Monday, August 30, 2010

America, No Longer a Sovereign Nation Subject to Constitutional Law


 By Marion Valentine  Wednesday, June 30, 2010


The dots have been connected, Plan A is in place with backup plan B in the wings.

Obama was selected, tutored, groomed, and scripted and given enough money to buy the office of President by his puppet masters, George Soros, and the 100+ members of the Democracy Alliance, the Bilderberg Group, and other uber wealthy individuals and groups.

They have one goal in mind. Global Socialist Governance with THEM in control of all wealth, human and natural resources.

The eight year propaganda campaign to promote hatred for G.W. Bush, Republicans and Conservatives enabled far leftists to take control of both houses in January 2007 All attempts in previous years by Republicans to reform Fannie/ Freddie were blocked by Frank, Dodd, Schumer and others in both Houses, and Republicans did not have the courage to stand up to them.

From 2007 till the election in 2008, the leftists laid the groundwork for the “assured” election of Obama. Again,  a plan B was in the wings, and was put into effect in Oct. 2008, just a few days after McCain/Palin took the lead in National Polls. A 550 billion electronic run on the banks, and caused a world wide financial panic, which we all know the results of, bailouts, stimulus, out of control spending and unsustainable debt. But the panic did ensure Obama’s election, as planned.

Public records and public remarks show that everything Obama and this Congress has done is to destroy America’s financial system, and Free Market Capitalism.

Plan A for the Democrat/Marxist Socialist to stay in power is through voter intimidation, fraud, and a backdoor amnesty plan which would allow millions of illegals to vote. The American people are aware of this and are on guard, and if they stay energized, are motivated to vote and be extremely alert and watch the polling stations, this plan may fail.

Plan B…Already the EU is on verge of financial collapse. The groups mentioned above have the money and the power to manipulate the Global Markets to “create” a Global Financial Collapse. This “created crisis” would be used to usher in Global Socialist Governance. And of course when this happens, China will be the top turd on the heap, and International Law will be the supreme law.

America will no longer be a Free Sovereign Nation Ruled by Constitutional Law


NASSCOM...WHAT IS IT??

The National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM), the Indian chamber of commerce is a consortium that serves as an interface to the Indian software industry and Indian BPO maintaining a state of the art information database of IT software and services related activities for use of both the software developers as well as interested companies overseas.

  • Encourage members to provide world-class quality products, services and solutions in India and overseas and help build brand equity for the Indian IT software and services industry.
  • Taking effective steps to campaign against software piracy.
  • Provide an ideal forum for overseas and domestic companies to explore the vast potential available for Joint Ventures, Strategic Alliances, Marketing Alliances, Joint Product Development, etc., by organising Business Meets with delegations of various countries.
  • Work actively with Overseas Governments, Embassies to make the Visa and Work Permit Rules more "India Industry Friendly".
  • Disseminate various policies, market information and other relevant statistics by sending more than 200 circulars (annually) to all members.
  • Involve membership participation in various forums of Nasscom on subjects such as HRD, Technology, Exports, Domestic Market, E-Governance, IT Enabled Services, IPR, Finance, Government Policies, Quality, etc.

NASSCOM is the global trade body with over 1200 members, of which over 250 are global companies from the US, UK, EU, Japan and China. NASSCOM's member companies are in the business of software development, software services, software products, IT-enabled/BPO services and e-commerce. NASSCOM has been the strongest proponent of global free trade in India. NASSCOM strongly supports the elimination of the cap on H-1B visas in the United States as this protectionist anti free market legislation allows overpaid underskilled American nationals to hold jobs which are better and cheaply performed by Indian expatriates.

NASSCOM was set up in 1988 to facilitate business and trade in software and services and to encourage advancement of research in software technology. It is a not-for-profit organization, registered under the Indian Societies Act, 1860.

Currently, NASSCOM is headquartered in New Delhi, India with regional offices in the cities of Mumbai, Chennai, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Pune and Kolkata.

NASSCOM has been the strongest proponent of global free trade, and is committed to work proactively to encourage its members to adopt world class management practices, build and uphold highest standards in quality, security and innovation and remain competitive in today’s rapidly changing technology landscape.

NASSCOM's Vision is to maintain India leadership position in the global offshore IT-BPO industry, to grow the market by enabling industry to tap into emerging opportunity areas and to strengthen the domestic market in India.

