Stress in the workplace has almost become a partner to the very notion of a full time job. Anyone who works is all too aware of this correlation, and unfortunately it is a nuance that often time gets the best of the individual over a period of time. Here are five proven methods to cut down on stress, as well as instructions on how to successfully carry these “stress busters” out:

1. Work Pressures: Change your schedule. When most people get in to work, they check their e-mail and voice mail. Save it for later. Spend your first hour, when you’re the sharpest, on creative and strategic thinking. While you’re at it, break down your day into specific tasks, rather than trying to juggle everything. Studies now show that a 50-minute task takes four times as long if you juggle too many tasks at once. “Are you a starter of all and finisher of none?” asks Julie Morgenstern, author of Making Work Work. If you can, pick one day a week to leave 30 minutes earlier than usual.
2. Personal Pressures: Change the habit, not the world. Destressing isn’t about eliminating all of your stresses; it’s about getting control of them, one at a time. To do that, you should make micro-adjustments in your life, not big ones that eventually add more stress, says Stan Goldberg, Ph.D., author of Ready To Learn. “What’s important is whatever [changes you make to your routine] need to be small enough so that there is a minimal amount of difference between what you’ve been doing and what you now do,” Dr. Goldberg says.
3. Self Care: Eat the anti-stress diet. When you’re in stress mode, your insides produce more chemical reactions than Marie Curie’s lab and you experience surges of the hormone cortisol and sugar levels that spike and plummet, which can leave you feeling under pressure and sluggish. Counteract those reactions with the right foods, says Elizabeth Somer, R.D., author of The Food & Mood Cookbook. For breakfast, avoid sugary cereals or breakfast bars and eat whole-grain cereal and a piece of fruit. Then pop a vitamin with at least 500 milligrams (mg) of calcium and 250 mg of magnesium.
4. Losing Personal Power: Always avoid “always”. One of the biggest booby traps in your life is over generalizing, first dates never work out, she always gets promotions before me, he always arrives at least 5 minutes late. Unconsciously, using “always” and “never” steers you away from feeling that you have any control over changing the things that stress or worry you, says Daniel Amen, M.D., author of Change Your Brain, Change Your Life.
5. Emotional Symptoms: Schedule your emotions. If we let it, stress can eat away at us like a squirrel with a nut. That constantly worried mentality impedes decision-making, says Susan Nolen-Hoeksema, Ph.D., author of Women Who Think Too Much: How to Break Free of Overthinking and Reclaim Your Life. She suggests you write down what you’re worried about, then set aside some quiet time (say 30 minutes) to figure out solutions. That way, worrying won’t disrupt your work, and you’ll be able to think through the answers.

There you have it – five proven ways you can successfully shed some of that burdensome stress from your life. If you have any other suggestions, or have tested methods other then those listed above please feel free to let us know what worked and what didn’t.

Technorati Tags: cut down on stress, How To Deal With Stress, Living News, Stress, Stress Busters, Stress Savers, work place stress

To say that John McCain had a “rough week” would be an understatement. In all reality, the past five days under any other circumstances, with any other candidate, would represent the beginning of the end politically speaking. Yet somehow McCain continues to breeze on by with little more then a whimper from the mainstream media, a rather troubling trend that has become the “norm” in the “talking heads” coverage of the 2008 election.

How bad was McCain’s week? Really bad, and that’s putting it politely – very politely. For example, if Barack Obama had committed any two of the laundry list of unforced blunders, gaffes and idiotic actions McCain has the media would be in all out attack mode – letting us hear about it on repeat for the next three weeks. But not McCain. He’s the “media darling”, and anything he says or does that comes across as completely asinine is nothing more then a “mistake”.

You may be asking yourself what took place over this now infamous “week from hell”? Don’t fret, I will provide you with a quick rundown of the disastrous time line we watched unfold day after day courtesy of Team McCain:

1. McCain unambiguously called Social Security “an absolute disgrace.”

This is not a quote taken out of context. John McCain called one of the most successful and popular government programs, which uses the tax revenues of current workers to support retirement benefits for the elderly “an absolute disgrace.” This is shocking – and if uttered from Obama’s mouth would dominate the news coverage and the Sunday shows, as pundits would speculate about the massive damage the statement would cause him among retirees in Florida.

2. McCain’s top economic policy adviser calls Americans a bunch of “whiners” for being worried about the slumping economy.

Words cannot fully explain how devastating this statement should be from Phil Gramm. You would think it would be enough to sink McCain’s campaign. Of course McCain only thinks that the economic problems are psychological.

3. Iraqi leaders call for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, McCain gets caught in a bizarre denial and flip flop.

The Iraqis now want us to begin planning our withdrawal – McCain however wants to stay foooorrreeevvveerrrr. So what does McCain say – First, he refuses to accept Maliki’s statement as being true. Then he concedes that it was an accurate statement, but was probably just a political ploy to curry favor with his own people and WOULD NOT influence his determination to keep US troops in Iraq indefinitely. Yet, McCain in 2004 at the Council on Foreign Relations said that if the Iraqis asked us to leave, we would have to go. No matter what. But that was apparently a younger and less experienced John McCain.

4. McCain’s economic plan to cut the deficit has no details and is simply not believable.

There are so many things here. McCain pledges he would eliminate the deficit by the end of his first term (the campaign latter flip flop flipped about whether it was four years or eight years), but does not provide any details about how he would do it. Economists on both sides of the political aisle said that this was simply not believable, especially given McCain’s other proposals to a) cut individual and corporate taxes even further, b) extend the Bush tax cuts and c) massively increase defense spending on manpower (200,000 more troops) and d) maintain a long-term sizable military presence in Iraq.

