Vitoria! O Canada tem a honra de receber ...
MARCELO CAMPERO
JUBA E DEA
RO E FÊ
JURIJ E CAMILA
Mostrando postagens com marcador Article of the Day. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Article of the Day. Mostrar todas as postagens
sábado, 1 de novembro de 2008
Air Cars
Air Cars: A New Wind for America's Roads?
by Jim Ostroff
Thursday, October 30, 2008
provided by
Courtesy of MDI
A new carmaker has a plan for cheap, environmentally friendly cars to be built all over the country
An air-powered car? It may be available sooner than you think at a price tag that will hardly be a budget buster. The vehicle may not run like a speed racer on back road highways, but developer Zero Pollution Motors is betting consumers will be willing to fork over $20,000 for a vehicle that can motor around all day on nothing but air and a splash of salad oil, alcohol or possibly a pint of gasoline.
More from Kiplinger.com:
• Does It Pay to Buy That Hybrid?
• What You Need to Know About Leasing a Car Now
• Easy Ways to Save Money on Transportation
The expertise needed to build a compressed air car, or CAV, is not rocket science, either. Years-old, off-the-shelf technology uses compressed air to drive old-fashioned car engine pistons instead of combusting gas or diesel fuel to create a burst of air to do the same thing. Indian carmaker Tata has no qualms about the technology. It has already bought the rights to make the car for the huge Indian market.
The air car can tool along at a top speed of 35 mph for some 60 miles or so on a tank of compressed air, a sufficient distance for 80% of consumers to commute to work and back and complete daily chores.
Courtesy of MDI
On highways, the CAV can cruise at interstate speeds for nearly 800 miles with a small motor that compresses outside air to keep the tank filled. The motor isn't finicky about fuel. It will burn gasoline or diesel as well as biodiesel, ethanol or vegetable oil.
This car leaves the highest-mpg vehicles you can buy right now in the dust. Even if it used only regular gasoline, the air car would average 106 mpg, more than double today's fuel sipping champ, the Toyota Prius. The air tank also can be refilled when it's not in use by being plugged into a wall socket and recharged with electricity as the motor compresses air.
Automakers aren't quite ready yet to gear up huge assembly line operations churning out air cars or set up glitzy dealer showrooms where you can ooh and aah over the color or style. But the vehicles will be built in factories that will make up to 8,000 vehicles a year, likely starting in 2011, and be sold directly to consumers.
There will be plants in nearly every state, based on the number of drivers in the state. California will have as many as 17 air car manufacturing plants, and there'll be around 12 in Florida, eight in New York, four in Georgia, while two in Connecticut will serve that state and Rhode Island.
More from Yahoo! Finance:
• 5 Ways to Save on Child-Care Costs
• Europe Returning to Land of In-Reach
• Get 'Em Before They're Gone Gifts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the Family & Home Center
The technology goes back decades, but is coming together courtesy of two converging forces. First, new laws are likely to be enacted in a few years that will limit carbon dioxide emissions and force automakers to develop ultra-high mileage cars and those that emit minuscule amounts of or no gases linked with global warming. Plug-in electric hybrids will slash these emissions, but they'll be pricey at around $40,000 each and require some changes in infrastructure -- such as widespread recharge stations -- to be practical. Fuel cells that burn hydrogen to produce only water vapor still face daunting technical challenges.
Second, the relatively high cost of gas has expedited the air car's development. Yes, pump prices have plunged since July from record levels, but remain way higher than just a few years ago and continue to take a bite out of disposable income. Refiners will face carbon emission restraints, too, and steeply higher costs will be passed along at the pump.
Tata doesn't plan to produce the cars in the U.S. Instead, it plans to charge $15 million for the rights to the technology, a fully built turnkey auto assembly plant, tools, machinery, training and rights to use trademarks.