By 2010 India's IT-BPO industry could potentially generate US$60 billion in export revenues, account for 5.8 percent of the GDP, pay for a massive infrastructure build-out, and sustain around 10 million jobs.

To achieve this, NASSCOM is constantly raising the bar across processes and quality standards – within its member companies and making them partners of choice for customers across the globe. It also enables the Indian IT-BPO industry to evolve in accordance with the rapidly changing technology landscape by adopting, implementing and often creating world class practices.

It isn't just Green jobs being offshored, money offshored

Caterpillar offshore outsourced.  

JP Morgan Chase received TARP funds, increased offshore outsourcing by 25%

Citigroup received TARP funds, signed a $1.2 billion dollar contract to offshore outsource jobs.


IBM is firing people in droves, offshore outsourcing jobs.


Microsoft is firing 5800, offshore outsourcing jobs...


the list goes on and on and on.


"One of the most absurd things I find offshore outsourced is state jobs to manage social services. That's taxpayer dollars to help those who need a job and to get food stamps."

You know, I believe the politician who pioneered that was Governor Gary Locke of Washington, who is now President Obama's Secretary of Commerce, the same secretary of Commerce who signed all those "buy offshore" waivers for the American-based multinationals in receipt of federal stimulus funds.


Those jobs could easily be done from home too. So, here we have people out of work, desperate, receiving welfare and instead of hiring some of those people to work for state social services, states offshore outsource those jobs.

It sure seemed the Obama administration was bound and determined to get the biggest corporate puppet they could find in that Sec. of Commerce post too.

What is even more scary is how NASSCOM has inroads to state and federal contract awards.

As in bias and that's a foreign nation, India, their BPO industry, getting contract after contract and frankly I question any claim these are "economically competitive" from the overall contract awards amounts I see flying by.

I don't believe it. I think we have yet another "Inside track" on how to bribe obtain government contracts, like Accenture....the guys who cannot code their way out of a paper bag, yet manage to obtain billion dollar contracts, even though they have failed, failed, failed on delivery. Same with SAIC, there are a bunch of them...
and many of these "projects" have actually failed. Billions wasted with no results.

Give me a break! One could hire teams of out of work techies in the U.S., out of work call center people - call centers could be great for single mothers, people with disabilities because one could easily do that job from home....





Posted via email from Kleerstreem's Posterous

Giving Capitalism Its Due

Carl Schramm doesn't buy the idea that some businesses are "too big to fail." That notion, says the president of the Kansas City-based Kauffman Foundation, only creates obstacles for entrepreneurs. Instead, he sees the failure of big companies as the "moment when 1,000 flowers can bloom."

[The Weekend Interview]Zina Saunders

The Kauffman Foundation, known to National Public Radio listeners and a few others as "the foundation for entrepreneurship," is difficult to categorize, but its president seems to like it that way. Last Sunday afternoon at the largely deserted Harvard Club in New York, I sat down to talk with Mr. Schramm, an unassuming man with distinctive round spectacles who oversees an almost $2 billion endowment.

Kauffman was founded in 1966 by pharmaceutical magnate Ewing Marion Kauffman. In 1950, he launched a drug company in the basement of his Kansas City home. Forty years later, when he sold the business to Merrell Dow, it had become a diversified health-care company with nearly $1 billion in annual sales and more than 3,000 employees.

Kauffman gave a lot of thought to his journey from poverty to wealth, according to Mr. Schramm. "He saw this as the central theme of his life."

So what exactly is a foundation for entrepreneurship? Aren't foundations supposed to give money to charity? And aren't entrepreneurs supposed to get money from investors, not philanthropists?

On the theoretical level, Mr. Schramm, who started his own health-care company and merchant bank, believes that the foundation has a duty to foster an environment hospitable to entrepreneurship. And so, for instance, Mr. Schramm brags that Kauffman has "dragged economists into considering the importance of firm formation to the overall growth of the economy." The foundation has commissioned some 6,000 papers on this and related topics in the past several years.

Then there is the question of the public perception of entrepreneurship. In the most recent survey that the foundation sponsored, pollsters found that 63% of respondents "prefer giving individuals the incentives they need to start their own businesses as opposed to allowing the government to create new jobs directly." Conducted last month, the survey also showed that instead of the government's stimulus package, two-thirds of respondents would prefer "reducing legal barriers and red tape for new business development" as a way to jump-start the economy. Finally, 89% of respondents said that "capitalism is still the best economic system for our country."

