Don’t Worry About it! Why NASA is saying 'we told you so' about doomsday hype ... a week early

          Good Day World!

Good news for the holidays. The world isn’t going to end next week. I thought that would get you in the spirit of the season. For those who paid any attention, Mexican researchers debunked the Mayan doomsday calendar thing last Spring.

Researchers got together, and based upon additional information on the most recent Mayan dig, realized that the Mayan calendar did not have an end date. Just an end to certain periods of time.

Anyway, there’s still a lot of folks that are sure Dec.21st is going to be the last day for mankind. And women too. These folks are gathering in various parts of the world for reasons that you and I would never understand, in anticipation of the big moment when… well, I’m not sure how they think it’s going to go down - the world suddenly ends. Everything stops. Or disappears. Or something really bad happens.

Not to worry. NASA has got your back: 

“NASA's latest video debunking doomsday hype comes from the future — to be precise, from Dec. 22, one day after the expected peak for worries that the end of an ancient Maya calendar cycle will signal the end of the world as well. Some might think that the video, titled "The World Didn't End Yesterday," was prematurely released. But it wasn't: The advance word about the non-apocalypse is a key part of the space agency's plan.

"The teaser for the video explains everything: 'NASA is so confident that the world is not coming to an end on Dec. 21, that they have already released a video for the day after,'" Tony Phillips, the writer and editor behind the NASA Science website as well as SpaceWeather.com, told NBC News in an email.

Phillips says the "day after" angle was his idea.

"I felt it was a lighter and more creative way to approach the topic than some of the other treatments we've seen," he wrote. "Some people have been confused by it, but not all. The unorthodox approach is definitely a conversation-starter, which was our goal all along."

Bashing the bunkum
As the 12-21-12 date approaches, NASA has been taking the lead in telling people that the connection between the Maya calendar and doomsday fears is pure bunkum. By some accounts, a grand 5,125-year cycle comes to an end on Dec. 21, but this year, archaeologists found that the Maya calendar counting system goes beyond 2012, just as our own calendar recycles itself after Dec. 31.

For what it's worth, there's even some question whether Dec. 21 is the right date for the Maya calendar turnover.Along the way, the Maya hype has gotten mixed up with other end-of-the-world memes, ranging from monster solar storms to the onset of a threatening Planet X. There's a germ of truth behind some of the memes. For example, the sun really is heading toward the peak of its 11-year activity cycle, but solar maximum won't cause the end of the world.

In fact, Phillips has said the upcoming solar max could be"the weakest of the Space Age."Meanwhile, our planet is indeed heading toward a rough alignment with the sun and the galactic center on Dec. 21 — but that alignment happens every year at this time, due to the winter solstice.

NASA has been spending a lot of time lately separating the scientific fact from the scary fiction. Last month, the space agency put together a Web page that addresses the frequently asked questions about the 2012 hype, with links to even more information about topics ranging from polar shifts to supernovae and super volcanoes.

This may sound like overkill, but it's not: Earlier this year, an international opinion survey conducted by Ipsos for Reuters found that 14 percent of the respondents believe the world will come to an end during their lifetime — and 10 percent said they were worried that the Maya calendar change-over would mark the end of the world.

What to tell your kids
All this doomsday hype can be particularly troubling for kids, who tend to look to the grown-ups for a reality check. Do your children need some reassurance? These tips from Kids.gov, the U.S. government's Web portal for the younger set, could come in handy:

• Take their fears seriously. Dismissing a fear with a quick "don't be silly comment" or brushing it aside by telling them not to worry is not going to help. If your children express a fear, take time to sit down and discuss it. This sends the message that you are really listening and that your kids can always come to you and they will be taken seriously.
• Educate yourself about the topic of their fears. This allows you to speak confidently about the subject and give you the facts when discussing a rumor.
• Help your child research the rumor. If your child heard the rumor at school or saw something scary on the Internet, sit down with him at the computer and help him to conduct his own research. Discuss the importance of finding credible sources for information and guide him to legitimate, authoritative resources.
• Take the fear off their plate. For younger children, sit down to discuss the child's fear and then tell them, "OK, from now on I will worry about this for you. You don’t have to worry about this anymore. I’ll look into it and I will let you know what I find out." Make sure to check back with your child once you have researched the topic. Anticipate any questions he may have and plan your responses.

Do you still have concerns about Dec. 21? Are you hearing the Maya hype from your friends? How are you handling all this? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below, and check back next week for our continuing coverage of the doomsday buzz. In the meantime, review our coverage of last year's Rapture rigmarole to get an advance look at how this is all likely to go down.” (Source)

More about 2012:

• Stressed by storms? Don't panic
• Countdown to a non-doomsday
• 2012 and the Maya: What were they thinking?
• Serbian mountain draws the doomsday crowd
• Video: End of the world? Head to France

Time for me to walk on down the road…

It Just Gets Worse Folks: Poop-Contaminated, Mechanically Tenderized Beef in a Store Near You!

            Good Day World!
It’s becoming easier every day for me to understand why my sister Linda became a vegetarian. We both grew up loving hamburgers and steaks. Everyone we knew ate meat. There were no stories about poop in our meat. Now, after reading the following article with disgust and a touch of loathing, I’m questioning myself if I ought to follow in Linda’s footsteps?
I’m getting real tired reading about bad things consistently showing up in our food chain – in particular our meat supply. I’m just going to have to be more careful where I get my meat at, and where I go out to eat. I know. There’s no real safeguard unless I just quit eating meat.
It goes against everything I’ve ever known/eaten to give up cold turkey (pun intended) and become the Veggie Man. What next? My wife’s apple pie? Oh well, I’m passing on this disgusting information because I think you should be aware there’s a good chance you ate shit lately! 
“Why is a rare steak and its barely warm center safe to eat? Bacteria like E. coli live only on the meat's surface, so they're easily dispatched with a sizzle in the frying pan—that is, unless your steak has been poked with dozens of tiny little blades or needles that pushed bacteria deep into the meat.
The process is called mechanical tenderization, and more than 90 percent of beef producers do it. The blades cut throughmuscle fibers and connective tissue to make the beef less tough. (Dry aging a steak does the same thing through a chemical process, but it takes a lot longer.)
In the past decade or so, mechanically tenderized steaks have been responsible for at least eight recalls and sickened 100 people. A year-long investigation by the Kansas City Starreveals just how pervasive and unregulated this process is.
Food safety advocates want mechnically tenderized meat labeled so restaurants and home cooks know to cook their beef to higher temperatures. It's the same logic behind thehealth department recommendation that ground beef be cooked hotter (160 F) than intact cuts (145 F). Even that, however, may not be enough. A study published in the Journal of Food Protection last year found surviving bacteria that hang out in "cold spots" on mechnically tenderized steaks cooked to an internal temperature of 160 F.
Lack of labeling is just one example of the greater problem of lax oversight at meat plants. As the Star reports, the federal government's meat inspection program, called Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points or HACCP, has been sarcastically referred to as "Have a Cup of Coffee and Pray" or "Hardly Anyone Comprehends Current Policy." Meat producers, rather than the government, are responsible for implementing HACCP.
When federal investigators did inspect meat plants, they found plenty of the source for E. colion beef: poop. Inspection reports obtained by the Star through FOIA requests included hundreds of references to feces. Choice quotes include "massive fecal contamination" and "a piece of trimmed fat approximately 14 inches long with feces the length of it."
he Star crunched the numbers and found that bigger meat plants had higher rates of positiveE. coli tests. Big meat factories, which mix beef from many different sources, also spread contamination wider and make tracing the source of outbreaks more difficult. That's of little help to people who became sick or even died from eating mechnically tenderized beef.”(Source)
Read more of the investigation at the Kansas City Star.
Time for me to walk on down the road…