The CAV has a big hurdle: proving it can pass federal crash tests. Shiva Vencat, president and CEO of Zero Pollution Motors, says he's not worried. "The requirements can be modeled [on a computer] before anything is built and adjusted to ensure that the cars will pass" the crash tests. Vencat also is a vice president of MDI Inc., a French company that developed the air car.
The inventor of this technology is Mr. Guy Negre, who is the founder and CEO of MDI SA, a company headquartered in Luxembourg with its R and D in Nice, France.
Copyrighted, Kiplinger Washington Editors, Inc.
quinta-feira, 30 de outubro de 2008
Who’s Behind the Economic Collapse?
Who’s Behind the Economic Collapse?
By Cliff Kincaid
Don’t voters have the right to know whether these illegal activities were being conducted for political purposes?
Joe Biden made headlines by talking about a “generated crisis” for a President Obama. But is the current financial meltdown another “generated crisis?” Considering the problems in the economy, including too much federal debt, too much spending and easy credit, which have been with us for years, why did this crisis suddenly occur only six weeks before the election?
And is it just a coincidence that it occurred at a time when John McCain was leading in the national public opinion polls and appeared to be on his way to a November 4 election victory?
The crisis was man-made. It is a fact that President Bush’s Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who worked for a Democratic firm, Goldman Sachs, and has very close ties to Communist China, is the one who convinced Bush to demand hundreds of billions of bailout dollars from Congress.
This is when McCain began falling in the polls. That’s apparently because McCain, like Bush, is a Republican, and he has been blamed by Obama and the Democrats for the Republican policies that are said to have produced this crisis. This charge is debatable, but it has proven to be effective, with the cooperation of the major media.
Part of the problem, of course, was of McCain’s own making. He voted for the $700-billion plan after flirting with the House conservatives opposing it. This was a major error on his part. He missed a critical opportunity to take on the incumbent President of his own party, Obama, the Democrats, and Wall Street interests.
The timing was important. If you examine the polling trend (see page two of this PDF document from Karl Rove & Company), one can see that McCain was moving ahead of Obama by mid-September. One poll, the Rasmussen poll, had McCain over Obama every day from September 12-17. McCain evened up the race again on September 23, after Obama had taken a lead, but it has been Obama ever since.
Clearly, the controversy over the legislative “bailout” or “rescue” for Wall Street, which emerged in a big way on September 18, changed the dynamics of the presidential race. It has hugely benefited Obama by making the economy take precedence over Obama’s controversial associates, pro-socialist views, or lack of a background and security check.
The growing suspicion that the financial meltdown is a “generated crisis” has been fed by statements from President Bush himself that illegal financial activities were taking place. On September 18, when he made a public statement about the growing economic problems, Bush announced that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was stepping up its enforcement actions “against illegal market manipulation.”
By whom or what? The President didn’t say.
The next day, September 19, Bush appeared in the Rose Garden with Paulson, SEC chairman Christopher Cox, and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke. Bush declared, “The SEC is also requiring certain investors to disclose their short selling, and has launched rigorous enforcement actions to detect fraud and manipulation in the market. Anyone engaging in illegal financial transactions will be caught and persecuted [sic].” Again, what was Bush talking about?
For its part, on the same day, the SEC announced “a sweeping expansion of its ongoing investigation into possible market manipulation in the securities of certain financial institutions.” The SEC declared, “Hedge fund managers, broker-dealers, and institutional investors with significant trading activity in financial issuers or positions in credit default swaps will be required, under oath, to disclose those positions to the Commission and provide certain other information.”
But no details were provided. Don’t voters have the right to know whether these illegal activities were being conducted for political purposes?
Almost as secretive were Treasury Secretary Paulson’s maneuvers. He produced a quick three-page proposal to make himself a virtual financial dictator without judicial oversight or review. Then just as quickly it was secretly altered so that he would have the authority to bail out banks in China and other foreign countries.