Despite this popular attitude, Mr. Schramm worries that there is a tendency on the part of some citizens to want the government to prevent market chaos. Prior to the financial meltdown this fall, "I think we were in full tide of entrepreneurial capitalism and now there's an introspection, where the vocabulary is all about regulation and the importance of the government to restart the economy," he says. While Mr. Schramm believes that the government has a role to play, he argues that "historically through the last seven recessions it's been entrepreneurs who essentially restarted the economy."

Kauffman is dedicated to cultivating such innovators. Mr. Schramm is intent on dispelling the common misperception that "If you don't have it done by the time you're 19 or 21, it ain't gonna happen," and according to Inc. magazine, he says, "the fastest growing firms in the United States are started by people who are 39 years old" on average.

In order to educate young people about the history of entrepreneurship in America, the foundation has partnered with 18 college campuses. "When I was in high school, the word entrepreneur was in zero use, it was not part of the American vocabulary. If you were to ask about inventors, they were pretty much dead people, you know, George Westinghouse and George Eastman." Today, Mr. Schramm thinks that kids do see more entrepreneurship around them with Internet startups and the like, but schools still don't encourage it. Even business schools, Mr. Schramm says, seem to offer only a "very rigid formalistic perspective about writing business plans."

Kauffman has tried to provide more direct and practical aid to those trying to start their own businesses. Through a program called FastTrac, for instance, Kauffman will help 1,000 current and new small-business owners in New York City over the course of the next year learn the skills they need to succeed.

FastTrac helps budding entrepreneurs with the important decision of picking a lawyer, for instance. "The bad choice of a lawyer at the start of a business or the bad choice of an accountant can screw the business up in a way that is fatal," says Mr. Schramm. The program also advises budding entrepreneurs never to let their lawyers or accountants invest in the company. "You have to develop your own sense of the value of the advice you're getting. And the minute people say well I want to own 25% of the company, all the alarm bells ought to go off."

Finally, the foundation goes out of its way to support minority entrepreneurship. Mr. Schramm doesn't use any social-justice lingo to explain the program, but reverts to a kind of charming nerd-speak. He says that after a lot of analysis, Kauffman has found that there is "the greatest delta among black males." In other words, for a given amount of entrepreneurial investment, that group will see the greatest improvement in its economic status. While there are many activists out there saying that foundations should give more to minorities, you won't find many who offer the Kauffman philosophy: "We should have a proportionate number of black billionaire owners of businesses as exists in the majority community," says Mr. Schramm.

In addition to encouraging entrepreneurship of all sorts, Mr. Schramm says the foundation itself is supposed to act entrepreneurially. In the past couple of decades, a veritable army of professional nonprofit workers has grown up. But Mr. Schramm was not among them. Before arriving at Kauffman, he taught at Johns Hopkins (he has a law degree and a doctorate in economics). When he applied to foundations for funding during his time as a professor, he recalls, "You had to be very good at using language to sound like you were out on the frontier, but in fact you couldn't go too far because . . . foundations are very cautious."

For a while, he wondered what was behind that tendency. He concluded that "the foundation culture had developed a sort of consensus": Foundation money is "quasi-public." In a prescient article that Mr. Schramm wrote for the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy in 2006, he notes that "the foundation appears to lack any coherent theory of its own role in society and the economy." The result, he warned, is that "government can impose expectations that may destroy the foundation's ability to achieve the purposes for which it was conceived."

Lately, some in the government have been trying to do exactly that. A few members of Congress, including Rep. Xavier Becerra (D., Calif.), have recently suggested that foundations need to be giving a greater percentage of their dollars to minority groups and other "marginalized communities." And various activist groups, including the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and Greenlining, have made the case that philanthropic dollars really belong to the public since they are tax exempt. Mr. Schramm responds: "I don't think as a legal matter that it holds because under that theory my 401(k) is public money."

So who are the real stakeholders in foundations? Mr. Schramm can think of only one: the donor. "At Kauffman I think the trustees and I are very, very clear: We work for Mr. Kauffman," says Mr. Schramm, acknowledging that his boss passed away in 1993. Kauffman not only left extensive writings but also videotape of himself describing how he wanted the foundation to operate. Mr. Schramm says that one board member told him he was hired because he was the only candidate who had read Kauffman's book.