‘Tis the Season! Joy! Joy! Blaring TV ads soon to be history!

The day has almost arrived! I want to break out dancing like Snoopy from Peanuts fame! Oh happy day! After all of these years of TV commercials louder than a nuclear bomb in your house, legislation has been passed to end the practice of ratcheting up the volume during show breaks.

Starting tomorrow, we can thank the so-called “Calm Bill” that Congress passed (in itself a miracle) forcing the FCC to finally take some action over it’s out-of-control, ear-bleeding, volume increase when commercials came on. The following article explains how this wonderful moment has come to pass:

“TV fans, you're about to get a break from your commercial break.

Shouting TV ads are soon to become a thing of the past as a new law goes into effect Thursday at midnight mandating that the volume of commercials has to be within a range of 2 decibels (db) more or less than the programming around them.

Joe Addalia, director of technology projects for Hearst Television, was in charge of figuring out the right technology to make 31 transmitters compliant with the new regulations. He told TODAY that 2 db was "the difference between viewers reaching for the remote and not." TV stations want to encourage watchers to leave the remote alone, he said, "because right next to the volume button is the channel button."

Commercials are often so loud because the only real limit on programming volumes is the one set by stations so that the sound levels don't damage their equipment. That level, however, represents a peak sound meant to accommodate for when something like a gunshot or explosion goes off during a show. Advertising content creators routinely crank the sound of their ads to just shy of that peak level, so the entire commercial is playing at the equivalent of a 30-second bomb blast.

Joel Kelsey, legislative director for the media advocacy group Free Press, previously testified in Congress about the need for volume regulation on commercials. Since nearly the beginning of television itself, loud commercials "have consistently been one of the issues consumers are most energized to write the FCC about. They don't like being screamed at every time the program breaks to ," Kelsey told TODAY.

However, it took an act of Congress, the "Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act," or CALM Act, to prod the FCC into the necessary action. The bill passed unanimously in the Senate.

While station operators across the country have been busy implementing new volume-limiting controls, many viewers already have technology in their TV sets to dampen the auditory enthusiasm of "Crazy Carl's Car Shack" and "Head-On, DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD!"

In a TV set's audio control settings, there may be a selection for "Automatic Volume control" or "Auto Volume" that once selected automatically smooths out the peaks and valleys in the volume. If you don't have the feature built in, you can purchase an external device such as this Audiovox Terk VR1 Automatic TV Volume Controller, found on Amazon for $21.99.

It's worth mentioning what tools consumers have at their hands, besides the mute button, because with so many moving pieces involved, you can be sure that some loud ads will get through. The FCC encourages viewers to report any rogue ads to 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-225-5322).” (Source)

For more information: FCC Q&A on the CALM Act

Too big means too big for jail when it comes corrupt banking practices

            Good Day World!

Perhaps it’s just the season, but when I think of corrupt bankers I recall with fond loathing Mr. Potter in “It’s a Wonderful Life.”

Of course these days we have no shortage of corrupt money-grubbing bankers who get away with massive amounts of people’s money without fear of recourse.

When was the last time you saw the head of Bank of America arrested? Or Citbank? AIG? Yet they all have ripped Americans off to the tune of billions of dollars.

They launder funds, get caught, pay penalties, and go their merry way. No accountability because they are too rich! that’s the bottom line. Do you disagree with me? Read the following article, and if you want, make a comment at the end of it in the space provided.

“There’s a reason top executives haven’t gone to jail for engineering the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Some bankers are just too big to convict.

The latest example came Tuesday with British global banking giant HSBC’s agreement to pay a record $1.9 billion – about six weeks’ worth of the bank’s profits - to settle money-laundering charges with U.S. prosecutors. The deal ends a three-year probe into accusations of a widespread, multi-year string of illegal transactions violating sanctions against Iran and Latin American drug lords.

Five years after a wave of risky mortgage bets cratered the banking system and sent the global economy into recession, the banking industry’s players have paid or agreed to pay billions of dollars fines and restitution. But not a single senior executive from the biggest banks has gone to jail.

“That’s what has everyone so frustrated .... We’re on the back end of this crisis and there have not been meaningful prosecutions of individuals," said Boston University law professor Cornelius Hurley, who heads the Morin Center for Banking and Financial Law.

HSBC negotiated a five-year deferred prosecution agreement with the government, under which charges will be dropped if it prevents future violations. 

The government said the bank "accepted responsibility for its criminal conduct and that of its employees."

So did HSBC Chief Executive Stuart Gulliver.

"We accept responsibility for our past mistakes," he said. "We have said we are profoundly sorry for them, and we do so again. The HSBC of today is a fundamentally different organization from the one that made those mistakes."

To be sure, the government has churned out a string of cases stemming from the 2008 financial crisis. As of November, the Securities and Exchange Commission had brought charges against 133 companies and individuals, including 60 CEOs, CFOs, and other corporate officers. Those SEC cases have netted the government $2.6 billion in fines, penalties and other payments.

But critics of the government’s response to the 2008 meltdown argue that the best way to prevent the next crisis is to make sure those responsible are held personally accountable.

"Deterring future crimes can't be accomplished simply through fines or negotiated financial settlements -- which many banks regard as the cost of doing business," Phil Angelides, who chaired the government commission that investigated the financial crisis, wrote in a September op-ed in Politico. "Senior executives need to know that if they violate the law, there will be real consequences."

There’s no one single reason for the dearth of high-profile criminal convictions. Some prosecutors have argued that, in some cases, the crimes related to the financial meltdown of 2008 were too complex to pin on individuals. In others, they argued, the law had not kept up with the complex financial engineering that brought about the crisis.

