Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
Blood Pressure too high?
There are some alternative suggestions to lowering your blood pressure.
Doctors at the University of Chicago studying the Oriental custom of using celery to lower hypertension discovered that celery contains the chemical 3-n-butyl phthalide. This smoothes the muscles lining blood vessels, which increases the vessel diameter and allows for easier blood flow at lower pressures.
Don't peel the strings off of celery.. eat them.. they are the bowel scrubbers that clean your colon.
So, if you have changed your life style with exercises, eating high fiber meals, with complex carbohydrates, cold water fish, and lots of fruits and vegies.. and your BP has come down a bit, try the celery.. 4 stalks a day. I like mine with peanut butter, or cream cheese, or spreadable pimento cheese.. hummm humm good.
Warning... if you are on medication and try the above, check your BP often.. a too low BP is worse or as bad as a high.. You might need to reduce the dosage of your medication.
Doctors at the University of Chicago studying the Oriental custom of using celery to lower hypertension discovered that celery contains the chemical 3-n-butyl phthalide. This smoothes the muscles lining blood vessels, which increases the vessel diameter and allows for easier blood flow at lower pressures.
Don't peel the strings off of celery.. eat them.. they are the bowel scrubbers that clean your colon.
So, if you have changed your life style with exercises, eating high fiber meals, with complex carbohydrates, cold water fish, and lots of fruits and vegies.. and your BP has come down a bit, try the celery.. 4 stalks a day. I like mine with peanut butter, or cream cheese, or spreadable pimento cheese.. hummm humm good.
Warning... if you are on medication and try the above, check your BP often.. a too low BP is worse or as bad as a high.. You might need to reduce the dosage of your medication.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Recent polls show Americans are nervous about Obama as commander-in-chief, and rightly so.
On the night of January 20, 2009, a new commander-in-chief will leave the inaugural podium, parade, and festivities for the Oval Office. A national security staff ready with the latest “threat briefing” will join him there. On his desk, they will place a thick binder of reports, each focusing on real or emerging threats to our national security. In the quiet of the Oval Office -- in the presence of these stern-faced, deadly serious briefers and advisers -- Barack H. Obama, should he be the next president, will come face-to-face with reality.
Americans are afraid of this scenario, Barack H. Obama as commander-in-chief. The New York Times and CBS News released a poll this week; in it, Americans answered detailed questions about this possibility.
The poll’s answers shocked the strategists at the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago. An intensive international travel schedule for Obama and a refocus of the campaign’s message on defense and foreign policy speaks to this fear.
The poll says Americans consider him lacking in the abilities necessary to run the armed services. Conversely, the polls show John McCain blows Obama out of the water as a good commander-in-chief. Forty-six percent of respondents thought McCain would very likely “be effective” as commander-in-chief, as opposed to only 24 percent saying the same of Obama. In fact, 36 percent think it is “not likely” Obama will be effective in the position.
Obama’s talents lie in his gift of oratory and his ability to move people with emotion, but this does not necessarily make for a good commander. The chief executive’s job requires forward thinking, realistic assessments of the world’s threats, and the maturity to make judgments in a crisis.
The USS Gerald R. Ford, an aircraft carrier, is now under construction in Hampton Roads, Va. It will be ready to join the fleet in 2015, replacing a carrier launched 47 years ago. Do we know that the USS Ford will be needed in 2015?
No, we do not. But can we afford to bet against it?
Obama thinks so. According to his own campaign literature, he is willing to let the USS Ford, and many more of tomorrow’s defense technologies, rust at the pier.
The decision to build the aircraft carrier is based on the concept of preparing America for the next war to come. Commanders must anticipate the evil designs of irrational lunatics. It’s always a tricky business, trying to anticipate future unknowns. Nevertheless, the president’s oath is to protect and defend the United States.
A president who hasn’t had any experience in military strategic planning is going to find himself in deep trouble if he finds his strategic armories empty in the face of an advancing enemy.
