaming of America". (Jun 2007)
Investigate & enforce clean air laws against the refineries. (Jun 2007)
Katrina gave a face to millions in poverty. (Apr 2007)
Protect ANWR, lead in global warming battle. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Voted NO on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999)
Rated 37% by the LCV, indicating a mixed record on environment. (Dec 2003)
EPA must do better on mercury clean-up. (Apr 2004)



Al Gore (Not Declared):
Ocean warming causes stronger hurricanes, like Katrina. (Feb 2007)
Global warming causes more floods & also more droughts. (May 2006)
Supported ethanol in 1970s & cellulosic ethanol now. (May 2006)
Skeptics point to historical warming--but today is hotter. (May 2006)
Arctic ice is melting & may disrupt global weather patterns. (May 2006)
Current tech can reduce CO2 emissions to 1970 levels. (May 2006)
Dealing with global warming inconvenient for rich & powerful. (May 2006)
No drilling in ANWR & off coasts; protect pristine areas. (May 2000)
Tax credits & business incentives for energy efficiency. (Oct 1999)
Renewable energy instead of nuclear power. (Oct 2000)
Drilling ANWR too high a price for a few months of oil. (Oct 2000)
Tax incentives for development of renewable energy. (Oct 2000)
Release oil from Strategic Petroleum Reserve. (Sep 2000)
$150B Energy Security and Environment Trust Fund. (Sep 2000)
Tax breaks for fuel efficiency will fuel prosperity. (Jun 2000)
New energy technology will lead to more prosperity. (Jun 2000)
Energy policy: focus on future tech & incentives. (Jun 2000)
Carbon exchange market can cap-and-trade CO2 like we did SO2. (May 2006)
Consensus on global warming, but newspapers fabricate doubt. (May 2006)
We solved ozone crisis; can solve CO2 crisis by same methods. (May 2006)
An Inconvenient Truth: Gore's movie about global warming. (Apr 2006)
Global warming captured Gore's interest as student. (Apr 2006)
Press gives credit to discredited ideas in name of fairness. (Feb 2001)
For Kyoto; for national parks; against drilling ANWR. (Nov 2000)
UN report confirms global warming; Gore revives the issue. (Oct 2000)
Carbon dioxide causes global warming and we should act. (Oct 2000)
Global Warming is a clear & present threat; but preventable. (Apr 2000)
Kyoto goals are an indispensable first step. (Apr 2000)
Avoid “out of tune” unachievable CO2-reduction proposals. (Apr 1999)
Global Marshall Plan: Five strategic goals. (Jul 1993)
Public/private initiative to triple auto fuel efficiency. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
To let earth continue warming would be deeply immoral. (May 2006)
Use market capitalism as ally of environmentalism. (May 2006)
Humans can impact earth's ecology; especially the atmosphere. (May 2006)
Will protect Chicago from being as polluted as Houston. (Nov 2000)
Ban oil and gas drilling off Florida coast. (Nov 2000)
Texas is the smoggiest state with the smoggiest city in US. (Oct 2000)
Continue & do more cleanup of Great Lakes. (Oct 2000)
A clean environment and a healthy economy do not conflict. (Oct 2000)
Incentives for technology; but no voluntary regulations. (Oct 2000)
Invest in clean water, air, & land in “Environmental Decade”. (Aug 2000)
Trust Fund for the Environment to foster protection & growth. (Jul 2000)
Ozone protection is working; keep up diligence. (Apr 2000)
Big Lie: good environment is bad economics. (Apr 2000)
Strengthen CAA; polluters pay for air cleanup. (Apr 2000)
Market-based goals for power plants’ air pollution. (Apr 2000)
Environmental justice and economic revival go hand-in-hand. (Feb 2000)
Work with business to solve environmental problems. (May 1999)
If we do nothing else, save the rain forest. (Jul 1993)
The US should lead the global environmental movement. (Jul 1993)
Calculate environmental impact when measuring profit. (Jul 1993)
Civilization and the earth are increasingly in conflict. (Jul 1993)
No logging in roadless forests; protect 40M acres. (Nov 2000)
Pass bipartisan legislation to revitalize contaminated sites. (Jul 2000)
Transform brownfields into parks with federal investment. (Jul 2000)
Livability Agenda proposes $1 billion for parks. (May 1999)
Supports “livability” agenda. (Apr 1999)
Control clean air in National Parks. (Apr 1999)
Replace sprawl with “smart growth”; $7.8B on Everglades. (Sep 2000)
Major commitment to build high-speed Amtrak rail systems. (Sep 2000)
Both gas & public transit should be affordable & available. (Jun 2000)
Clean up and improve existing bus & rail systems. (Jun 2000)
Gore proposes $2B to counter suburban sprawl. (Nov 1999)
Mass transit to fight suburban sprawl. (May 1999)