But some critics argue that government simply isn’t’ trying hard enough.

“Virtually every white-collar criminal case is difficult (to make)," said Andrew Stoltmann, a Chicago attorney who specializes in securities fraud cases. “But look at the savings and loan crisis, where 1,000 bankers ended up going to prison with the same sort of legal hurdles that we have in the 2008 subprime meltdown.”

Critics like Stoltmann also fault the Securities and Exchange Commission, which was badly underfunded and understaffed as the financial system expanded rapidly over the past decade. He argues that the commission is outgunned against the well-funded legal defenses of the finance industry’s biggest players.

“You have inexperienced SEC staffers who are hoping to get jobs with a lot of the law firms that defend these executives,” he said.

A number of high-profile cases may yet produce criminal prosecutions, which can take years to develop in complex financial cases.

“Sometimes it takes a number of years to bring these cases,” Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, who was among those announcing Tuesday's HSBC settlement,  told CBS' "60 Minutes" a year ago. “So I'd say to the American people, they should have confidence that this is a department that's working hard and we're going to keep working hard, so stay tuned."

But the clock is ticking for the government. Many of these cases are approaching a statute of limitations that will insulate bankers from prosecution.

High-profile convictions of the biggest banks face another familiar hurdle. In their settlement with HSBC, prosecutors had to carefully weigh the impact a conviction might have on the world’s third largest bank. A criminal conviction would have dealt a serious -- if not fatal -- blow to one of the critical nodes in the global capital network while Europe’s banking system is on shaky ground.

Five years after the crisis began unfolding, the global banking system is even more vulnerable to banks that are “too big to fail,” after the biggest companies acquired weaker players crippled by the 2008 collapse.

“If you look at the pre- and post-numbers as far as concentration in the financial services industry, it’s way more concentrated than it was in 2007,” said Hurley. “They’re humongous in terms of their threat to the system.”

That threat was supposed to be reduced or eliminated by Dodd-Frank, the sweeping financial regulatory reform package enacted by Congress in 2009. But Hurley says the government has yet to bring big banks to heel.

"Dodd-Frank set up orderly liquidation authority and a financial stability oversight council --  all of this what I call ambient noise," Hurley said. "And it’s not bad to have. But we fooled ourselves into thinking that it solved the problem. Too big to fail is as big a problem or more than it was before the crisis." (Source)

Time for me to walk on down the road…

The Message Becomes Clearer Every Day: Americans to Feds ‘Keep Your Hands Off Our Pot!’

 Good Day World!

Every new poll I see indicates a growing acceptance for legalizing marijuana in the United States. This latest Gallup Poll further bolsters the argument for the feds to back off and let the people have what they want.

But the feds are going to be complete assholes about it to the bitter end, and have signaled as much when Washington and Colorado recently legalized marijuana.

The only hope for the people lies with the Supreme Court next year when it take on two landmark pot cases that could result in the re-classification of marijuana from a Class I drug - to Class II drug. Meanwhile, the senseless war wages on, further financially crippling our economy and depriving us of our freedoms. Here’s the latest from the frontlines:

“A majority of Americans want the federal government to keep out of state marijuana laws, even as overall sentiment on whether marijuana should be legalized is split, according to a new poll.

Sixty-four percent of adults responded "no" when asked whether they think the federal government should take steps to enforce federal anti-marijuana laws in states where marijuana is legal, according to the USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.

"The significant majority of Americans would advise the federal government to focus on other issues," wrote Frank Newport of Gallup.

In Washington and Colorado, where citizens last month voted to legalize marijuana possession, the issue of federal interference is especially salient as residents face a confusing mishmash of federal and state laws when it comes to whether and where they can get high.

That’s because the federal government still bans pot growing and possession, regardless of what state laws say, leaving many residents confused about what is legal. Some observers say it may take the Supreme Court to clear up the situation.

Americans who personally believe that marijuana should be legal overwhelmingly say the federal government should not get involved at the state level; even four in 10 of those opposed to legalized marijuana don't think federal officials should intervene.

Like Amsterdam: Washington bar owner lets patrons get stoned

It’s unclear at this point whether the Justice Department will try to stop the decriminalization of pot in Washington and Colorado, where adults 21 and older will be allowed to purchase a small amount of pot from state-licensed stores. The drug will be heavily taxed and potentially bring hundreds of millions of dollars a year for school, and government needs.

Although support for legalizing marijuana has risen substantially over the last four decades, the poll, which also asked participants where they stand on the issue of legalization, revealed that the public remains largely divided.

Six in 10 Americans aged 18 to 29 support legalizing marijuana, while about as many of those 65 and older are opposed. The bulk of middle-aged Americans – those aged 30 to 64 – are split on the issue of legalization. The poll also noted that Democrats were most in favor of legalization, while Republicans were most likely to be opposed.

Lawmakers in four New England states, including Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and Rhode Island, have signaled that they plan to introduce proposals to legalize marijuana in the next year, according to the Marijuana Policy Project. Currently, 17 states and the District of Columbia already have laws allowing for the medical use of marijuana, according to the National Council of Legislatures.” (Source)

Time for me to walk on down the road…

Check out Learnist Chat tonight! guest host Emily Dingmann is sharing her expertise on healthy holiday planning

Since I’ve joined the Learnist Team I’ve never seen so many resources gathered together in one place so expertly for every topic you can imagine. Do you love learning and sharing?

Please join us at Learnist Chat tonight! at 5 pm PST/8pm EST with guest host nutritionist Emily Dingmann as she discusses planning and preparing healthy holiday parties. Bring your thoughts, questions, suggestions, and your love of learning to Monday night’s event!

GO TO http://twubs.com/learntalk and join the discussion!

#Learntalk discussion won’t end after Monday night’s session! Join us along with expert Learnist contributors every second and fourth Monday each month at 5pm PST.

Schedule of upcoming chats:

Monday, December 10th - Planning and preparing healthy holiday parties with nutritionist Emily Dingmann

Monday, January 14th – School choice discussion in honor of National School Choice Week with President of Fountainhead Communication and children’s book author Amelia Hamilton

Monday, January 28th – Latest 2013 fashion trends with marketing professor and fashion expert Dr. Iris Mohr

Monday, February 11th – It’s yours truly with “Bias in the Media” - hosted by opinion columnist for a daily newspaper in northern California – The Times-Standard; Blogger; and retired newspaper editor and publisher Dave Stancliff

Be sure to check out the #learntalk Twub for live tweets, chats, and more at http://twubs.com/learntalk

Just so you know: Hoarding gets new diagnosis in psychiatric diagnosis guide

              Good Day World!

Sometimes there’s a fine line between collecting and hoarding. I’ve collected LA Laker memorabilia for many years but I don’t dye my hair purple-and-gold and insist on eating on official Laker plates with matching silverware.