A review of Obama’s national defense plans offers insight into his preparedness to meet today’s and tomorrow’s defense realities. Obama makes a variety of claims which we think would dramatically weaken America if enacted. The Obama plans include cutting tens of billions of dollars of the Defense Department budget, and the development of no new weapons in space to protect satellites and strategic assets. He plans cuts in missile defense systems, slowing our development of future combat systems, developing no new nuclear weapons, and negotiating with Russia to take our ICBMs off what he calls “hair-trigger alert”. He advocates deep cuts in our nuclear program.
Not only does Obama have dangerous disarmament plans for America, he sorely lacks in experience. Besides being a junior senator, he has not been on any of the major defense committees. He has no previous hands-on experience with the military nor has he spent time with the men and women of our armed forces.
There are hundreds of weapon systems that could, under the quick-to-cut hand of Obama, be eliminated before they had the chance to prove themselves. If Obama had been in charge when the M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank was under development (a huge financial problem for the military) he would have cut it. But its developers persisted, and dollars that might have been considered “waste” by Obama were spent until the M1A1 became the most lethal, most respected, most effective tank on the battlefield.
Ask any Abrams crewmember who has survived direct hits by explosive shells and rocket-propelled grenades if he would have cancelled the Abrams, and the answer will be a resounding “No!”
Obama’s perfect future vision enables him to scrap defense programs, even as our nation’s enemies prepare very nasty projectiles to hurtle across continents and oceans.
Will he be able to effectively deal with crazed terrorists and power-hungry leaders with nuclear weapons in hand? Recent polls show Americans are nervous about Obama as commander-in-chief, and rightly so.
Americans are afraid of this scenario, Barack H. Obama as commander-in-chief. The New York Times and CBS News released a poll this week; in it, Americans answered detailed questions about this possibility.
The poll’s answers shocked the strategists at the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago. An intensive international travel schedule for Obama and a refocus of the campaign’s message on defense and foreign policy speaks to this fear.
The poll says Americans consider him lacking in the abilities necessary to run the armed services. Conversely, the polls show John McCain blows Obama out of the water as a good commander-in-chief. Forty-six percent of respondents thought McCain would very likely “be effective” as commander-in-chief, as opposed to only 24 percent saying the same of Obama. In fact, 36 percent think it is “not likely” Obama will be effective in the position.
Obama’s talents lie in his gift of oratory and his ability to move people with emotion, but this does not necessarily make for a good commander. The chief executive’s job requires forward thinking, realistic assessments of the world’s threats, and the maturity to make judgments in a crisis.
The USS Gerald R. Ford, an aircraft carrier, is now under construction in Hampton Roads, Va. It will be ready to join the fleet in 2015, replacing a carrier launched 47 years ago. Do we know that the USS Ford will be needed in 2015?
No, we do not. But can we afford to bet against it?
Obama thinks so. According to his own campaign literature, he is willing to let the USS Ford, and many more of tomorrow’s defense technologies, rust at the pier.
The decision to build the aircraft carrier is based on the concept of preparing America for the next war to come. Commanders must anticipate the evil designs of irrational lunatics. It’s always a tricky business, trying to anticipate future unknowns. Nevertheless, the president’s oath is to protect and defend the United States.
A president who hasn’t had any experience in military strategic planning is going to find himself in deep trouble if he finds his strategic armories empty in the face of an advancing enemy.
A review of Obama’s national defense plans offers insight into his preparedness to meet today’s and tomorrow’s defense realities. Obama makes a variety of claims which we think would dramatically weaken America if enacted. The Obama plans include cutting tens of billions of dollars of the Defense Department budget, and the development of no new weapons in space to protect satellites and strategic assets. He plans cuts in missile defense systems, slowing our development of future combat systems, developing no new nuclear weapons, and negotiating with Russia to take our ICBMs off what he calls “hair-trigger alert”. He advocates deep cuts in our nuclear program.