5. McCain’s deficit plan includes bringing the troops home represents a major Iraq flip-flop.

Speaking of the long-term military presence – a story that has gotten absolutely no attention is that McCain now believes the war will be over soon. The economic forecasts made by his crack team of economists predict that there will be significant savings during McCain’s first term because we will have achieved “victory” in Iraq and Afghanistan. The savings from victory (ie the savings from not having our troops there) will then be used to pay down the deficit. The only way this could have any impact on the deficit in McCain’s first time is if troop withdrawals start very soon. So McCain believes victory is in our grasps and we can begin withdraw troops from Iraq pretty much right away — doesn’t sound that different from Obama’s plan does it. Someone should at least ask McCain HOW HE DEFINES VICTORY – and why he thinks we will achieve it in the next couple of years.

6. McCain campaign misled about economists support.

In the major press release the McCain campaign issued to tout its Jobs for America economic plan that would balance the budget in 4 years, it included the signatures of more than 300 economists who the campaign claimed to support the plan. Only problem is that the economists were actually asked to sign up to SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Um, hello?

7. McCain makes a joke about killing Iranians.

Haha… that’s just McCain being McCain. I am sure that is exactly how it is being reported in Tehran. This guy is running for President not to become a talk radio pundit. Yet according to the AP this was just a humanizing moment between candidate and spouse – I am not sure when joking about the deaths of civilians became humanizing.

8. McCain denies, flatly, that he ever said that he is not an expert in economics.

Are you kidding?

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqsH7dkFGTo

This isn’t even all of McCain’s “wonder week” shenanigans, in fact Max Bergmann (whom is responsible for the explanation of the events above) has a complete rundown of what went sour for Team McCain this week, and can be found in it’s entirety here.

So with the foundation of McCain’s nightmare of a week laid out for you to take in for all its worth, lets now look at what stories dominated the news cycles over the past five days. First of course there was the whole “Is Obama shifting his position on Iraq” headline story, which in all reality was as contrived as a news story can be. With the manufactured “controversy” still alive and well thanks to media overkill, we had Jesse Jackson’s on air comments regarding Barack Obama, that was then in turn treated as the “end all, be all” of news stories. Mind you, when all of this was taking place, McCain was systematically bumbling, fumbling, and screwing up more and more as each day passed – all of which was for the part ignored in lieu of the Obama headlines mentioned above.

If anything this serves as an eye opening, “please don’t try denying it”, glimpse at just how one sided the campaign coverage has been. Again I want you to ask yourself what would have happened if Obama had called social security a “disgrace”, or if an Obama surrogate called American’s “whiners” over their economic dismay, and that the problem with our economy was simply “mental”. It would be the end of the world, and the coverage would not let us forget it either.

It’s gotten to the point where there’s nothing else to do but laugh at the one sidedness we are being inundated with. If you do anything other then take it with a grain of salt, you will seriously end up ripping your hair out – and that’s never a good thing ya know.

Technorati Tags: 2008 Election, breaking campaign news, breaking election news, Breaking political news, iraq, Iraq war, john mccain, McCain admits he knows nothing about the economy, McCain calls social security a Disgrace, McCain doesn't know difference between Iran and Iraq, McCain flip flops on Iraq, McCain Iran, McCain Iraq, McCain jokes about killing Iranians, McCain's terrible week, McCains worst week ever, Media Coverage Of 2008 Election, Phil Gramm, Phil Gramm Mccain, politics, Politics News

There is very little that our current President George W. Bush could possibly do to “shock” American’s, let alone the rest of the world – but somehow the brainchild in the White House has managed to once again out do himself, this time using the G8 Summit to deliver his jaw dropping statement that reaffirms the notion that he is in fact a moron.

As I mentioned above this latest national embarrassment took place at the G8 Summit which was being held in Japan. The Summit’s purpose of course is designed to have all the worlds leaders meet and discuss ways of bettering the environment, and recently, actions that would cut back on global warming – both topics that this President seems to take pride in ignoring.

And Bush made no secret of just how little the environment means to him by delivering a “joke”, if you can even call it that, during his “farewell” statement at the Windsor Hotel in Hokkaido where the leaders of the world’s richest nations had been discussing new targets to cut carbon emissions.

The Daily Telegraph was the first to report on Bush’s latest instance of inappropriate (and thats putting it politely) and downright tasteless acts for the whole world to see:

“The American leader, who has been condemned throughout his presidency for failing to tackle climate change, ended a private meeting with the words: “Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter.”

He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock.”

Can you imagine what it would take for you, or anyone with even the slightest hint of intelligence and/or integrity to say something like that, regardless of whether or not it was intended as a joke? Children are taught at a very young age that there is a time and place, a rule that our man Bush clearly was never able to grasp.

The whole situation is summed up best in the description of Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy’s reaction to Bush’s off the cuff attempt at humor. Moreover, this serves as a prime example of why so many across the world look at us in a different light then they have in the past – and going by remarks such as this one, I don’t know if I can blame them.

One official who witnessed the extraordinary scene said afterwards: “Everyone was very surprised that he was making a joke about America’s record on pollution.”

Mr Bush also faced criticism at the summit after Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, was described in the White House press pack given to journalists as one of the “most controversial leaders in the history of a country known for government corruption and vice”.

The White House apologised for what it called “sloppy work” and said an official had simply lifted the characterisation from the internet without reading it.