When someone crosses that fine line it’s usually very apparent. They suffer from an altered reality that becomes debilitating in time. Slaves of saving anything. The top shrinks in our society have recently decided that a “hoarding disorder” should not be confused with people who have obsessive-compulsive behaviors.

The two conditions seem to be identical to me, but you know how these psych’s like to keep refining problems until they can announce a new disorder. I think it gives them a certain satisfaction and at the same time it’s proof that they are doing something…anything for their money.  

“Reality TV has brought national attention to hoarding, and now a recent change in the influential psychiatric diagnosis guide may actually bring help for millions of Americans suffering from the isolating condition.

Hoarding – a psychological condition that can result in homes crammed floor to ceiling with papers, junk mail, books, clothing and other “valuables”-- has been associated with obsessive-compulsive behavior, although experts have long held that the two disorders aren’t necessarily connected.

In the revised, fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), "hoarding disorder" becomes a separate diagnosis, characterized by a "persistent difficulty discarding or parting with possessions, regardless of their actual value."

The revised diagnosis should “result in more people having access to treatment," says Randy Frost, a professor of psychology at who specializes in hoarding issues. "Right now, there are very few clinicians who know how to treat it. Once it shows up in DSM, there will be much more pressure on clinicians to train in how to treat this problem."

Hoarding isn’t just a messy garage or packed closet. According to the APA, it's defined by its harmful effects -- emotional, physical, social, financial and even legal -- both on the hoarder and the hoarder's family members.

Hoarding is “a disorder that involves the living areas of the home being so cluttered they can't be used for their intended purpose,” says Frost, co-author of Stuff: Compulsive Hoarding and the Meaning of Things.

Set to publish in May, the DSM is a guide doctors use to diagnose mental disorders. DSM codes are also used for insurance reimbursements and certain research grants.

Rachel Kramer Bussel, a 37-year-old writer and editor from Brooklyn, says she's long had hoarding tendencies, although she only recently came clean about them in an essay on Salon.com, a difficult step considering the stigma surrounding the disorder.

"I think people's only reference point is reality TV," says Bussel, who hasn't sought treatment but has worked with a personal organizer. "They think all hoarders are literally crazy cat ladies or people who don't function in the rest of society."

Bussel hoards books, clothing and other items at home; she also carries around at least two stuffed with belongings she says give her "comfort". She says she hopes the new classification will help others become more accepting of the often-misunderstood disorder.

The most common reaction to a hoarding confession is, "'Just get rid of everything. Get a dumpster and throw it all out and then you won't be a hoarder,'" Bussel says.

In fact, recent research finds abnormal brain activity in people with hoarding disorder.

There’s no hard evidence that hoarding is increasing, although certain societal factors -- such as the abundance of junk mail, our materialistic mindset, and an aging population (getting older increases the chance that a person will experience or loss that contributes to hoarding) -- may translate into more hoarders, says David Kutz, an Albuquerque clinical psychologist specializing in hoarding and OCD.

At least 4 million people in the U.S. would meet full criteria for hoarding, according to Kutz. Other data suggests between 2.5 to 6 percent of the U.S. adult population, or up to a 15 million people, may have hoarding disorder, says Frost, who conducted the first-ever study of hoarding in the U.S. in 1993. “That’s a whopping number," Frost says.

Many hoarders don't recognize the problem. About “90 percent are sent by family members or a city counsel or the local sheriff,” says Kutz, who has appeared on A&E’s “Hoarders” three times.

While experts and hoarders alike say they believe the new DSM classification will help hoarders get better treatment, Frost stresses there is no "magic pill."

"We don't know yet whether there are medications that might be useful for this," he says. "But that's one of the things that will happen now that it's in the DSM. There will be an interest in researching this."

Until then, hoarders can get help overcoming their urge to acquire and save through cognitive behavior therapy and/or peer support groups, a form of treatment that greatly helped Lee Shuer, a 37-year-old mental health worker from Northampton, Mass.

"My mindset has completely changed," says Shuer, who began facilitating hoarding peer support groups after his hoarding habit went into "remission.” "I'm at the point where I can go to places where I used to acquire things - tag sales and thrift shops - and not buy anything. I can come across things that used to make my heart race but they don't turn me on any more. The thrill for excess is gone." (Source)

For more on hoarding: OCFoundation.org's Hoarding Center and Childrenofhoarders.com

Time for me to walk on down the road…

AS IT STANDS: Mexico’s new boss is no threat to drug cartels

 By Dave Stancliff/For The Times-Standard

 Without a lot of fanfare Mexico got a new president last week. Did you notice? The swearing in ceremony had to be postponed for a day because of protestors outside their Congress. Not exactly an auspicious start.
So why are we talking about Mexico today? Because when the new boss, Enrigue Pena Nieto, was sworn in, the clock was turned back to the bad old days when his party, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) ruled the country and drove Mexico to the brink of disaster after 70 corruption-filled years of power.
Pena Nieto was quick to say he wants to be President Obama’s new economic buddy and he’s got great plans for the days ahead. Vague plans, to be sure, but he’ll spell them out along the way, I suppose.
  But, get this, Pena Nieto says he’s going to end the recent years of violence by stimulating the economy so people won’t be as likely to resort to crime.

  Apparently, he’s following the Al Capone model to stimulate an economy - think Chicago during the 1920s.  Just substitute oil instead of bootleg whiskey.
  If you’re not picking up what I’m saying about Pena Nieto, let me put it this way: under this as leader of the infamous PRI, crime and corruption will not only continue, they’ll thrive. To see why I say that, Google the PRI when you have a moment. Bottom line, don’t expect radical change in our southern neighbor’s society or our relations with them.

  The idea that drug cartels will shrivel up because their workforce will suddenly want to take on legitimate jobs (which never could pay as much) - jobs that will magically spring up across the country - is laughable and unrealistic.
  Pena Nieto plans to push legislation to strengthen Mexico’s tax base and allow more private investment in the lumbering state oil giant Pemex. That shouldn’t be too hard to do with the PRI’s reputation for corruption, cronyism, and vote-rigging.

  When Pena Nieto came to Washington to meet with President Obama, he said the ties between our two countries should go beyond the drug war. Now there’s a subtle statement if I ever heard one.
"We should reconsider greater integration of North America to achieve a region that is more competitive and capable of creating more jobs," Pena Nieto said during a White House meeting, as reporters looked on.
Pena Nieto tells Mexicans he’s going to shake up competition in the country, which has most of it’s economy consolidated in the hands of a few, like the world’s richest man, Carlos Slim.
Even without a degree in Mexican history, I can tell you that’s about as likely as building condos on Mars. Which leads me to this question; “How can the Obama Administration ever take Pena Nieto seriously about cracking down on the drug cartels?”