Despite, or perhaps because of, his familiarity with Kauffman's thought, Mr. Schramm did not have an easy time taking over the foundation in 2002. Over time Kauffman had grown unwieldy, with one of the highest overhead costs of any foundation in the country. And its mission had become diluted. For example, Mr. Schramm notes, Kauffman said he was interested in education. "What was read into it was he was really more interested in general youth development. So we found ourselves supporting sports programs." Kauffman owned the Kansas City Royals for a time and Mr. Schramm notes that "he loved sports, but when it came to his foundation, he was crystal clear about what he wanted to have done and the word 'sports' never shows up in hundreds of pages of discussion."

And so within a year of taking over, Mr. Schramm began a serious overhaul of the foundation. He laid off about half of its 150-person staff and cut off funding to some of its biggest grantees, many in Kansas City. There was a public outcry from local nonprofits and from some former members of the board. One told the New York Times that "Carl doesn't seem to understand that there isn't an 'I' in team." It reached the point where Missouri's then attorney general, Jeremiah Nixon, launched an extensive investigation. He determined that Mr. Schramm had not led the foundation astray. What ultimately saved his job, says Mr. Schramm, were the detailed writings that Kauffman left before his death.

"What happened was not atypical in foundations. Often around 10 years after the death of the donor there's a moment of truth." People who were close to the donor will say, "Yes, he said that but he didn't mean that." Mr. Schramm concludes: "If there was one piece of advice I'd give to someone who was starting a foundation it is this: Think very, very hard of the long term and write down what you want your foundation to look like in 30 years or 40 years."

Despite the fact that the foundation's endowment has fallen by $722 million since the end of 2007, Mr. Schramm sees this as Kauffman's "moment." While "no one hopes for a recession," it's during economic crises that entrepreneurs "challenge companies that have gotten big and lazy." The downturn, he says, will even challenge Kauffman to "think about how we can do our work better, like every business." In fact, Mr. Schramm adds, "The only people immune from thinking hard in moments like this are in government."

Posted via email from Kleerstreem's Posterous

Made in America

\

From the issue
INNOVATION AND the founding of the United States were good for one another. The American Revolution and the subsequent creation of the Constitution were in part byproducts of the Scottish Enlightenment; they set the intellectual groundwork for economic achievement-then as radical an idea as a self-governing democracy. Interestingly, while the breakthroughs in political thought made by Montesquieu and Locke influenced the founders, to them the notion of growth was as yet inchoate. Prior to 1800, economic expansion was so negligible that it was hardly even imagined. From the fall of the Roman Empire to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, annualized rates of growth are estimated to have been a mere 0.25 percent.

Yet in the eighteenth century, in the face of burgeoning world trade and bustling commerce in Europe and North America, Scotland's intellectual giant David Hume outlined the clear link between economic development and political systems. His colleague Adam Smith-who happened to publish The Wealth of Nations in 1776-suggested in no uncertain terms that state action had real implications for commerce and human welfare. These insights were imported to our shores with the prescient belief by our founders that the system they designed would bring with it economic expansion. This view was based on an innate sense that individual freedom found authentic expression in commerce: innovation and rising living standards would result from a freer political system. In turn, various economic interests competing in a market-James Madison's famous "factions"-would help guarantee political freedom.

By the time Alexis de Tocqueville arrived in the 1830s to chronicle the American experience, an early form of entrepreneurial capitalism was already in bloom. He observed that among our common characteristics was a fascination with money and the making of it. Imagine coming from France, where one's occupation and social order were largely ordained by birth (the French Revolution notwithstanding), and looking at the unbounded freedom Americans had to make their own futures. Left to individual citizens, this freedom was the overarching theme of de Tocqueville's narrative, accurately recorded but perhaps not fully understood.

Early America was alive with a conversation about how knowledge could be shaped into science and the expansion of welfare-a drive for usefulness that, while owing some inheritance to Britain, found a uniquely American expression. Without a culture of the state directing life, the field was open to anyone who sought to bring his wits to bear on solving problems that could improve the human condition. Thus, there was never any question about the democratization of science and know-how in the new nation. The haughty redoubts of European academies, guarding old knowledge and monitoring the new, never truly emerged in early America in part because they offended the notion that anyone was free to contribute.