It just gets better and better with this guy doesn’t it? Come November we as a country have a chance to wipe the slate clean and start over with those who Bush has managed to burn bridges with time and time again. I understand many feel as though “what the rest of the world thinks about us doesn’t really matter”, an argument that’s about as generalized, and primitive of a viewpoint as one could possibly have.

That said, I am confident that enough American’s have realized that the road we have been led down at the hands of the GOP is not a road worth traveling, and that it’s time for a change in management.

Technorati Tags: Breaking news, Breaking political news, Bush at the G8 Summit, Bush is an embarassment, Bush is an idiot, Bush jokes about Pollution, Bush offends G8 Summit, Bush's pollution joke, G8 Summit, george w. bush

Here is an interesting video for you to take a look at. It’s a national television advertisement featuring the infamous oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens, a vocal Bush supporter (financially more then anything else), as well as the man behind a million dollar offer for anyone that could prove the “swift boat veterans against Kerry” wrong. However the new ad has Pickens making a pitch to expand alternative energy options, as well as highlighting the importance of wind, and solar power in terms of softening our oil dependence.

Personally I find this great, while I may not agree with Pickens politics, he is undoubtedly an amazing business man with a whole lot of clout. So having him calling for more effort put into the study and use of independent energy can only be a good thing.

Here is the advertisement in it’s entirety. I suggest you take a look at the whole thing, if you do I think you will see that Pickens makes some very good points, and is actually the type of person a movement like this is going to need behind it:

Carl Pope, who was appointed Executive Director of the Sierra Club in 1992, and is a veteran leader in the environmental movement for over thirty years seems to see Pickens move in a similar way as I do, and is very pleased with the ad:

“T. Boone Pickens was first known as an oil and gas man and then as a corporate raider, but these days he is jousting to topple Sweetwater from its title. Flying with me to visit his wind operations in Sweetwater, he makes it clear that his next wind project is big, Texas-style — 4,000 megawatts up in the Panhandle north of here. Pickens just doesn’t believe that America’s energy future is in oil any more. He dismisses the current calls for opening up the coast to drilling, saying that the government’s official estimates of oil and gas reserves are wildly inflated — “the geology just isn’t there.”

Pickens is infuriated by our continued and increasing addiction to imported oil, which he says now costs us $700 billion a year, and will soon climb to an even trillion. (He is watching the market as we fly, and as oil hits $143 a barrel, the Dow plummets. Boone notes “well, my securities are going to go down, but my commodities book will make up for most of today’s loss.” Pickens is long on oil, meaning he is betting that the price keeps going up.)

To put it plainly, T. Boone Pickens is out to save America.”

He’s pretty clear in his support huh? Anyways as I sit here applauding Pope’s ability to take of the partisan political glasses (something to many on the far left, and right can’t seem to do) I am struck by some other liberal commentators feelings on Pickens move to independent energy.

Over on Crooks & Liars there seems to be some “second guessing” so to say regarding Picken’s plea for alternative energy:

“Carl Pope, Executive Director of The Sierra Club has praised his plan, going so far as to say Pickens is out to save America” and I have no problem with that but do financial motivations vs. environmental motivations matter? Should we just be thankful that someone has stepped up to the plate, even if it means that the ultra-wealthy will once again control our energy resources, or do we strive for more ownership in the future of our own energy policy and demand more emphasis and accountability on our environment? In the end, will Pickens’ plan even work?”

While I often find myself in agreement with the people over at Crooks and Liars, this serves as an instance where I don’t. Frankly I see this sort of sentiment as nothing more then a “naive” partisan view – and nothing else.

First of all who has the right to assume Pickens intentions? I know I don’t, nor do I think anyone has the knowledge needed to speculate into something along the lines Crooks and Liars seems to be. Who cares makes money of the expansion into alternative energy, hell we live in a free market, all the power to him. At the end of the day we are moving away from oil dependence, and in my book that is good enough – actually I will go as far as to say I think what Pickens is doing is in all reality very noble to say the least.

Technorati Tags: breaking energy news, Breaking news, Breaking political news, Cng, Compressed Natural Gas Engines, Energy, environment, gas prices, GOP moving towards energy independence, Green News, Natural Gas, T. Boon pickens energy independence, T. Boone Pickens, Wind Power, Wind Turbines

What would you say if I were to tell you that earlier this week a senior ranking Bush Administration official had resigned from his position, opting not for retirement, but rather to work for Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign? You may think I was crazy, and you would be right in your initial reaction – but I’ve got news for you – a Bush administration official did in fact resign from his position so he could become an aid to Senator Obama.

Jason Burnett was a senior ranking appointed official with the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), however Burnett surprised many when he decided to resign from his post citing conflicts of interest between the current administration, and their (for lack of a better term) ambivalence in regards to any further progress in protecting the environment:

“A high-ranking political appointee resigned from the Environmental Protection Agency after concluding there was no more progress to be made on greenhouse gases under the Bush administration.

Jason Burnett, associate deputy administrator for about a year before his resignation took effect June 9, was the principal adviser on climate change issues to agency chief Stephen Johnson. He helped developed the EPA’s response to last year’s Supreme Court ruling that the agency had the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.”

“Burnett, a policy adviser at EPA who returned when Johnson appointed him associate deputy administrator, said he came back “to work through those challenges. We made as much progress as this administration wanted and when it became clear to me that no more progress could be made I decided it was time for me to move on,” Burnett said. “The choice this administration has made is to leave those challenges to the next.”