It would be like taking the “Godfather’s” word without question and kissing his ring in respect. If you listen closely to what he’s told the press, his message is a lot milder than the rhetoric that got him where he is. He never claimed he was going after the cartels.
In an editorial published by The Washington Post (Nov.30), Pena Nieto wrote; "It is a mistake to limit our bilateral relationship to drugs and security concerns. Our mutual interests are too vast and complex to be restricted in this short-sighted way.”
Really? Short-sighted way? What I’m hearing is don’t worry about those 60,000 people killed as a result of drug violence in Mexico during the last five years. Don’t worry about those illegal immigrants and border security concerns - both issues that urgently need to be addressed. The only important thing is our two countries can make a lot of money if we just concentrate on that.

No amount of rhetoric from either country can change the facts. Our relationship with Mexico is business as usual. It’s going to be business as usual as far as our relationship with Mexico goes. President Obama managed to tip-toe around the subject of illegal immigration and the War on Drugs during the presidential campaign.
Mexico’s new boss would just as soon skip those two subjects as well and concentrate on making money with America’s newly re-elected boss.
 As It Stands, fans of Boardwalk Empire (HBO saga of gangsters in the 20s) would appreciate this ironic real life comparison.

This is the kind of story I like to hear at this time of the year

View more videos at: http://nbcmiami.com.

A local businessman helps out a small businessman who happens to be disabled.

The holidays are getting brighter for hundreds of South Florida families who on Saturday received a free Christmas tree -- part of Good Samaritan’s act of generosity during the holiday season.he trees were donated by an NBC 6 viewer, Mike Fernandez, a businessman who founded health insurer Simply Healthcare Plans. His volunteers doled out 600 trees at two Miami locations, including at St. Michael the Archangel Catholic Church and School.

The trees were sitting days before -- almost unnoticed -- on a lot run by Jorge Alvart. NBC6 first shared the story of Alvart, a double amputee who blamed construction near his floral shop on Bird Road for his trouble selling trees.

Fernandez was so moved by Alvart's hardship and determination to be a success in America, that Fernandez bought Alvart’s entire tree inventory.

"I never expected something so beautiful to happen to me,” Alvart said of Fernandez. “He's a tremendous gentleman with a huge heart."

Punny things…some good puns from a reader and friend…

I tried to catch some Fog, I mist.

When chemists die, they barium.

Jokes about German sausage are the wurst.

A soldier who survived mustard gas and pepper spray is now a seasoned veteran.

I know a guy who's addicted to brake fluid. He says he can stop any time.

How does Moses make his tea? Hebrews it.

I stayed up all night to see where the sun went. Then it dawned on me.

This girl said she recognized me from the vegetarian club, but I'd never met herbivore.

I'm reading a book about anti-gravity, I can't put it down.

I did a theatrical performance about puns, it was a play on words .

They told me I had type A blood, but it was a Type-O.

A dyslexic man walks into a bra.

PMS jokes aren't funny, period.

Why were the Indians here first? They had reservations.

Class trip to the Coca-Cola factory, I hope there's no pop quiz.

The Energizer bunny was arrested and charged with battery.

I didn't like my beard at first. Then it grew on me.

How do you make holy water? Boil the hell out of it!

Did you hear about the cross eyed teacher who lost her job because she couldn't control her pupils?

When you get a bladder infection, urine trouble.

What does a clock do when it's hungry? It goes back four seconds.

I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit me!

Broken pencils are pointless.

What do you call a dinosaur with a extensive vocabulary?  Athesaurus.

England has no kidney bank, but it does have a Liverpool .

I used to be a banker, but then I lost interest.

I dropped out of communism class because of lousy Marx.

All the toilets in New York 's police stations have been stolen.  Police have nothing to go on.

I got a job at a bakery because I kneaded dough.

Haunted French pancakes give me the crepes.

Velcro - what a rip off!

Cartoonist found dead in home. Details are sketchy.

Venison for dinner? Oh deer!

Earthquake in Washington obviously government's fault.

I used to think I was indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.

VIA Dr. Greg Holland

Study has some good news about aging: people feel better as they get older

    Good Day World!

 When I glanced at the following article my first impression was…are you crazy?!

Listen, my knees ache, I have a metal rod and brackets in my back, false teeth, one ear that is useless, and no feeling in my right foot, and the researchers say I’m feeling better as I get older?

Say what? 

So I calmed down and actually read the following article to if it made any sense:

Photo: Gordon Shields, shown in 2011 at age 93, was among more than 1,000 participants in a study that found despite the problems of aging, the older we get, the better we feel. Nelvin C. Cepeda / U-T San Diego via ZUMAPRESS.com

“Growing old is not for sissies, as the bumper sticker says, and as anyone who has entered midlife can attest. But a new study finds that despite the physical and mental toll of time, people actually feel better as they age -- not worse.

In fact, when California researchers asked more than 1,000 people aged 50 to 99 in San Diego county to rank how well they were aging on scale of 1 to 10, the mean score was 8.2 -- and even higher for those in their 90s.

“I think I ranked myself pretty high. I think it was up around 10. Why not?” said Gordon "Gordy" Shields, 94, one of the participants in the Successful AGing Evaluation Study, or SAGE, conducted by scientists at the University of California, San Diego, and Stanford University.

To Shields, who became a world-class cycling champion after age 50, aging is just another part of the life process. “You can enjoy aging as long as you accept it,” said Shields, a former high school and community and counselor.

That’s despite the undeniable declines in physical and mental abilities that come with age. Study participants were divided into groups by decade from those in their 50s to those in their 90s. People in the older age groups scored progressively worse on measures of health and cognitive function, even as they scored higher on their own ratings of successful aging.

Those results were not what the researchers were expecting, said Dr. Dilip V. Jeste, a UCSD professor of psychiatry and president of the American Psychiatric Association, who described the findings as “eye-popping.”

“We were astounded by how physical disability and self-rated successful aging went in diametrically opposite directions with aging,” Jeste told NBC News.

The results also suggested that the more resilient people are -- or able to cope with acute stressors -- the better they aged. Conversely, people who reported higher levels of depression were less likely to say they were aging well.

“Increasing resilience and reducing depression might have effects on successful aging as strong as that of reducing physical disability,” the study authors wrote.

The researchers recruited 1,006 study participants in San Diego county using a large telephone database to ensure they were randomly selected. They screened out anyone who was in a nursing home, or who needed daily nursing care, and those who had dementia, a terminal illness or required hospice care.

The idea was to older people who weren’t necessarily healthier than average, but who weren’t predisposed to disability and illness, either. They conducted telephone interviews and then administered detailed written surveys to assess the effects of aging.