So, more than any other nation, America produced an iconic citizen-the innovator. And so powerful was this image it became recognized as part of our national character. Famed historian Frederick Jackson Turner's "frontier hypothesis" argued that all Americans were pioneers. Some of us explored the earth, a number made discoveries in science, and still others "fiddled," creating inventions like the telegraph. Among us were engineers who developed automobiles, radios and rockets that could carry humans into space and entrepreneurs who could turn the discoveries of their countrymen into new companies that often became breakthroughs themselves.

 

TODAY, THIS national self-identity as world-beating innovators feels threatened; the United States has reached its peak, now tracing the apparently inexorable trajectory of decline followed by great powers of the past. The evidence, seemingly, is abundant. China's new alabaster cities gleam, India manages the backrooms of many American businesses and Iran flaunts its newfound nuclear capabilities. As the story goes, this all came about because of a slow-footed America that failed to understand how circumstances were changing and failed to keep pace with the frontier. One usual suspect is the inability of our schools to educate our young properly. More Chinese children take the SAT in English on certain Saturdays than Americans. Our universities no longer produce sufficient numbers of engineers. Indian graduates from Bangalore alone could populate all the slots in American graduate programs for computer science. We hear that the Indian Institutes of Technology are better than MIT. And on top of all this, we are told (with a contradictory tone of betrayal) that many of the scientists and engineers who threaten our technological prowess learned their innovative skills in the American academy.

This composite narrative of American decline occurs periodically and is clearly in tide once again. The assumption is that American leadership is being displaced. It is unclear, however, that this is either a valid conclusion or an inevitable one. In fact, China's and India's entrance into the modern world economy was assisted by American entrepreneurial capitalism. The appearance of its permutations in Beijing and New Delhi has resulted in a stunningly unprecedented reduction in global poverty. Moreover, even with all the growth in China and India, both countries' per capita levels of wealth remain fractions of the American enterprise. And, much of the economic performance in those nations is related to the continuous and, until recently, accelerating expansion of the American economy.

Innovation and its consequences must be seen as part of a tremendously complex system. Its very nature defies any simple description-"innovation" is really an epiphenomenon of a vast number of factors, including human talent, training, extant technology, economic freedom, individual imagination, shared social norms, family composition, role modeling, financial systems, long-term personal expectations, government rules (e.g., patents and bankruptcy), international markets, social infrastructure, and combinations of these and other forces that we cannot begin to conceptualize.

 

AMERICAN'S POSITION at the global frontier of innovation has been challenged once before: when, in 1957, the Soviets launched Sputnik, the first earth-orbiting satellite. Immediately, the United States set out to close the technology gap that had suddenly appeared. The Second World War-and the subsequent emergence of the United States as the global economic power-had been won largely on the basis of extraordinary American production capacity and the innovation that made it possible. Now, such an ability seemed to be not only a competency of our enemy but, worse, the Soviets seemed to be beating us at our own game.

Overnight, the United States committed itself to regaining the lead not only in engineering but also in research and development. In 1958, the new Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was established as an entity to encourage and fund new discoveries that might be vital to recapturing our edge over the Soviets. The warnings and prescriptions advanced by engineer Vannevar Bush in his 1945 report, "Science, the Endless Frontier" (which formed the basis for creation of the National Science Foundation in 1950), emerged as the focal point of a national effort to establish an American edge in innovation.

The push to regain leadership in science required moving way beyond the normal precincts governed by the Pentagon. President John F. Kennedy's goal to send a man to the moon, while no doubt meant to be a direct response to the Sputnik scare, served also to release huge investments by government and corporations into the vast array of technologies needed to support the lunar mission. Telecommunications, computers and materials science were but a few of the areas where we developed new knowledge, and new industries, overnight.

Soon after, in the 1970s, the federal government declared "war" on cancer. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) rapidly became the quarterback and funder of what might be truly seen as the beginning of large-scale research in medicine. The expansion of medical knowledge, much of it dependent on the technologies developed in defense research and the lunar-mission programs, produced nothing short of a revolution in health care between 1960 and 1980. It created our capacity to speak of "evidence-based" medicine for the first time.