The above article comes from an AP release back on June the 25th, and at the time of it’s publication I don’t think anyone, including those closest to Burnett knew what his plans were for the future – and I am certain they didn’t expect him do what he subsequently did – Join team Obama:

“Jason Burnett has made a lot of news lately, criticizing the Bush administration for rejecting California’s request for a federal waiver that would have allowed the state to enforce greenhouse gas restrictions.

Burnett, until recently the associate deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, testified last month before a congressional panel about the possible White House role in overruling the EPA staff’s recommendation of the waiver. Since then, Burnett has given numerous interviews on the issue.

Now Burnett is talking with his checkbook, too. After submitting his resignation last month, he donated $3,600 to Democrat Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. That came on top of a $1,000 contribution he made to Obama before rejoining the EPA last year.

A Stanford-trained economist and a Democrat, Burnett, 31, said in an interview that he was moving back to Northern California to campaign for Obama and Rep. Sam Farr (D-Carmel).

He said he was counting on them to support stepped-up efforts to curb greenhouse gases.

“Climate change endangers health and welfare,” Burnett said. “The EPA is required to use existing law to reduce greenhouse gases. The sooner we begin addressing it in earnest, the better off we’ll be.”

Ouch. If this is not just another slap in the face to Bush and company then I don’t know what is. Remeber this is not the first time a former employee under this Administration has stepped forward and been highly critical of George W. Bush.

Just last month former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan not only came out and acknowledged that President Bush had in fact (with the help of those around him) “sold” the Iraq War to the American people via a slew of mis truths, foggy rhetoric, and some flat out lies, but he published a book chronicling the deceit as well as testified in front of Congress regarding this Administrations endless “tap dance” (and that is seriously putting it very politely) around the truth.

It is becoming more and more clear just how toxic Bush has made the Republican brand in this country. Thanks to his eight long years of trampling civil liberties, lying through that smug little smile of his, and systematically weakening our great country it’s really no surprise that the GOP wants absolutely nothing to do with him.

Technorati Tags: barack obama, Barack Obama Global Warming, bush, Bush EPA, Bush Global Warming, california emissions, California Emissions Standards, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions, environment, epa, epa agency, house oversight, Obama Environment, Obama Global Warming, Politics News, pollution, regulation, Scott mcClellan video, secrecy, testify, testimony, Valerie Plame, video of McClellan testimony, waiver

Throughout the Democratic primary there was one demographic who really didn’t waver in their support of Sen. Barack Obama regardless of what their region, race, or religion was – I am of course talking about the always coveted, but equally equally as absent ‘youth vote.’ Politicians have been trying forever to really mobilize the youth, throughout the years candidates have attempted everything imaginable too mobilize the youth vote on their behalf, however none have really been successful in doing so. Well, that is until now.

Their were indicators from the get go that the youth vote was going to impact the Democratic primary in a way it previously never had. In Iowa, Barack Obama trailed Hillary Clinton by 10 points in nearly every poll released all the way up until the night before voters headed to the polls. But for some reason Obama’s campaign manager, David Ploufe, was seemingly at ease, and when peppered with questions handled it like a man who knew something the rest of us didn’t:

“David Plouffe, had just told reporters that youngsters were “Barack’s core support in effect, his hidden vote.”

Well, it turns out the Ploufe indeed knew something; the youth was energized, active, and actually planned on showing up. Senator Obama ended up winning the Iowa Primary with 38% of the vote, John Edwards came in second with 30%, and Hillary finished a surprising third with 29%. This victory was in many ways made possible by the unprecedented, and near unanimous youth vote – a trend that kept true throughout the entire primary process, and from the looks of it, heading full speed at the general election in November.

“as the icy streets of downtown Des Moines filled with young Obamaniacs hugging and cheering, “We did it!” Upstairs, scruffy postcollegiate staffers squeezed between couches and credenzas to celebrate the senator’s surprise victory. Cans of Bud Light covered every surface. Youth turnout was up 135 percent from 2004, and the under-25 set alone gave Obama 17,000 votes, a 26-year-old speechwriter told me. Obama’s margin of victory? Twenty thousand. “We did it” was right.”

So who are these new breed of politically savvy, laptop toting, iPod wearing hipsters? Well, they have been dubbed the “Millennials”, and when it comes to their politics they know what they like, they are active in pursuing those interests through hard work fund raising, organizing and, yes – showing up to the polls on election day. And they like Obama, and when I say “like”, I really mean, “love” Obama:

“Born in the 1980s, Sand and the supporters chugging Bud that night are what generational theorists call “millennials.” (Full disclosure: I’m one, too. Further disclosure: I’m also a registered independent.) Now, a month after Iowa, my boss’s boss is well aware that millions of my peers have fallen under the spell of the freshman senator from Illinois. At this point, the statistics seem almost stale: with youth turnout doubling, tripling and even quadrupling in the 30 contests to date, Obama won the 18-to-29 demographic by 4-1 in Iowa, 3-1 in New Hampshire, 3-1 in South Carolina and 2-1 in Nevada, and he trounced Clinton, often by as much as 50 percent among young voters, in 10 of the 13 Super Tuesday states with available data.”

Before I continue, just as the other did above, I to want to offer full disclosure, seeing as though for better or worse I too am a “Millennial”, as well as an Obama supporter. With that out of the way let’s continue with our analysis of the ‘youth vote’ and what makes these proactive, politically competent group tick.