What the researchers found was that in their 50s, participants who were asked how well they were aging posted a mean score of 7.7 on the 10-point scale, and 49 points on a 100-point scale of physical function.

Those in their 90s, however, rated themselves at 8.6 for aging successfully, even though their mean score was only 37.3 for physical ability. The results were similar for cognitive function measured during the telephone interview.

“I think this should really change people’s outlook about aging,” Jeste said. “Usually when we think about aging, we think it’s bad.”

The participants were mostly white and mostly better educated than average, the study reported. Cynics might ask whether healthy, well-educated people living in sunny San Diego might be more likely to report aging well than seniors in less desirable circumstances.

The new results are consistent with previous research that shows that people are depressed in middle age, but then become happier as they get older, Jeste said. That may be because older folks likely have grappled with the most contentious questions of life -- work, family, finances -- and come to some resolution.

“As people get older, they are less bothered by negative stimuli,” Jeste said. “You take things in stride. Regret becomes less common.”

That makes sense to Laura Carstensen, founding director of the Stanford Center on Longevity, who was not involved in the SAGE study. Older people with shrinking horizons know their time is limited and they seem to appreciate what’s left.

“They tend to focus on the here and now,” she said. “That’s good for mental health.”

Time for me to walk on down the road…

Newly adopted puppy saves man’s life!

A Tennessee man credited his newly adopted puppy with saving his life after an SUV smashed into his jewelry store this week.

Police said a 66-year-old man had a coughing fit and hit the accelerator instead of the brake pedal Thursday morning, sending his speeding into the front of The Jewelers on West Main Street in Lebanon, Tenn. No one was seriously hurt, but the owner, Shawn Smith estimated that the crash caused tens of thousands of dollars of damage.

A witness, Tara Duncan of Lebanon, told The Wilson Post that the SUV flew right by her as she was entering her car to leave a store next door to The Jewelers.

"The vehicle never stopped," she said.

Smith told NBC station WSMV of Nashville that just beforehand, he'd been standing near where the SUV made its dramatic entrance.

"I adopted a puppy this morning," Smith said, but it began barking, so he decided to take it home. "It was literally just two minutes before.

"My puppy saved my life," he said. (Source)

Photo – Via The Wilson Post

Will 2012 go down as the warmest year on record? We’ll find out soon

           Good Day World!

Sometimes semantics are important. And sometimes they’re down right silly.

U.S. weather gurus are telling us this year will go down as the warmest…not the hottest mind you…the warmest year on record since we kept records on such stuff. Somehow this assessment leaves me cold!

I mean what the heck? Where’s the line between the hottest and the warmest? Average Joe’s like myself have a tendency to keep it simple. It was the hottest year on record. It was the coldest year on record. Just how satisfying is it to say, “It was the warmest year on record?” Not very. No eyebrows will rise with interest with that kind of lukewarm wrap-up for 2012.

If I knew the first thing about meteorology, I’d go on record with something straight forward like, “2012 was a so-so climate year – some say it was warm a lot – but hardly anything worth recounting so let’s move on to the next news story…”

“A warm winter, a record warm spring, a record hot July and a warmer than average autumn combined to make it even more likely that 2012 will go down as the warmest year in the contiguous United States on record, the federal government reported Thursday. Just how likely?

"For 2012 not to be record warm, December would have to be unprecedented," Jake Crouch, a scientist at the National Climatic Data Center, told NBC News. "December temperatures would need to be more than 1 degree F colder than the coldest December on record, which occurred in 1983."

Based on past numbers, he added, "the odds of that occurring are less than 0.3 percent."

In other words, he said, "2012 has a greater than 99.7 percent chance of being record warm." That's up from Crouch's odds just last month of 90 percent.

January-November was already the warmest first 11 months of any year in records that go back to 1895, according to data released Thursday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees the center. The average national temperature through November was 57.1 degrees F.

The year has had a string of warm events, Crouch noted. "We had our fourth warmest winter (2011/2012) on record, our warmest spring, a very hot summer with the hottest month on record for the nation (July 2012), and a warmer than average autumn," he said.

"The warm winter and spring were associated with an unusually northern track of the jet stream, which kept cold Arctic air out of the contiguous United States," he added. "The early start to spring was a precursor to the summer drought. The large size of the summer drought was associated with a large area of the country experiencing a very hot summer. Those conditions continued into much of the fall season."

"When you put these local and regional factors on top of a warming trend for the contiguous United States and the globe," he said, "the result has been the warmest year on record for the Lower 48."

If 2012 does go down as the warmest year on record in the U.S. it would depose 1998, which averaged 54.3 degrees F.” (Source)

Time for me to walk on down the road…

Here’s Forbes 2012 Ranking of the World’s Most Powerful People

        Good Day World!

I wasn’t too surprised to see that the president of the United States ranked as the most powerful person on the planet.

After that however, I was totally surprised by who came in second. This seems to be the time of the year everyone turns out lists of stuff.

The following list is the Ultimate List (or Mother of all lists), when you think about it:

“What do the president of the United States, the pope and the founder of Facebook all have in common? They’re all featured on Forbes’ 2012 ranking of the World’s Most Powerful People – an annual look at the heads of state, financiers, philanthropists and entrepreneurs who truly run the world.

U.S. President Barack Obama emerged, unanimously, as the world’s most powerful person, for the second year running. Obama was the decisive winner of the 2012 U.S. presidential election, and now he gets four more years to push his agenda. The president faces major challenges, including an unresolved budget crisis, stubbornly high unemployment and renewed unrest in the Middle East. But Obama remains the unquestioned commander in chief of the world’s greatest military and head of its sole economic and cultural superpower.

The second most powerful person in the world also happens to be the most powerful woman: Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, jumps up from #4 last year to take the runner-up spot on the list. Merkel is the backbone of the 27-member European Union and carries the fate of the euro on her shoulders; she’s shown her power through a hard-line austerity solution for  the European crisis.

Mark Zuckerberg (#25) is one of the youngest people on the list, at age 29; he dropped significantly from last year’s top-10 ranking after Facebook’s much-anticipated IPO turned out to be a flop. Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff (#18) is one of the list’s biggest gainers: At the midpoint of her first term, Rousseff’s emphasis on entrepreneurship has prompted a slew of new startups and energized Brazilian youths.

Apple CEO  Tim Cook (#35) made a big upward move, too: A year after he succeeded iconic founder Steve Jobs, the company is the most valuable in the world. Apple stock hit an all-time high in September, at $696.82 a share: That’s up $319 from the day Jobs died in October 2011.