Not only does Obama have dangerous disarmament plans for America, he sorely lacks in experience. Besides being a junior senator, he has not been on any of the major defense committees. He has no previous hands-on experience with the military nor has he spent time with the men and women of our armed forces.
There are hundreds of weapon systems that could, under the quick-to-cut hand of Obama, be eliminated before they had the chance to prove themselves. If Obama had been in charge when the M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank was under development (a huge financial problem for the military) he would have cut it. But its developers persisted, and dollars that might have been considered “waste” by Obama were spent until the M1A1 became the most lethal, most respected, most effective tank on the battlefield.
Ask any Abrams crewmember who has survived direct hits by explosive shells and rocket-propelled grenades if he would have cancelled the Abrams, and the answer will be a resounding “No!”
Obama’s perfect future vision enables him to scrap defense programs, even as our nation’s enemies prepare very nasty projectiles to hurtle across continents and oceans.
Will he be able to effectively deal with crazed terrorists and power-hungry leaders with nuclear weapons in hand? Recent polls show Americans are nervous about Obama as commander-in-chief, and rightly so.
Right now the U.S. Congress is OPEC's staunchest ally.
July 16, 2008
by Walter E. Williams
Despite Congress' periodic hauling of weak-kneed oil executives before their committees to charge them with collusion and price-gouging, subsequent federal investigations turn up no evidence to support the charges. Right now oil company executives are getting a bit of a respite as Congress has turned its attention to crude oil speculators, blaming them for high oil prices and calling for tighter control over commodity futures trading.
Let's look at the futures market and for simplicity use corn futures discussed in my May 28th column titled "Futures Market." While corn is different from oil, both obey the laws of supply and demand, just as humans are very different from bricks but both obey the laws of gravity.
Say that today's price of corn is $7 a bushel. I have a hunch that because of Midwest flooding, higher demand due to droughts and war in other parts of the world, that in May 2009, corn will sell for $12 a bushel. I stand to make a lot of money by buying corn now for $7 a bushel, holding it, and in May 2009 selling it for $12 a bushel. If many speculators share my hunch and buy more corn now, today's price, sometimes called the spot price, is going to rise let's say to $10 a bushel.
Higher prices for corn, and everything made from corn, might give rise to consumer complaints. While Congress can't stop the Midwest rain, droughts and wars in far off places, it can scapegoat speculators. Let's say that Congress outlaws the corn futures market, or makes futures trading more costly. Doing so will definitely lower the spot price of corn. The price might return to $7 a bushel, making corn consumption once again "affordable." You might exclaim, "Isn't Congress wonderful?" But what about May 2009?
Suppose the Midwest floods have a significant impact on corn production; there's drought and war in far off places raising the demand for corn exports. What do you predict will be the availability and prices of corn in May 2009 after Congress has outlawed, or made futures trading more difficult? If you answer less corn and much higher prices, go to the head of the class. By outlawing or impeding futures trading in corn, Congress encouraged Americans to ignore the future. Had Congress not interfered, people would use less corn now, making more available in May 2009. Thus, one of very valuable functions performed by the speculator is the allocation of resources over time. It makes sense to take the future into account when making consumption decisions today. The futures market, by the way, is no bed of roses. My hunch about corn supply and demand conditions might be dead wrong. Its May 2009 price might be $3 a bushel and I would have to sell at a loss. Futures trading is risky business.