The second part of the equation involves more of a generational gap, opposed to political motivation. In their eye’s “Millennial’s” saw Clinton as a prototypical “baby boomer”, who was an amazing person, strong politician, and more the likable – it’s just that “baby boomer’s” think and act differently then “Millennials”. When they would hear her hammer Barack Obama on experience, instead of taking it the way she intended it to come across, they thought to themselves; “great, more from the same group that gave us eight years of Reagan, four years of Bush Sr., and eight painful years of his doltish son. If that’s ‘experience’ then you can have it all, we don’t want it.”

Now you can agree with this train of though, or not – but regardless of how you personally view this, it’s the reality of the world we are living in, well at least in terms of elections, campaigns and politics in general. This is another major factor in the generational divide. “Millennial’s” are sick and tired of the partisan bickering, and political mudslinging that has all but taken over our elected offices. They see that this gets nothing done, and furthermore, hurts everyone involved, not just this group, or that political party, but the vast majority of American’s in general:

“According to Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais, authors of “Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics,” millennials “aren’t confrontational or combative, the way Boomers (whose generational mantra was ‘Don’t trust anyone over 30′) have been.” Instead, millennials belong to what social scientist William Strauss calls a “civic generation,” drawn to issues of “community, politics and deeds, whereas the boomers focused on issues of self, culture and morals.” Reacting against the excesses of our parents especially their efforts to advance moral causes through partisan politics we prefer to address problems by reforming institutions from within.”

So where does that leave us, and specifically Barack Obama in terms of the upcoming general election in November – an election that is being universally recognized as the most important Presidential decision this country will make in a very, very long time.

If one was to look at even the most generalized findings in terms of what issues and rational are important to the “Millennial” voter (who have already proved that they show up on election day) it would be fairly easy to assume Barack Obama will receive not only the same support from the ‘youth vote’, but in fact a larger swell – seeing as though there were in fact a good number of 18-29 year olds who supported Hillary during the primary will most likely flip the switch for Obama in November:

“A majority of Millennials (57%) think that gay marriage should be legal; 58% think more needs to be done to help the environment, even if our economy would suffer to some degree; and a majority also think we need a universal health care system and more money spent on education, even if it would mean increasing taxes. With progressive views like that, it is no wonder Millennials have overwhelmingly supported the Democrats throughout their brief voting history.”

“What else makes Obama so appealing to young voters? Well, unlike our current president, Obama doesn’t cringe at the idea of diplomacy. In fact, he encourages it and has even said that he thinks we should engage in diplomacy with unfriendly nations such as Iran and Syria. His emphasis on peace and multilateralism is something that Millennials believe is a necessity for our national security. According to a November, 2004 Democracy Corps poll, 57% of 18-29 year olds believed that America’s security depends upon building strong ties with other nations, and even more interesting, according to an April 2005 GQR poll, 55% of 18-25 year olds said that the 9/11 attacks meant that America needs to be more connected with the world. Also, in a 2004 Pew survey, only 29% of 18-25 year olds agreed that using overwhelming force is the best way to defeat terrorism,” compared to 67% who thought relying too much on military force leads to hatred and more terrorism.”

Basically this is a clear signal that the days of George W. Bush’s “cowboy”, “my way or the highway” diplomacy (which McCain has clearly adopted as a general platform stance) are numbered. That time has passed, America tried it their way, and it failed – The deceitful, and undermining tact behind the neo-conservative policies of the Bush administration have subsequently sent our country down a path no American (well at least 80 plus percent of American’s) likes, and the Millennial Generation happens to be the group taking for a large part, the brunt end of the nightmarish Bush tenure. That is why they are the most outspoken against the GOP, the smear tactics they use, and the overall vibe they need to set in order to win elections.

Combine the anti neo-con sentiment described above, with the fact that in Iowa, youth were 22% of the electorate, outperforming their share of eligible voters and comprising a higher portion of the electorate than the so-called reliable seniors, and in New Hampshire, youth were 18% of the electorate – the second highest share for youth during the primary process, and 43% of all young voters turned out, far and away the highest level of actual turnout among 18 – 29 year olds – one would have to recognize the looming problem this political first of sorts poses the McCain Campaign.

However this tidal wave may be silent up until the moment of impact, mainly because I think – scratch that, I know, that the media and mainstream polling agencies won’t give the youth electorate any significant consideration. Which is really quite significant when you take into account that Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, Gallup, Pew, and NBC/WSJ obtain the majority of their weekly, bi-weekly, or daily polling data via the telephone. And seeing as though I can honestly say that I don’t know one person my age who has a land line phone, I am forced to believe that this sizable voting demographic will continue (much as it was throughout the primary process) to get passed over in the overall analysis, and actual numbers pertaining to the general election.

So,taking all of this information into account, I am willing to make a prediction. A prediction that the “Millennial” voters will have a surprising, and quite frankly, “never seen before”, sized impact on the upcoming presidential election, with – and again this is simply a prediction, not a guarantee – the majority of their support coming in the form of votes for the Democratic candidate, Senator Barack Obama.

Just watch, you’ll see.

Technorati Tags: 18-26, american youth vote, barack obama, Bestseller, Breaking news, campaign, college graduation, computer skills, democrat primaries, Democratic Primary, ELECTION, employment, entry level jobs, finding the right job, Future of politics, Generation Y, Harvard youth poll, Literture, Michael D. Hais, Millennial, Millennial Generation, MILLENNIALS, Morley Winograd, New Books, new generation, political landscape, POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, politics, technology in the workplace, VOTERS, workforce, Youth for Obama, Youth Vote, “Millennial Makeover”

By: Stephen Elias

From the beginning of time an individual’s age seemed to be the unavoidable clock that would ultimately decide when they pass from this world. But through our medical and technological advances physicians are armed with an array of new tools and diagnostic tests that can help pinpoint health concerns and aim to remedy the vast array of problems with our bodies.