New members of the list include LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman (#71), the world’s most powerful venture capitalist and the most-connected man in Silicon Valley. Elon Musk (#66), the entrepreneur behind PayPal and Tesla Motors, is the most powerful man in space: His company SpaceX is a leader in the private space industry, and with that business set to boom, Musk stands to make out like a 19th-century railway tycoon.”

Photo - U.S. President Barack Obama, right, talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Nov. 3, 2011, during a meeting in Cannes, France. Obama and Merkel come in at No. 1 and No. 2, respectively, on Forbes list of the world's most powerful people. Jim Watson/AFP Getty Images File

Time for me to walk on down the road…

A Note to My Readers: Got Travel Plans?

I have been in many places, but I've never been in Cahoots. Apparently, you can't go alone. You have to be in Cahoots with someone.

I've also never been in Cognito. I hear no one recognizes you there.
I have, however, been in Sane. They don't have an airport; you have to be driven there. I have made several trips there, thanks to my friends, family and work.
I would like to go to Conclusions, but you have to jump, and I'm not too much on physical activity anymore.
I have also been in Doubt. That is a sad place to go, and I try not to visit there too often.

I've been in Flexible, but only when it was very important to stand firm.
Sometimes I'm in Capable, and I go there more often as I'm getting older.

One of my favorite places to be is in Suspense! It really gets the adrenalin flowing and pumps up the old heart! At my age I need all the stimuli I can get!
I may have been in Continent, and I don't remember what country I was in. It's an age thing.

Life is too short for negative drama & petty things. So laugh insanely, love truly and forgive quickly!

I think we’re safe: It looks like 'Frankenfish' may never make it to your plate

      Good Day World!

I, for one, am glad to hear that “Frankenfish” probably won’t be served in America anytime soon. The reason is the genetically modified salmon haven’t been approved by the FDA yet, and time is running out on the process.

 I don’t like the direction these biotech scientists are taking the American food supply. It gets creepier all the time.

 I don’t trust steroids, especially in my food! I realize they’re already in my meat supply and milk products, and other foods, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it. Or trust steroids. I stay away from them whenever possible.

Messing with nature never ends up well. I know these biotech geeks mean well, and are looking to increase the food supply, but they don’t even know what the long-term effects of digesting salmon stuffed with growth enhancers will be. To me, that’s scary.

So here’s what’s going on:

“Salmon that's genetically modified to grow twice as fast as normal could soon show up on your dinner plate. That is, if the company that makes the fish can stay afloat.

After weathering concerns about everything from the safety of humans eating the salmon to their impact on the environment, Aquabounty was poised to become the world's first company to sell fish whose DNA has been altered to speed up growth.

The Food and Drug Administration in 2010 concluded that Aquabounty's salmon was as safe to eat as the traditional variety. The agency also said that there's little chance that the salmon could escape and breed with wild fish, which could disrupt the fragile relationships between plants and animals in the wild. But more than two years later the FDA has still not approved the fish, and Aquabounty is running out of money.

"It's threatening our very survival," says CEO Ron Stotish, chief executive of the Maynard, Mass.-based company. "We only have enough money to survive until January 2013, so we have to raise more. But the unexplained delay has made very difficult."

The FDA says it's still working on the final piece of its review, a report on the potential environmental impact of the salmon that must be published for comment before an approval can be issued. That means a final decision could be months, even years away. While the delay could mean that the faster-growing salmon will never wind up on American dinner tables, there's more at stake than seafood.” (Read the rest here)

Time for me to walk on down the road…

Dave Stancliff

Ahhhhh! Choooo! Health officals warn this may be a bad Flu season

    Good Day World!

The flu bugs have raised their ugly little heads across the country earlier than usual. Everyone I’ve talked with in the last week either had a bout with that obnoxious bug or knew someone who did. My wife and I were going to go to dinner with a couple of friends, but one of them fell victim to that nasty bug and we had to postpone it.

I got an email from friend and Learnist colleague, Crystal Morgan, who fought the bug over the weekend, and then her kids got it too! Talk about a double whammy! It comes and goes – generally running it’s course in 48 hours- like an extended bad dream. Depending on your age and health, it could last longer.  

According to officials:

"It looks like it's shaping up to be a bad flu season," said Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The percentage of aching, feverish folks who went to the doctor with influenza-like illness had reached the national baseline of 2.2 percent, the earliest that has happened in the regular flu season in nearly a decade, the 2003-2004 season. Flu season may start as early as October, but typically peaks in January or later.

Five states reported high levels of flu activity -- Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas. Widespread activity was reported in four states, regional activity was seen in seven states and 19 states reported local flu activity, CDC officials said. That was up from eight states that reported local flu activity the previous week.

By contrast, last year's flu season started late, with an uptick in cases not starting until February.

Health officials are urging people to get their flu shots now, including babies older than six months, and all adults and children. Every year, about a quarter of the U.S. population gets the flu and an average of about 36,000 people die.

The strains making people sick are influenza A -- both H3N2 and the 2009 H1N1 or pandemic swine flu strain -- and influenza B. So far, the vaccines manufactured for this season appear to be a good match, health officials said.

But the H3N2 virusmay  typically cause more severe symptoms than the other flu bugs, noted Dr. William Schaffner, chairman of the Department of Preventive Medicine at Vanderbilt University. His staff has already started seeing flu patients in Tennessee.

"We're all a bit antsy," he said.

About 120 million doses of flu vaccine are available this year, Frieden said. About 112 million people have received their flu shots so far, officials said.

The key to is getting the shot, the experts emphasized.

"We are particularly encouraging people who haven't gotten vaccinated to do it," said Dr. Melinda Wharton, acting director of the CDC's Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. (Source)

Time for me to walk on down the road…

New site to guide veterans into civilian work force launches Thursday

       Good Day World!

Unemployment is higher for veterans than any other sector in our society. It’s hard for me to understand because these people make great employees. They’ve learned about teamwork and loyalty, values coveted by most companies. Many have special skills than can be converted to civilian applications. There’s a lot of good reasons to hire veterans.

Our recession-rattled workplace needs good reliable workers like veterans. It’s all about matching employers up with the large veteran pool already out there seeking jobs. There are a number of programs, sponsored by the VA and non-profit groups that target finding jobs for veterans.

Now Google is stepping into the picture by offering a large online resource for those veterans seeking jobs.  

Google is aiming its search-engine horsepower at homecoming veterans, launching Thursday what may be the largest online hub to help men and women exiting the military as American armed forces draw down.

Called VetNet, the site offers veterans three distinct “tracks” to plot and organize their next life moves – from “basic training” which aids job hunters to “career connections” which links users to corporate mentors and other working veterans to “entrepreneur” which offers a roadmap to starting a business.

To arm the new site with some heavy-hitting experts, Google partnered with three leading nonprofits in the veteran-employment space: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Hiring Our Heroes program, the Institute for Veterans and Military Families, and Hire Heroes USA.