 

GIVEN THAT until World War II government had played a very small role in steering research or directing business, when Washington turned toward a national effort to "win the space race" it was in entirely new terrain. Often lost in the telling, our success was achieved not only because of a massive influx of government money but also because the new ideas and technology that emerged reflected an extraordinary innovation in managing an unprecedented private-public partnership. In retrospect, government's management of the space race was itself an innovation, one that might be called "light touch" public administration. It provided funding and left an assembly of private and public actors to coordinate among themselves what was the most efficient way toward a solution.

But American economist Mancur Olson also realized that even as we were achieving these space-race milestones, our democracy was operating differently. Science and social-welfare funding redefined the federal government as a dispensing agent whose disbursement decisions could be profitably influenced by private actors. Olson saw the sclerosis that would emerge in innovation because of expanding government funding. In time, the entities populating this model of innovation-public funding, private contracting-would become protected government suppliers. The capacity for competition in ideas would narrow as various groups became rent takers. Their real-dollar value would decline as their protected status grew.

Most disturbingly, the narrative that increased government funding was the only model for American innovation gradually hardened into accepted fact. In the 1970s and early 1980s, confronted with inflation, sluggish economic growth, faltering domestic corporations and rising global competition, the impulse was to ratchet up public research expenditures.1 The same impulse arises today: increase federal research funding and we will see a corresponding increase in innovation.

 

YET THIS prescription does not reflect reality. Research-based innovation has evolved along a certain developmental arc. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, metalworkers, watchmakers and other technologists led innovation; technology informed science. By the early 1900s this relationship was turned on its head as scientific research became increasingly important. This link was formalized in the creation of corporate research and, later, the university lab. This model-in which innovation is more deliberately pursued and, indeed, routinized-dominated most of the twentieth century.

But in the last twenty years, and increasingly so today, new and young companies-entrepreneurs-are essential to innovation in the United States, both in terms of performing research and development and in commercializing breakthroughs. Over the past several years, in fact, research in small companies (with fewer than five hundred employees) has grown more rapidly than in large companies.2

It should be no surprise then that we have approached a point of declining marginal returns to federally funded research. The chart below illustrates what we might think of as the general law of federally funded research: increasing R&D funding is accompanied over time by a falling marginal return of innovation, whether measured by outputs such as patents and licenses or more traditional measures like publications and citations. In most of the past decade, federally funded academic research has outpaced that financed by industry at a rate of twelve to one. This increase has not been accompanied by what might be expected in terms of returns. Patents and licenses by universities have risen, but the value they generate in dollars and impact has not kept pace-more does not necessarily mean better. Academic publication output, too, has lagged research spending, as has the number of "highly cited" articles.3

 

OUR PERSPECTIVE on innovation has continued to be oriented toward the "big science" model of the first three-quarters of the twentieth century rather than on the all-important entrepreneurs of the present day. And because the government has focused on professor-scientists, universities have been given an extraordinary institutional advantage. Additionally, the funding has been connected to single individuals who became known as "principal investigators (PI)." This approach did everything to enforce and solidify a model that is actually quite at odds with traditional models of how science moves forward. Great scientists are indeed critical-they are the people we know by reputation. But, increasingly, organizing modern science around the star-scientist model is seen to have distinct limitations, many of which operate against achieving further breakthroughs.

Investigation commonly involves m

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Run Strong At Any Age

Next time you line up at the start of a race, take a look around. Chances are there are women of all ages standing near you, from young girls to women who put on their first pair of running shoes more than 40 years ago. What is it about running that appeals to so many women, from teenagers to seniors, recreational joggers to elite athletes? 

"It's a lifelong passion for me," says 52-year-old Joan Benoit Samuelson, who won the first Olympic women's marathon in 1984 at age 27 and held the American record in the marathon for 18 years.

At age 50, she competed in the 2008 Olympic Marathon Trials in Boston, meeting her goal of finishing the race under 2:50. "The important thing is I still make running a priority in my life. It's not about how much you run, it's about the act of running and reaping the benefits." 

You have to train and eat right to be a long-term runner like Samuelson. Here's our decade-by-decade guide to help you run for life.

In Your 20s

If you're younger than 30, you're strong, flexible and have stamina in spades, so you can train hard, recover quickly and perform well.

"Bone density and muscle mass are at their highest at this age," says running coach Christine Hinton. "This translates to better strength, reduced injury risk and increased speed."