In a study recently published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology medical professionals have concluded that the key to increased longevity lies within the heart, specifically the coronary arteries. Equipped with such knowledge the question remains; why does coronary artery disease remain the number one killer among both men and women in the United States.

What researchers have discovered is that blood supplied to the heart through such arteries can develop hardened plaque, better knows as atherosclerosis, which can lead to heart attacks. This coronary artery plaque is composed of calcium, and using computer tomography (CT) scans we now have the ability to measure the amount of plaque contained within the artery walls. Utilizing these scans, patients are then given a Coronary artery calcium score” which helps to quantify the health of the arteries, meaning the lower score the healthier the heart is.

The study conducted in Tennessee and California measured the scores of participants age 70 and older. After completion of the scan, each participant was given their individual score and studied over the next six years. As expected the younger the participant was the longer they lived, but the significant portion of the study yielded a much greater discovery; the coronary artery calcium score helped researchers predict who would die and who wouldn’t during the six years regardless of age and other medical issues.

With this knowledge it has been concluded that an older person with a lower calcium score may outlive a younger person with a higher calcium score. This breakthrough now aims to help physicians shift their focus from age to coronary artery calcium scores in helping to identify seniors at risk for heart issues. As always though, regardless of age, the key to having a healthy heart includes diet, exercise, lifestyle, and regular physician visits.

Technorati Tags: Atherosclerosis, breaking health news, breaking medical news, Calcium Score, Cardiology, Coronary Artery, Coronary Artery Calcium Score, Coronary Heart Disease, CT Scan, Diet, Exercise, Heart Health, Plaque

There has been a lot of talk lately regarding whether or not the U.S. should begin “offshore drilling” as a measure to ease the energy crunch we currently find ourselves knee-deep in. The plan, which would include drilling in and around various sections of the U.S. coastline is widely supported by the GOP, and as you would expect, opposed to by nearly every Democrat in both the House and Senate.

One Republican Senator who had previously broken from the heard, and publicly opposed “offshore drilling” was the current GOP Presidential nominee John McCain. However, in the same manner he has done on a litany of issues, Senator McCain has since flip flopped on this proposed measure, now saying that he unequivocally supports the coastline drilling.

Last Tuesday Sen. John proposed lifting the ban on offshore drilling as part of his plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil and help combat rising gas prices. In a prepared statement the Arizona Senator stated:

“The stakes are high for our citizens and for our economy,” McCain, the presumed Republican nominee for president, said at a press conference Tuesday in Houston, Texas.

“And with gasoline running at more than $4 a barrel … a gallon … I wish … $4 a gallon, many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians,” he said.

“We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use.”

Now this stance wouldn’t be out of the ordinary (seeing as though offshore drilling is a GOP adopted issue) if McCain hadn’t adamantly opposed any form of offshore drilling as recently as the 2000 Republican primary:

During his last run for the presidency, in 1999, McCain supported the drilling moratorium, and he scolded the special interests in Washington” that sought offshore drilling leases. Yesterday, he announced that those very same moratoria should be lifted” and proposed incentives for the states in the form of tangible financial rewards, if the states decide to lift those moratoriums.”

Ouch. But hey, “flip flops” only come into play when a Democrat is perceived too be the one reversing his or her stance, not when a Republican blatantly, with no substantive (or in this case: ANY) explanation into why the change of heart took place, or the underlying circumstances that factored into the decision.

However the McCain’s “flip flop” illness, which is becoming somewhat of a weekly routine for the Republican Presidential candidate, is a separate issue, one which we will divulge into on another day.

Back to the debate over “offshore drilling”, and the finite details which surround the idea, and subsequently, the arguments both for and against lifting the ban which currently blocks the harvesting of crude oil anywhere within the comfortable vicinity of U.S. coastline. I think we can all agree that the most important factor to both the lawmakers, and the regular American citizen is the economic relief, or the lack there of offshore drilling would offer.

Unfortunately for the GOP, this is the point where they begin to choke on their own bathwater. We won’t even get into the fact that the oil collected from the proposed offshore depositories wouldn’t physically be available in terms of consumer consumption for approximately 20-25 years, or the severe environmental hazard this practice poses. No, we are going to speak in terms “normal American’s” care about, more so then ever before right now, and that is the economic aspect.

I suspect that many will be taken aback at the figures behind the hoopla of offshore drilling. Numbers which are not opinion or speculation from a “liberal expert”, instead they are the cold, hard facts, a nuance the Republican party often has a hard time seeing eye to eye with:

“Well, here’s my quick back of the envelop calculation. According to the NYT, the Energy Information Agency estimates that the total amount of oil in the offshore zone in question is about 16 billion barrels. If we assume that it would take about ten years from the day of authorization to get to peak production and that most of the oil is pumped out over 30 years, this would translate into a bit over 1 million barrels of oil a day.

That would be equal to about 1 percent of world production in a decade. If we assume a long-run demand elasticity of 0.3, this would imply a drop in world prices of approximately 3 percent. In today’s prices, we would be looking at a drop in the price of a barrel of oil from around $135 to $131. If this were passed on one to one in gas prices (this is long-run story), we might expect to see a drop in the price of a gallon of gas from around $4.00 to around $3.92 a gallon.”

If I’m reading this right it appears that American consumers will enjoy a 8 cents a gallon drop in price roughly 10 years from whenever the drilling actually breaks ground,or in this case; the ocean floor.