For those interested in some of the fascinating details about Paulson’s extremely close relationship with China, which may have provoked the financial crisis and stands to benefit from it, the October issue of Bloomberg Markets is a good place to start. It notes that Paulson was sworn in as secretary in July 2006 and that by September he was announcing “creation of the first U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue.” Paulson, the magazine reports, has a relationship with Chinese leaders and has traveled to China at least 70 times in his career. It reports that he personally had $25 million worth of holdings in a Goldman Sachs fund whose sole asset was a stake in the Industrial & Commercial Bank of China.
Goldman Sachs, a “full-service global investment banking and securities firm,” is “the leading underwriter of Chinese equity securities and M&A [merger and acquisition] advisor in China,” its website declares.
“Managing the U.S. relationship with China is an increasingly important part of the Treasury secretary’s job,” Bloomberg Markets says. “During the Fannie and Freddie crisis, Paulson used his credibility with Chinese leaders to reassure them that the U.S. mortgage companies weren’t in jeopardy.” Paulson is quoted as saying that “I clearly talked with the Chinese through this. They’ve worked with me enough that they knew I wouldn’t say it unless I believed it.”
Why was this necessary? Chinese institutions own more than $30 billion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paper, the magazine reports.
On September 7, of course, the U.S. Government, under Paulson’s direction, took control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, putting the U.S. taxpayers on the hook for $5 trillion of mortgages. But Paulson’s statement made no mention of the Chinese investments. Instead, he talked about protecting financial markets and U.S. taxpayers.
About a week and a half later the demands came for more taxpayer money for Wall Street, and the national economic crisis was well underway.
Rep. Scott Garrett, Republican of New Jersey, is leading the Congressional effort to find out how Paulson’s proposal was developed and by whom. He wants to know what went on behind “closed conference room doors” in the U.S. Government.
Equally significant, on September 23, Paulson’s former firm, Goldman-Sachs, received an infusion of $5 billion from Warren Buffett, a major Obama financial backer and booster.
The former Goldman Sachs CEO “does not act or sound much like a conservative Republican to the GOP remnant at the Treasury,” noted Robert Novak in an October 2007 column. Novak reported that Paulson had “marched to his own drummer” by naming Eric Mindich, chairman of Eton Park Capital Management, to head the Asset Managers’ Committee of the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets. “A former Goldman Sachs colleague of Paulson’s, Mindich is a top-level Democratic fundraiser,” Novak noted. “He was in Sen. John Kerry’s inner circle for the 2004 presidential campaign and backs Sen. Barack Obama for 2008.”
Then, during the current crisis, Paulson appointed another former Goldman Sachs banker, Neel Kashkari, to run the new “Office of Financial Stability” and buy bad loans and distressed securities.
Information from the Center for Responsive Politics identifies Goldman Sachs as a “strongly Democratic” firm, having contributed 73 percent of their almost $5 million in 2008 election cycle contributions to Democrats.
Some liberals understand the connection between Goldman Sachs and Obama. “Obama’s number one bundler is Goldman Sachs,” notes John R. MacArthur, publisher of Harper’s Magazine, in a release from the “progressive” group calling itself the Institute for Public Accuracy. He was referring to how money from the firm is packaged for the Obama campaign.
“In his book, ‘The Audacity of Hope,’ Obama talks about how much he likes investment bankers, how bright and liberal they are,” says MacArthur. He believes that Obama is a “socialist” only in the sense that he, like Bush and McCain, supports socialism for the rich through the Wall Street bailout.
Socialist or not, Obama is clearly the firm’s favorite in the presidential race.
Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Tribune recently discovered that, on May 3, 2007, Obama had attended an event at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan “that was not on his public schedule and is only now surfacing―a private dinner for Goldman Sachs traders with a discussion on issues moderated for the Wall Street firm by NBC’s Tom Brokaw”―the moderator of the second presidential debate.
Her column notes other Obama campaign connections to Goldman Sachs and mentions that Bloomberg had reported that Obama addressed the Goldman’s annual partners meeting 2006 in Chicago.