“We asked: What else can we be doing with our technology to help these folks transition home?” said Carrie Laureno, founder of the Google Veterans Network, the company’s employee-volunteer community which seeks to make Google a military-friendly work environment.

“We wanted to really move the needle in the right direction. And working with our three partners, we asked: What can we do together to help you reach more people?” Laureno said. “How do we help these millions of people who are in this situation get the resources they need (to land civilian jobs) in a much easier, more straightforward way that’s ever been possible before?”

After clicking a button to connect with VetNet, users gain access to a weekly snapshot of “what’s happening” in the veteran-employment arena as well as to a ready group of business advisers and to an ongoing array of virtual “hangouts” that train people on basics from resume writing to making “elevator pitches” or that allow veterans to hear insights from leaders in retail, transportation, retail and entrepreneurship, Laureno said.

The venture drew a favorable review Thursday from a key congressional member.

“I am especially pleased to see companies like Google and their partners take the initiative to bring together these various resources to help veterans navigate the employment opportunities together,” said Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.

“I am confident their combined efforts will be especially helpful to those who may not know where to start their job search. This is the least we can all do for our veterans who have served our nation so honorably,” Miller said in an email.

Miller’s words hint at the fresh irony of post-war life for thousands of ex-service members: Their initial challenge is not a lack of help; it is the over-abundance of nonprofits seeking to guide veterans from their once-super-structured schedules and tight packs of buddies to the wide-open, ultra-competitive job market.

According to an April 2012 study by the Center for a New American Security, more than 40,000 nonprofit groups now exist in this country with missions focused on filling the various needs of active-duty troops, veterans and their families.

That giant-yet-fragmented bundle of organizations — while striving to do well by veterans — must also battle for the same funding dollars. And that jostling hasn’t fostered a cohesive landscape for veterans to navigate as they begin their new career journeys, Laureno said. Given that mish-mash of helping hands, some veterans simply don’t know where to go first.

“I’ve heard occasionally people (in the veteran-helping field) use the word ‘competitors.’ They are competing for funds. They are competing for awareness. They are competing to be in the spotlight,” Laureno said. “It’s also a well-documented issue in this community that there are some people, just like anything else, who got involved because wanted to help but that emerged as sort of looking for press.

“The founding partners here are not of that ilk. These are partners who have stuck with their original mission, who are focused on getting the help out to the people who need it, and who recognize that technology can help them take that help to a completely different level than ever before possible,” she added.

Google and VetNet are hoping to attract new partners from that sea of 40,000 groups. But they’re still hammering out the best ways to assess prospective collaborators — and their larger intensions — before they are invited to join, Laureno said.

“That’s one of the biggest challenges all of us are facing in this issue, and that’s why there has been this proliferation of 40,000-plus (veterans organizations),” she said. “We are going to need to have a some sort of vetting process. That is something the partners are working on right now: What will be the criteria they use to judge who comes on board and who doesn’t?

“Anyone who would like to get involved, who has effective services, and who is willing to make the commitment to providing them on this platform who will be supportive of the community, they’re all welcome,” she added. “But if somebody wants to advertise on a one-off basis about their particular program, this probably isn’t the right place for them.” (Source)

Time for me to walk on down the road…

AS IT STANDS: Afghanistan: Our Never - Ending War

 By Dave Stancliff/For The Times-Standard
  Regardless of the sound bytes and vague promises you may have heard, there’s no end date for the war in Afghanistan. Another holiday season will go by as our troops fight a never-ending war overseas.
If you look at what President Obama said about our involvement in Afghanistan in June of 2011 you’ll see that he promised the “combat” mission would end at the close of 2014.
That’s not when he plans to end the war. Big difference. No one knows when, if at all, this war will ever end.
Obama said the US mission in Afghanistan would become a “support” mission. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has since confirmed that President Obama never said US troops would be completely withdrawn by the end of 2014.
  The question Americans should ask right now is “What is a support mission? How many troops will be involved, and how long will it last?”

  A "support" mission sounds so much more reassuring than a combat mission, but look what happened in Iraq with our “support troops.” The term was nothing more than a euphemism for extended combat troops.
If the Pentagon gets its way, 25,000 US troops may be left in Afghanistan from 2015 until at least 2024 and possibly longer.
Fact: the Strategic Partnership Agreement, struck between the United States and Afghanistan in June 2012, provides for a US military presence after 2014, although the magnitude of the presence was not specified.
On November 12, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters the Obama administration would come to a decision within the next few weeks about the magnitude of the post-2014 US military presence in Afghanistan. Panetta would not comment on the troop levels being considered.
If the Pentagon gets its way, the US will be at war in Afghanistan for at least 13 additional years - that's three more years than we've been at war to this point - which means we aren’t even at the half-way mark today, let alone nearing the end!In September 2012, it was widely reported that Obama's "troop surge" in Afghanistan was over, leaving 68,000 troops in the country.

But when President Obama took office, there were roughly 34,000 US troops in Afghanistan. In two "surges," he added to this figure over 66,000 additional troops. By reducing the US troop presence by 33,000, his drawdown plan has removed only half the number of troops that he sent to Afghanistan, not all of them.
I was surprised to learn out our military command says there are less than 100 al Qaeda left in all of Afghanistan. If memory serves, our original mission was to get ride of al Qaeda. According to the latest Brookings Institute Afghanistan Index, they face a combined force (US and allies) of 694,108. To put it mildly, that’s a case of overkill.
  One of the reasons this war is not winding down is the Taliban have made it quite clear that peace requires a willingness by the US to leave. Period. Our war hawks don’t want to leave and that’s why they’ve been negotiating with the current Afghanistan government to keep our troops there.

   Here’s the thing, the majority of Americans want the war to end and they don’t want to leave troops behind forever. The demand for a complete withdrawal hasn’t been greater partly because many Americans are confused about President Obama’s plan for withdrawal. Polls have tended to equate the withdrawal of all “combat” troops with the withdrawal of all troops. The implied message: just a couple more years and the war will be over.  
This confusion has worked in the favor of the Pentagon and its war hawks for over a decade. The truth about Afghanistan needs to be brought into the light. Knowledge is power, and it’s up to sane-thinking people to demand a real end to this war. Too many lives are at stake to allow such a vague future for our troops and their families.
Talk with your senators and representatives. Let them know how you feel. Challenge the media to present all the facts about this never-ending war. Go to social medias like FaceBook and Twitter and tell our politicians you’re tired of their lies and vague truths and you want the war to end sooner, rather than later.
  As It Stands, the presidential candidates managed to avoid talking about ending the war. We can’t allow the winner to do the same thing, or to placate us with vague promises.