Congressional attacks on speculation do not alter the oil market's fundamental demand and supply conditions. What would lower the long-term price of oil is for Congress to permit exploration for the estimated billions upon billions of barrels of oil domestically available, not to mention the estimated trillion-plus barrels of shale oil in Wyoming, Colorado and Utah. Some politicians pooh-pooh calls for drilling, saying it would take five or 10 years to recover the oil. I guarantee you we would begin to see a reduction in today's prices even if it took five to 10 years for us to get the first barrel. Put yourself in the place of an OPEC member knowing there would be a greater supply of U.S. oil five or 10 years, hence maybe driving oil prices lower to say $40 a barrel. What will you want to do now while oil is $130 a barrel? You would want to sell as much oil now and OPEC's collective efforts to do so would put downward pressures on current oil prices. Right now the U.S. Congress is OPEC's staunchest ally.
by Walter E. Williams
Despite Congress' periodic hauling of weak-kneed oil executives before their committees to charge them with collusion and price-gouging, subsequent federal investigations turn up no evidence to support the charges. Right now oil company executives are getting a bit of a respite as Congress has turned its attention to crude oil speculators, blaming them for high oil prices and calling for tighter control over commodity futures trading.
Let's look at the futures market and for simplicity use corn futures discussed in my May 28th column titled "Futures Market." While corn is different from oil, both obey the laws of supply and demand, just as humans are very different from bricks but both obey the laws of gravity.
Say that today's price of corn is $7 a bushel. I have a hunch that because of Midwest flooding, higher demand due to droughts and war in other parts of the world, that in May 2009, corn will sell for $12 a bushel. I stand to make a lot of money by buying corn now for $7 a bushel, holding it, and in May 2009 selling it for $12 a bushel. If many speculators share my hunch and buy more corn now, today's price, sometimes called the spot price, is going to rise let's say to $10 a bushel.
Higher prices for corn, and everything made from corn, might give rise to consumer complaints. While Congress can't stop the Midwest rain, droughts and wars in far off places, it can scapegoat speculators. Let's say that Congress outlaws the corn futures market, or makes futures trading more costly. Doing so will definitely lower the spot price of corn. The price might return to $7 a bushel, making corn consumption once again "affordable." You might exclaim, "Isn't Congress wonderful?" But what about May 2009?
Suppose the Midwest floods have a significant impact on corn production; there's drought and war in far off places raising the demand for corn exports. What do you predict will be the availability and prices of corn in May 2009 after Congress has outlawed, or made futures trading more difficult? If you answer less corn and much higher prices, go to the head of the class. By outlawing or impeding futures trading in corn, Congress encouraged Americans to ignore the future. Had Congress not interfered, people would use less corn now, making more available in May 2009. Thus, one of very valuable functions performed by the speculator is the allocation of resources over time. It makes sense to take the future into account when making consumption decisions today. The futures market, by the way, is no bed of roses. My hunch about corn supply and demand conditions might be dead wrong. Its May 2009 price might be $3 a bushel and I would have to sell at a loss. Futures trading is risky business.
Congressional attacks on speculation do not alter the oil market's fundamental demand and supply conditions. What would lower the long-term price of oil is for Congress to permit exploration for the estimated billions upon billions of barrels of oil domestically available, not to mention the estimated trillion-plus barrels of shale oil in Wyoming, Colorado and Utah. Some politicians pooh-pooh calls for drilling, saying it would take five or 10 years to recover the oil. I guarantee you we would begin to see a reduction in today's prices even if it took five to 10 years for us to get the first barrel. Put yourself in the place of an OPEC member knowing there would be a greater supply of U.S. oil five or 10 years, hence maybe driving oil prices lower to say $40 a barrel. What will you want to do now while oil is $130 a barrel? You would want to sell as much oil now and OPEC's collective efforts to do so would put downward pressures on current oil prices. Right now the U.S. Congress is OPEC's staunchest ally.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Capitol Hill Democrats Unhappy with Obama
Yesterday in ThePolitico.com. "After a brief bout of Obamamania, some Capitol Hill Democrats have begun to complain privately that Barack Obama's presidential campaign is insular, uncooperative and inattentive to their hopes for a broad Democratic victory in November. 'They think they know what's right and everyone else is wrong on everything,' groused one senior Senate Democratic aide. They're kind of insufferable at this point,'" talking about the Obama people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)