It is not known, of course, what kind of illegal financial activities may have contributed to the current crisis. But based on what has been publicly said by the President and the SEC, the culprits could possibly include operators of the controversial, mysterious and secretive financial vehicles known as hedge funds.
A hedge fund operator such as George Soros, who was convicted of insider trading in France, is known to make money from the collapse of national economies and currencies. Labeled “The Man who broke the Bank of England” because of his financial activities against the British currency, he is said to be on a witness list of hedge fund operators that will be called to testify before Congress next month―probably after the election.
One wonders if the Democrats controlling Congress will want to investigate or even aggressively question the multi-billionaire. It is significant, as I noted in a January column, that Soros pours millions of dollars into the Democratic Party, its front groups and candidates. But his agenda goes far beyond making himself rich. He provides funding for causes ranging from marijuana legalization to rights for immigrants, criminals, and prostitutes.
The same column I wrote noted that the Wall Street Journal in January had reported that hedge fund operator John Paulson received a visit from Soros, who is also a public supporter of and contributor to the Obama campaign, after Paulson had made about $4 billion betting on a housing market collapse. Soros wanted to know how he had done it. But Soros wouldn’t talk to the Journal about his meeting with Paulson. Why?
Soros gets away with a “no-comment” because he pours money into journalism organizations, including the Center for Investigative Reporting, the Fund for Investigative Journalism, and Investigative Reporters & Editors, thereby guaranteeing that they won’t investigate how and where he gets his money. Isn’t this convenient?
A recent example of this conflict of interest came in Bill Moyers’ October 10 interview of Soros on the Public Broadcasting Service. Moyers lavished Soros with praise, saying that he is “one of the world’s best known and successful investors, making billions in times of boom or bust.” Moyers also mentioned Soros’s new book, The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crisis of 2008 and What It Means.
Moyers said that, in the interest of “full disclosure,” he should reveal that that he, Moyers, had served on the board of Soros’s Open Society Institute. Moyers laughingly insisted that was a non-political position on his part.
Not once did Moyers question Soros about his reported discussions with John Paulson. Not once did he question whether Soros’s financial activities had facilitated or precipitated the current financial crisis that he writes about in his book.
Soros insists that one contributing factor to the crisis was the lack of financial regulation. But he takes advantage of the lack of those regulations. Indeed, as I reported back in 2005, one Soros company was a member of the Managed Funds Association, which describes itself as “the global voice for the hedge fund industry” and was actively fighting an SEC proposal to impose more regulation on hedge-fund managers.
The ranking of top hedge fund earners for 2007 shows John Paulson of Paulson & Co. at $3.7 billion and George Soros of Soros Fund Management at $2.9 billion.
Is there anybody in the media willing to question Soros about how he made that money? And whether it came at the expense of the American people?
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at cliff.kincaid@aim.org
By Cliff Kincaid
Don’t voters have the right to know whether these illegal activities were being conducted for political purposes?
Joe Biden made headlines by talking about a “generated crisis” for a President Obama. But is the current financial meltdown another “generated crisis?” Considering the problems in the economy, including too much federal debt, too much spending and easy credit, which have been with us for years, why did this crisis suddenly occur only six weeks before the election?
And is it just a coincidence that it occurred at a time when John McCain was leading in the national public opinion polls and appeared to be on his way to a November 4 election victory?
The crisis was man-made. It is a fact that President Bush’s Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who worked for a Democratic firm, Goldman Sachs, and has very close ties to Communist China, is the one who convinced Bush to demand hundreds of billions of bailout dollars from Congress.
This is when McCain began falling in the polls. That’s apparently because McCain, like Bush, is a Republican, and he has been blamed by Obama and the Democrats for the Republican policies that are said to have produced this crisis. This charge is debatable, but it has proven to be effective, with the cooperation of the major media.
Part of the problem, of course, was of McCain’s own making. He voted for the $700-billion plan after flirting with the House conservatives opposing it. This was a major error on his part. He missed a critical opportunity to take on the incumbent President of his own party, Obama, the Democrats, and Wall Street interests.