Your VO2 max (maximal oxygen uptake)--essentially, your cardiovascular fitness and aerobic endurance--is also at its best. 

But there can be a downside to all these advantages.

"If you increase your mileage and intensity too much, too soon, you put yourself at serious risk for injuries, from shin splints to stress fractures," says running coach Christine Luff. While this is true for runners of all ages, women in their 20s often keep irregular schedules, whether it's sleeping, eating or training, says Luff.

To avoid overtraining and injury, take at least one easy day between hard runs and incorporate cross training into your routine. "Cross-training is important," says Luff, "because it helps strengthen non-running muscles while giving running muscles a chance to rest and recover."

Try cycling or swimming: "These allow runners to continue to develop their cardiovascular systems," says Hinton, and gives the hips, knees and ankles a rest. 

In addition to training, get educated about healthy eating, says Lisa Dorfman, director of sports nutrition and performance at the University of Miami.

"Women coming out of their college years have erratic eating habits," she says. "They grab ice cream after being at the club, but ignore fruits, veggies and whole grains. Good eating habits support running and prevent injuries."

In Your 30s

This decade is a study in contrasts. At 30, a woman is often at her physical peak, but by 40, her aerobic capacity and muscle mass declines. Ball State University researchers found athletes who train vigorously often don't experience significant drop-offs in performance until they reach their middle 40s or early 50s. By logging miles, pushing the pace and adding cross-training, a woman in her 30s can be competitive, especially at longer distances. 

"Women who had 5k PRs in their 20s," Hinton says, "can now look to 10k and longer races to perform their best." Why? Thank the "10-year rule," says Dr. David Brock, assistant professor of exercise and movement science at the University of Vermont.

"It's not that women in their 30s necessarily do better at longer distances," he says. "You reach your peak potential about 10 years after you start running, no matter what decade you start. If everything else is relatively equal, a 30-year-old woman who has been training for 10 years will do better in a race than a 22-year-old training for two years." 

By the late 30s, it's harder to recover from a long run or race. That's because muscles store glycogen, the fuel your body uses during exercise, so when you lose muscle mass with age, you also lose some of your glycogen reserves. This means it takes longer to replenish them after a hard effort.

The best way to refuel: Eat carbohydrates such as fruits, vegetables, yogurt, whole grains or beans.

"Women this age lose track of what they're eating because they're so busy," says Dorfman. "It's important to eat healthy on a regular schedule." 

Don't neglect strength training even if you're busy juggling a career, family and workouts.

"Good strength-building moves include lunges, squats, crunches, leg lifts and biceps curls," says Hinton. "If time is tight, be creative: Add 30 minutes of strength training two to three times a week while you're watching TV."  

In Your 40s

By the time you're a masters runner (40 and older), your aerobic capacity, muscle mass and ability to recover decline, but all of these variables can be mitigated. The bottom line: Keep running and you'll get solid race results. 

Your resting heart rate doesn't change as you age, but your heart doesn't pump as fast as it once did. "Get out of your comfort zone to improve your aerobic capacity," says Dr. Stephen Pribut, clinical assistant professor of surgery at George Washington University Medical Center.

"If you've been walking, try adding some running. If you've been running at an easy pace, try doing some gentle fartleks." Fartleks combine aerobic and anaerobic training. To perform them, jog for 10 minutes as a warm-up, then run hard for four minutes with a one-minute recovery. Repeat two to three times and finish with a 10-minute cool down.

Muscles become accustomed to a training program very quickly, says Hinton, "so by changing your routine every six to eight weeks, you keep your muscles guessing and continue to build strength." 

It's not too late to start running and see benefits. Begin with walking, Hinton says. Once you can walk four times a week for at least 30 minutes, incorporate some short run segments. Each week, slowly increase the run segments and decrease the walk segments. Build to a 30-minute run over an eight- to 10-week period.

In Your 50s and Beyond

You may not sprint as fast as you once did, but you can still run well at longer distances as long as you get adequate rest and recovery time. A University of Florida study showed that VO2 max dips by 10 percent between the ages of 50 and 60 and then drops 12 to 15 percent during the 70s. For a runner, this is equivalent to losing 30 seconds per year from a 10k PR. 