This is why I take issue with the current Republican party. I mean this is one more instance where the results are clearly not the driving force behind their “solutions”, instead it is about “beating the Democrats,” and/or extending their already comfortable relationship with big oil. What else could it be? This isn’t a solution – a 8 cent drop, 10 years from now is actually far from anything resembling a solution. With that said, why are the Republican’s so adamant in pursuing a program of this nature.

I would love for someone, preferably an intelligent conservative, not a right wing blow hard, to explain how “offshore drilling” will help relieve the current energy crisis. However I simply don’t think it can be done – why? Simple, because there is NO GOOD EXPLANATION.

I am sure I will get emails that are your typical, run of the mill, profanity laced attacks aimed at me, my site, and the Democratic party in general, but that’s expected. That’s how the right works – hell, baseless attacks, ad hominem filled rants, and imaginary results won George W. Bush the 2004 election.

Technorati Tags: 10 years from now, breaking campaign news, breaking election news, Breaking news, Breaking political news, conservative economists against off shore drilling, McCain flip flop, McCain flip flop on offshore drilling, offshore drilling, offshore drilling would result in 8 cent drop in gas, Republican's against offshore drilling, the reality of offshore drilling, truth about offshore drilling, why offshore drilling doesn't solve anything

June 25 (Bloomberg) – Democrat Barack Obama has opened a 15-point lead in the presidential race, and most of the political trends – voter enthusiasm, views of President George W. Bush, the Republicans, the economy and the direction of the country – point to even greater trouble for rival John McCain.

Illinois Senator Obama, winning support from once skeptical women and Democrats, beats McCain 48% to 33% in a four-way race, a Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll shows. Independent candidates Bob Barr and Ralph Nader get 7% combined, with the remainder undecided.

Obama’s margin and most of the poll’s findings in other areas give the Democrats a commanding advantage more than four months before the November election, says Susan Pinkus, the Los Angeles Times polling director.

“The Obama voters are much more energized and motivated to come out to vote than the McCain voters; McCain is still struggling to win over some of his core groups,” she says. “The good news for Obama is also that he seems to be doing better on the issue that is uppermost in voters’ minds, and that is the economy.”

• Two-Way Race

The poll shows that the third-party candidacies of Barr and Nader, who political experts say likely will be on the ballot in most states, are hurting Arizona Senator McCain slightly more than Obama. In a two-way race, Obama’s lead over the presumptive Republican nominee narrows to 12 points.

Voters continue to view McCain, 71, as the more experienced candidate and trust him to fight the war on terror. Obama, 46, has the edge on most other matters, according to the poll of 1,115 registered voters, taken June 19 to 23. The survey has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Voters give Obama a 3-to-2 advantage on handling the economy and prefer his health-care and tax plans. They also say they believe he is the candidate who cares most about average Americans and is most likely to change Washington and build respect for the U.S. abroad.

McCain’s broader challenge is underscored by a depressed mood about the direction of the country, with just 13% of voters saying the nation is on the right track. Two summers ago, before the big Democratic wins in the midterm elections, that figure was 30%. In this week’s survey, more than half of all voters say McCain would continue Bush’s policies. Bush’s approval rating stands at 23%, near historic lows.

• Offshore Drilling

One bright spot for McCain, who recently abandoned his opposition to offshore drilling for oil and natural gas, is a high level of support for more drilling.

Obama is unifying the traditional Democratic base after the divisive Democratic nomination battle with New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Women, who were Clinton’s most loyal backers, now favor Obama by a 54% to 29% margin and Democrats give him more than 80% support. Obama also has a slight lead over McCain among male voters. White voters, who in the past have tended to favor Republicans, are split between the two candidates in the four-way race.

While Obama still faces a perception that he is naive and inexperienced, Democrats are much more excited about their candidate than Republicans. 81% of Obama supporters say they are enthusiastic about him, compared with 45% of McCain supporters who say the same about the Republican candidate.

• Independents

The poll shows that Obama needs to do more to sway independents, who may prove critical in November. McCain leads Obama 36% to 33% among independents in a four-way race. In a two-way competition, Obama loses to McCain by 8 points.

Young voters continue to be Obama’s most loyal support group, while older voters are the only group where McCain is competitive.

Almost half of all voters say the economy, more than any other issue, is the most important priority for the candidates to address in this election; and they prefer Obama by a 49 % to 28% margin to handle the issue.

That’s a reversal from a February Bloomberg/Times poll that showed McCain beating Obama by 8 points on the economy.

“I’m very concerned about the economy, I’m very concerned about health care and I’m very concerned about housing,” says Democratic poll respondent Adele Veronica Hamilton, a 68-year-old retired teacher from Live Oak, California. “McCain is simply a continuation of the Republican nonsense of Bush.”

• Changing Washington

Voters also give Obama a wide lead when it comes to which candidate cares more about people like them. He has an even bigger advantage over McCain on who will most change Washington.

Yet there was some positive news for McCain in the poll. More than half of all voters agree with McCain’s support for opening up more land for oil and gas drilling. 57% of voters say they believe drilling can be done safely and should be allowed in environmentally important areas with proper controls in place.

McCain also continues to dominate when it comes to the questions of who has the right experience to lead the nation and on national security. He is ahead of Obama by 17 points on who is best equipped to address the terrorist threat.

John Dambrosio, a 57-year-old physician from Westchester, New York, who supports McCain, says he watched the World Trade Center towers collapse on Sept. 11:

“from that moment on, we’ve been safe,” he says. “I don’t think the Democrats are hard-line enough.”