The timing was important. If you examine the polling trend (see page two of this PDF document from Karl Rove & Company), one can see that McCain was moving ahead of Obama by mid-September. One poll, the Rasmussen poll, had McCain over Obama every day from September 12-17. McCain evened up the race again on September 23, after Obama had taken a lead, but it has been Obama ever since.
Clearly, the controversy over the legislative “bailout” or “rescue” for Wall Street, which emerged in a big way on September 18, changed the dynamics of the presidential race. It has hugely benefited Obama by making the economy take precedence over Obama’s controversial associates, pro-socialist views, or lack of a background and security check.
The growing suspicion that the financial meltdown is a “generated crisis” has been fed by statements from President Bush himself that illegal financial activities were taking place. On September 18, when he made a public statement about the growing economic problems, Bush announced that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was stepping up its enforcement actions “against illegal market manipulation.”
By whom or what? The President didn’t say.
The next day, September 19, Bush appeared in the Rose Garden with Paulson, SEC chairman Christopher Cox, and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke. Bush declared, “The SEC is also requiring certain investors to disclose their short selling, and has launched rigorous enforcement actions to detect fraud and manipulation in the market. Anyone engaging in illegal financial transactions will be caught and persecuted [sic].” Again, what was Bush talking about?
For its part, on the same day, the SEC announced “a sweeping expansion of its ongoing investigation into possible market manipulation in the securities of certain financial institutions.” The SEC declared, “Hedge fund managers, broker-dealers, and institutional investors with significant trading activity in financial issuers or positions in credit default swaps will be required, under oath, to disclose those positions to the Commission and provide certain other information.”
But no details were provided. Don’t voters have the right to know whether these illegal activities were being conducted for political purposes?
Almost as secretive were Treasury Secretary Paulson’s maneuvers. He produced a quick three-page proposal to make himself a virtual financial dictator without judicial oversight or review. Then just as quickly it was secretly altered so that he would have the authority to bail out banks in China and other foreign countries.
For those interested in some of the fascinating details about Paulson’s extremely close relationship with China, which may have provoked the financial crisis and stands to benefit from it, the October issue of Bloomberg Markets is a good place to start. It notes that Paulson was sworn in as secretary in July 2006 and that by September he was announcing “creation of the first U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue.” Paulson, the magazine reports, has a relationship with Chinese leaders and has traveled to China at least 70 times in his career. It reports that he personally had $25 million worth of holdings in a Goldman Sachs fund whose sole asset was a stake in the Industrial & Commercial Bank of China.
Goldman Sachs, a “full-service global investment banking and securities firm,” is “the leading underwriter of Chinese equity securities and M&A [merger and acquisition] advisor in China,” its website declares.
“Managing the U.S. relationship with China is an increasingly important part of the Treasury secretary’s job,” Bloomberg Markets says. “During the Fannie and Freddie crisis, Paulson used his credibility with Chinese leaders to reassure them that the U.S. mortgage companies weren’t in jeopardy.” Paulson is quoted as saying that “I clearly talked with the Chinese through this. They’ve worked with me enough that they knew I wouldn’t say it unless I believed it.”
Why was this necessary? Chinese institutions own more than $30 billion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paper, the magazine reports.
On September 7, of course, the U.S. Government, under Paulson’s direction, took control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, putting the U.S. taxpayers on the hook for $5 trillion of mortgages. But Paulson’s statement made no mention of the Chinese investments. Instead, he talked about protecting financial markets and U.S. taxpayers.
About a week and a half later the demands came for more taxpayer money for Wall Street, and the national economic crisis was well underway.
Rep. Scott Garrett, Republican of New Jersey, is leading the Congressional effort to find out how Paulson’s proposal was developed and by whom. He wants to know what went on behind “closed conference room doors” in the U.S. Government.