The Republican Candidates

Rudy Giuliani:
Accept global warming & work toward energy independence. (Jun 2007)
Signing Kyoto would just move CO2 emissions to China & India. (Mar 2007)
No new energy tax; focus on alternatives instead. (Mar 2007)
Nuclear power is dangerous, but nobody's died from it. (Mar 2007)
Develop energy-independent technology, but not wind power. (Mar 2007)
Open Strategic Petroleum Reserve to battle high oil prices. (Feb 2000)
Oil crisis is “compelling justification” to use Reserves. (Feb 2000)

John McCain:
Economic & environmental interests not mutually exclusive. (Sep 2007)
Preserve and help our National Parks. (Jan 2000)
Repeal ban on new roads in wilderness due to bad process. (Dec 1999)
Use park visitor fees for park development bonds. (Dec 1999)
Preserve natural resources for future. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
Voted YES on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Voted YES on transportation demo projects. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (Sep 1997)
Voted NO on continuing desert protection in California. (Oct 1994)
Voted YES on requiring EPA risk assessments. (May 1994)
End commercial whaling and illegal trade in whale meat. (Jun 2001)
Supports grants for brownfields remediation. (May 2002)
Make EPA into a Cabinet department. (May 2002)
Rated 53% by the LCV, indicating a mixed record on environment. (Dec 2003)
EPA must do better on mercury clean-up. (Apr 2004)
Focus on results, not regulation. (Sep 1998)
FactCheck: nuclear plants do emit no GHGs, but do have waste. (Jun 2007)
Reinvest oil profits in nuclear power. (Jun 2007)
Ethanol made no sense in `05 but with $60/bbl it makes sense. (May 2007)
Strength Clean Air & Water Acts; but not Kyoto. (Jan 2000)
Supports alternative fuels, emission controls, & CWA. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
Supports immediate reductions in greenhouse gases. (Sep 1998)

Ron Paul:
Big Oil profits ok; Big Oil subsidies are not. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001)
Property rights are the foundation of all rights. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)
Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)

Mitt Romney:
No-regrets policy: biofuel, nuclear power, drill ANWR. (Jun 2007)
Big Oil should reinvest profits in oil refineries. (Jun 2007)
Develop alternative energy but also drill in ANWR. (Dec 2006)
Clean environment will be a campaign theme. (Mar 2002)

Fred Thompson:
Invest in alternative fuels; with R&D to reduce CO2. (Sep 2007)
Oil dependency associated with every recession in 50 years. (Sep 2007)
Solar system is warming, not earth. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)

Tom Tancredo:
Conservative AND conservationist: use free market. (Jun 2007)
US's world-scale consumerism is a measure of success. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
Voted YES on deauthorizing "critical habitat" for endangered species. (Sep 2005)
Voted YES on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)
Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Global warming could be from humans, or could be nature. (May 2007)
FactCheck: Global warming has dissent, but not 50-50 split. (May 2007)
Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)

Where do I turn?

I've been a Republican for as long as I can remember. I'm Pro-life, Christian, and despise taxes, but I'm also concerned about the health of our planet. I agree with most of Fred Thompson's views but he refuses to acknowledge our planet is on the verge of a crisis. I differ greatly with Obama's views but will vote for Barack Obama before I would vote for Fred. I have committed myself to vote for the Presidential candidate who takes the strongest stand on the environment in 2008 regardless of party. Unfortunately this country has a two party system that demands each party object to the other party's stance. So we are stuck compromising our beliefs and voting for the lessor of evils rather than the candidate. Why are so many Republicans letting the Democrats win on this issue, is it to despise Al Gore? I'm afraid to protect the planet, I'll have to vote for a Democrat, which would potentially give the Liberals power in the House, Senate, and White House. I'm calling on all Republicans to push the party to recognize that being green is not a Liberal idea, we have a year left to fix the party.

We must make are candidates emphasize renewable energy, stricter mileage standards for vehicles, and emission controls on coal plants that produce 50% of Americas energy. A company called Fuel Tech has a process that removes up to 75% of harmful emissions from these plants and can be in place on all of these power plants in a couple years not decades. Power plants with this technology utilized actually work more efficiently as well. I would propose a tax break on the installation cost for energy providers to help implement this technology immediately.

Solar water heat should be standard and incorporated in all new home construction, and the increased cost should be allowed as a tax credit for the home builder.

Weather you agree that global warming is a real issue or not, why not err on the side of caution.