• Iraq War

On the war, McCain has for the first time lost his advantage, according to the poll, even though there are reports that the situation in Iraq is improving. Voters are split on who would better manage the conflict, with two-thirds saying the U.S. should withdraw immediately or within a year, and only about one- third saying troops should stay “as long as it takes,” the position adopted by McCain. In the February survey, McCain led Obama on Iraq by 13% points.

The poll shows McCain may have the most difficulty overcoming voters’ feelings toward the Republican Party.

Just 29 percent of voters say they have a positive view of the party, compared with 51% who say the same about the Democrats; just 24% of voters say they have a positive feeling about Bush. Their feelings about McCain are much more positive, at 47%; Obama had 59%.

On an optimistic note for both candidates, neither race nor age emerges as a significant factor.

• Obama’s Experience

The area where Obama must work to address voter concerns is experience. Almost half of all voters agreed with the statement that Obama is too naïve and inexperienced for the job of president. That includes 54 percent of independents. An even higher number of voters, 56 percent, say they consider Obama at least somewhat liberal.

At the same time, McCain is struggling with traditional Republican base voters. 51% of those who identify themselves as members of the religious right say they aren’t enthusiastic about voting for McCain. That could hurt him in the South, the only region where McCain has a bare lead over Obama.

Democrats appear lukewarm about the prospect of Hillary Clinton as Obama’s running mate, with 36% saying that would be a good idea, though her overall positive rating is 49%. Surprisingly, former President Bill Clinton, whose approval ratings dropped after he was criticized for his comments during the primary, does slightly better, with 52% of voters saying they have a positive feeling toward him.

Technorati Tags: barack obama, Bloomberg poll, Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll, Bob Barr, brand new polls, breaking campaign news, breaking election news, Breaking news, Breaking political news, breaking polling news, changing washington, Independents, Iraq war, john mccain, latest polls Obama leads, Latest Presidential Polls, McCain behind in latest polls, mccains age, new poll numbers, new polling data, Obama leading by 15 points, Obama leading in latest presidential polls, Obama leads by 15, Obama leads in new polls, Obama up by 15, Obama's experience, offshore drilling, polling data, Ralph Nader, swing state polls, Two-way race

Earlier this morning I stumbled across a fascinating article that discussed the political “blog-o-sphere” (I hate that word, mainly b/c many of the sites aren’t even ‘blogs’) and where they fell in terms of the ideological scale ranging from “very liberal”, all the way to the far right, “very conservative.” The results were somewhat surprising, mainly because they manages to debunk an argument often heard from those on the right that claims; “internet politics is dominated by liberals“. That argument, is simply not true (surprise, surprise a conservative argument proven completely wrong), the result is a tight, “pretty” map that shows a decided red/blue (conservative/liberal) split in the US political blogosphere.

The PresidentialWatch08 map is composed of the 297 most visible and influential websites and blogs - out of a complete dataset of over 2000 sites – which were put together thanks to Linkfluence’s technology, and their data collection abilities.

Ethan Zuckerman, of the popular ethanzuckerman.com, has written an extensive article regarding this latest report on the “political blogosphere” and the ideologies associated with the structures websites. He talks poignantly about the methods used in formulating the graph, an analysis of the findings, and provides an in depth explanation into how influential political web sites are on both the mainstream media, as well as the political process itself:

“The idea here is to look at linking between political blogs in only a political context, discarding other links that are outside of context. The result is a tight, pretty map that shows a decided red/blue (conservative/liberal) split in the US political blogosphere, plus a small set of common sources used by both sides.

Matthew Hurst, who runs the Data Mining blog and is a researcher with Microsoft Live Labs is the king of these sorts of visualizations. Hurst points out that, with a bit of creativity, one can extract a great deal of data from blogs. You can often figure out the geographic location and the gender of the poster, and you can nearly always retrieve the complete (public) posting history of the author.

Hurst graphs virtual communities as well. One gorgeous visualization, not shown here, clusters blogs based on their location on servers. Livejournal blogs tend to cluster closely together, while Blogspot blogs are evenly spread throughout the linksphere.

What can you do with these sorts of tools and the ability to look at citizen media in realtime? Well, you can watch ideas emerge, based on tools that track words. Matt offers a graph of bloggers talking about Obama versus those talking about Clinton – the lines crossed in February, allowing him to predict Obama’s rise several weeks before it became a dominant narrative in mainstream media. What’s rising now? Conversations about oil appear to be dominating all political discussions.”

This really is something, and it appears as though the “micro-tracking” involved is fascinating, in terms of how they can break down the stats in a way which allows them to know everything about the person, or the people on the sites, and discussing whatever the “hot topic” (which they also track) is that day.

I urge you too check out the actual “interactive” map, which allows you to explore the online political universe with a simple point, and click of the mouse. Check the study, as well as the map HERE.

So in closing I guess we can wrap it up by saying that as politics on the internet continues to expand, both in size, and overall influence, we are seeing that both sides of the ideological spectrum are being fairly represented – a notion that up until the release of this study, the right would have argued until they were blue in the face.

Technorati Tags: 2008 presidential election, barack obama, breaking campaign news, breaking election news, Breaking news, Breaking political news, breaking technological news, ethan zuckerman, ethanzuckerman.com, http://presidentialwatch08.com, interactive graph, internet dominated by democrats, john mccain, liberal blogs dominate online, Linkfluence, Linkfluence.com, Linkfluence.net, political blogosphere map, political website, Politics on the internet, presidentialwatch08, republican explains left wings online dominance, US political blogosphere, why the left dominates online