Equally significant, on September 23, Paulson’s former firm, Goldman-Sachs, received an infusion of $5 billion from Warren Buffett, a major Obama financial backer and booster.
The former Goldman Sachs CEO “does not act or sound much like a conservative Republican to the GOP remnant at the Treasury,” noted Robert Novak in an October 2007 column. Novak reported that Paulson had “marched to his own drummer” by naming Eric Mindich, chairman of Eton Park Capital Management, to head the Asset Managers’ Committee of the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets. “A former Goldman Sachs colleague of Paulson’s, Mindich is a top-level Democratic fundraiser,” Novak noted. “He was in Sen. John Kerry’s inner circle for the 2004 presidential campaign and backs Sen. Barack Obama for 2008.”
Then, during the current crisis, Paulson appointed another former Goldman Sachs banker, Neel Kashkari, to run the new “Office of Financial Stability” and buy bad loans and distressed securities.
Information from the Center for Responsive Politics identifies Goldman Sachs as a “strongly Democratic” firm, having contributed 73 percent of their almost $5 million in 2008 election cycle contributions to Democrats.
Some liberals understand the connection between Goldman Sachs and Obama. “Obama’s number one bundler is Goldman Sachs,” notes John R. MacArthur, publisher of Harper’s Magazine, in a release from the “progressive” group calling itself the Institute for Public Accuracy. He was referring to how money from the firm is packaged for the Obama campaign.
“In his book, ‘The Audacity of Hope,’ Obama talks about how much he likes investment bankers, how bright and liberal they are,” says MacArthur. He believes that Obama is a “socialist” only in the sense that he, like Bush and McCain, supports socialism for the rich through the Wall Street bailout.
Socialist or not, Obama is clearly the firm’s favorite in the presidential race.
Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Tribune recently discovered that, on May 3, 2007, Obama had attended an event at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan “that was not on his public schedule and is only now surfacing―a private dinner for Goldman Sachs traders with a discussion on issues moderated for the Wall Street firm by NBC’s Tom Brokaw”―the moderator of the second presidential debate.
Her column notes other Obama campaign connections to Goldman Sachs and mentions that Bloomberg had reported that Obama addressed the Goldman’s annual partners meeting 2006 in Chicago.
It is not known, of course, what kind of illegal financial activities may have contributed to the current crisis. But based on what has been publicly said by the President and the SEC, the culprits could possibly include operators of the controversial, mysterious and secretive financial vehicles known as hedge funds.
A hedge fund operator such as George Soros, who was convicted of insider trading in France, is known to make money from the collapse of national economies and currencies. Labeled “The Man who broke the Bank of England” because of his financial activities against the British currency, he is said to be on a witness list of hedge fund operators that will be called to testify before Congress next month―probably after the election.
One wonders if the Democrats controlling Congress will want to investigate or even aggressively question the multi-billionaire. It is significant, as I noted in a January column, that Soros pours millions of dollars into the Democratic Party, its front groups and candidates. But his agenda goes far beyond making himself rich. He provides funding for causes ranging from marijuana legalization to rights for immigrants, criminals, and prostitutes.
The same column I wrote noted that the Wall Street Journal in January had reported that hedge fund operator John Paulson received a visit from Soros, who is also a public supporter of and contributor to the Obama campaign, after Paulson had made about $4 billion betting on a housing market collapse. Soros wanted to know how he had done it. But Soros wouldn’t talk to the Journal about his meeting with Paulson. Why?
Soros gets away with a “no-comment” because he pours money into journalism organizations, including the Center for Investigative Reporting, the Fund for Investigative Journalism, and Investigative Reporters & Editors, thereby guaranteeing that they won’t investigate how and where he gets his money. Isn’t this convenient?
A recent example of this conflict of interest came in Bill Moyers’ October 10 interview of Soros on the Public Broadcasting Service. Moyers lavished Soros with praise, saying that he is “one of the world’s best known and successful investors, making billions in times of boom or bust.” Moyers also mentioned Soros’s new book, The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crisis of 2008 and What It Means.