Most women experience menopause during these years--the average age is 51--and "running can alleviate mood swings, sleep problems and other side effects of menopause," says Hinton. Post menopause, women lose 2 to 5 percent of bone mass. The good news: Running helps strengthen bones and slows down the rate of bone loss. '

"Running makes bone compress on impact and then relax between strides, stimulating the bone to grow," says Pribut. "To help bone retain its strength, slowly increase the amount of running you're doing." 

Cross-training and strength training are essential, says Hinton. "Strength training, at least three times a week, will help you avoid losing as much muscle mass as those who are sedentary," she says. "And flexibility decreases as we age. Stretch after every single run. Doing so will help keep you from developing the old lady shuffle." 

As you get older, nutrient needs are higher even though caloric needs are lower. Women age 50 and older require 1,600 calories to 2,200 calories a day depending on their activity levels, according to the National Institute on Aging. "Choose nutrient-dense foods like whole grains, cereals, beans and fresh fruit," Dorfman advises. "If you've been taking care of yourself for the last 20 or 30 years, you're ready to keep running in these years and beyond."

Posted via email from WellCare

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Texas Festival Chart

What is Truth?

by Dudley Hall

Then Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world - to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice."  Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" John 18:37-38 (ESV)
      
Pilate is hung up on the kingship issue. He is afraid that Jesus is planning to take over his job. He is not interested in Jesus' true nature or purpose as long as it doesn't interfere with his own position. But in the midst of Pilate's inquiry Jesus clearly discloses his nature and purpose, and we get the benefit.

Kings should bear witness to the truth! They are responsible for their people, and when they operate in deception the people suffer. Kings that don't bear witness to the truth are accountable for the destruction that comes on those under their care. It is a serious thing to be "in charge" of people.  We are reminded in the New Testament that those who teach others will be held accountable by a higher standard (James 3:1-2). Fathers who lead families should be aware of their serious responsibility. So should pastors and elders of churches. Actually, anyone who has an overseeing role in another's life has a kingly function.

It is incumbent upon all leaders to align their lives with the truth as revealed in Jesus Christ. When leaders are off kilter, the father of lies, who is a murderer, destroys the people. It is scary to see how glibly we undertake being parents, teachers, or religious leaders. We read books and take off on ideas and current trends that may be miles from the truth as revealed in Jesus. It might take years for the deceptive seeds to germinate, but they will. Ideas have consequences.

Sadly, in the contemporary church too little emphasis is put on the truth as applied to the various aspects of life. Too much effort is spent on being trendy, making sure no one is offended, and attracting more people to attend the corporate meetings. There is just not time to expose the ways of the world system in comparison to the eternal truth revealed in Jesus. It takes too much effort, and it is not possible to accomplish in 20 minutes on Sunday morning.  So families continue to operate based on concepts of reality gained from TV, popular music, and media.  Church members live under the illusion of being trained because they attend Sunday services.  All the while they continue to spend themselves into debt, work themselves into burnout, eat themselves into sickness, promote themselves into insanity, and lose themselves in a search for meaning.  This is happening while the kings over the church sphere are being congratulated for building bigger congregations faster than ever.

We haven't even mentioned those who rule over the civic realm. Even though we who live in democratic republics don't have official kings, we do have those responsible for the policies that govern our lives. Their "truth" is tainted by the need to be re-elected. The farther public policy moves from the truth revealed in Jesus, the more destruction moves in.

We cannot afford to be glib like Pilate when told the truth. He ignored what Jesus said and lost everything.  Soon after this interaction with Jesus, Pilate lost his position and became an afterthought in Roman history. If we neglect the truth we cannot succeed in the life designed by the author of truth. We must take seriously Jesus' commission to "make disciples!" People who don't know the truth and how to apply it are doomed to the default mode of deception where the enemy lurks to destr

Posted via email from Religion

Stoney Mountain Farm Wool Dryer Balls

Friday, August 27, 2010

Hamburger Pretzel Buns (The Best Ever)

The best hamburger buns I ever ate are baked in Carrollton, Texas at this place:  (place your order one day in advance and pick up after 11 AM the next day.  24 Hamburger Pretzel Buns for $10.50; if you are having a large party they sell them in 80 bun cases as well...they are delicious and make for a great hamburger....I first had them, on a burger at Pier 121 one night while watching a blues band on the outdoor stage at the marina)  They are not available in grocery stores...Enjoy!!

Posted via email from WellCare