Moyers said that, in the interest of “full disclosure,” he should reveal that that he, Moyers, had served on the board of Soros’s Open Society Institute. Moyers laughingly insisted that was a non-political position on his part.
Not once did Moyers question Soros about his reported discussions with John Paulson. Not once did he question whether Soros’s financial activities had facilitated or precipitated the current financial crisis that he writes about in his book.
Soros insists that one contributing factor to the crisis was the lack of financial regulation. But he takes advantage of the lack of those regulations. Indeed, as I reported back in 2005, one Soros company was a member of the Managed Funds Association, which describes itself as “the global voice for the hedge fund industry” and was actively fighting an SEC proposal to impose more regulation on hedge-fund managers.
The ranking of top hedge fund earners for 2007 shows John Paulson of Paulson & Co. at $3.7 billion and George Soros of Soros Fund Management at $2.9 billion.
Is there anybody in the media willing to question Soros about how he made that money? And whether it came at the expense of the American people?
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at cliff.kincaid@aim.org
segunda-feira, 27 de outubro de 2008
10 Home Upgrades That Pay Off
These around-the-house improvements are well worth the investment
By Allegra Muzzillo, RealSimple.com
Photo: Getty Images
No sugar coating here: The housing market is in trouble. But some experts say that it will start turning around as early as 2010. So while you're waiting for it to recover, you might want to reconsider putting off that kitchen redo or landscaping job. "Any changes you make on your house now should increase your home value later," says Kermit Baker, project director for the Remodeling Futures program at Harvard University. But which projects will yield the most bang for your buck? Take a look at this list, starting with the upgrades most likely to recoup your investment, and then enjoy that gleaming new kitchen.
1. Painting
Why It Pays Off: Paint provides dramatic results with little investment. If you decide to hire a professional to do the work, expect to pay $3,600 to $6,000 for the interior of an average American house (about 2,400 square feet). An exterior paint job will run $5,000 or more. Can't decide on a color? Gerri Willis, the anchor of Open House on CNN and the author of "Home Rich," says that pale yellow homes tend to sell faster and for more money. Barbara Richardson, the director of color marketing for Glidden and a noted color-trend forecaster, explains, "Yellow is optimistic and inspirational. It gives people joy and the sense that brighter times are ahead."
More from RealSimple.com
When to Do it Yourself and When to Hire a Pro
Surprise Storage Solutions
How to Organize Bills
2. Adding Siding
Why It Pays Off: According to the 2007 Cost vs. Value Report, a study conducted by Remodeling magazine, fiber-cement siding (which is made of sand, cement, and cellulose fibers and costs an average of $13,200) is estimated to recoup about 88 percent (or $11,635) of a home owner's initial investment. While vinyl can crack, split, and warp and aluminum tends to dent and fade, easy-care fiber cement holds up well against the elements and is resistant to fire, rotting, and termites.
3. Building a Deck
Why It Pays Off: A deck will provide you with more than a place to flip burgers and soak up the sun. "Buyers see a deck as offering a seamless transition from inside to out," says Jerry Levine, president of the Levine Group, an architectural and construction firm in Silver Spring, Md. Experts suggest using natural, rustic wood. In 2007 wooden decks (as opposed to concrete or composite ones) reaped an impressive return on investment: Home owners who spent an average of $10,350 on lumber and labor could expect to recoup $8,840, or 85 percent of their costs.
4. Updating the Kitchen
Why It Pays Off: You really can't go wrong with remodeling your kitchen, which can net up to 83 percent of the cost. "People know that renovating can be a nightmare, and potential buyers will appreciate that you did the dirty work for them," says Vern Yip, a designer and the host of HGTV's Deserving Design. "But stick with high-quality fixtures, like stainless-steel appliances and granite counters, and don't pair them with a cheaper material, like laminate." A word of caution: If your house is a tiny two-bedroom bungalow, don't bother splurging on, say, a high-end stove. "You'll never get your money back by installing fancy appliances in a smaller home," says Leslie Sellers, vice president of the Appraisal Institute, an association of real estate-appraisal professionals in Chicago. And if an appliance overhaul isn't in the cards, "you can easily make cosmetic updates on a kitchen that's in decent shape," says Steven D. Bullock, a designer in New York City and a certified member of the National Kitchen & Bath Association, in Hackettstown, N.J. For example, if your existing appliances are in good working order, coat them with electrostatic paint to give them a metallic or enamel-type finish. And you don't have to rip out your cabinets, either.
5. Replacing the Windows
Why It Pays Off: If you're experiencing cool and blustery weather ... in your living room, it's time to buy new panes, pronto. Not only are you losing precious heat but your utility bill could also be skyrocketing. "Energy-efficient windows eliminate drafts, so your home feels warmer," says Sellers. Last year home owners who spent $11,400 on 10 3-by-5-foot insulated vinyl or aluminum-clad windows got an 81 percent ($9,240) return.
6. Modifying a Bathroom
Why It Pays Off: Bathroom upgrades, like updated countertops and new fixtures, provide solid returns — anywhere from 68 to 78 percent. But "avoid anything too trendy," says designer Vern Yip. "Choose classic features, like off-white subway tiles, that will appeal to people with both traditional and contemporary tastes." There's no need to splurge on fancy fixtures, either. "A tub is a tub. A Jacuzzi will never make or break a sale," says designer Steven D. Bullock. For quick touch-ups on existing sinks, toilets, and tubs, consider hiring Miracle Method, a surface-restoration company that recoats ceramic, porcelain, and fiberglass fixtures with a chemical bonding agent that looks like shiny new porcelain. (Cost: $465 to $600 for a tub.)
7. Landscaping
Why It Pays Off: The front of your house is the first thing people see, so it makes sense that any improvements — from planting petunias to surrounding your home with a hedge — will be worth your while. "Don't be afraid to spend money on perennials, which come back year after year," says Yip. As for big-ticket investments, like trees, they aren't just nice to look at; they also stave off erosion, block storm-water runoff, reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and filter groundwater pollutants. They might make your home sell for more money, too. The Arbor Day Foundation estimates a 6- to 8-foot Colorado blue spruce or live oak (both are commonly found all around the United States) may grow one to two feet a year. And properties with gorgeous, established trees are even more attractive to potential home buyers down the road. When determining which areas of your yard to attend to first, try approaching the house from the curb to the front door. "Buyers make their decisions in exactly eight seconds," says Barbara Corcoran, founder of the Corcoran Group, a Manhattan real estate firm. "After that, they've either fallen in love or are just honoring an appointment."
8. Installing Central Air-Conditioning
Why It Pays Off: Adding central air to an average 2,400-square-foot house could cost upward of $10,000 and boost your home's value by 10 to 20 percent, says appraiser Leslie Sellers. And central air-conditioning is energy-efficient too. Centralized units have an average energy-efficiency rating (EER) of 11.5, compared with an 8.5 EER in single-window models, making them less expensive to run. What's more, central air won't block the view the way a window unit does.
9. Fixing up the Basement
Why It Pays Off: "There's nothing worse than that unmistakable damp-basement smell," says Corcoran. "A dry basement is far more important than worrying about the right lighting or furnishings." If your basement is prone to flooding, leaks, or excess moisture, call in a pro. If you do want to finish your basement by adding drywall, insulation, laminate flooring, or even a bathroom, "be sure it's proportional in quality to other areas of your home," says Lonny Rutherford, a chairman of the National Association of Home Builders Remodelers, in Washington, D.C. According to Sellers, "basement remodels gain back anywhere from 50 to 100 percent, depending on the quality of the materials."
10. Putting in a Swimming Pool
Why It Pays Off: When you're deciding whether to install a pool, it's important to consider the part of the country where you live. In places where it can get unforgivingly hot, such as Arizona and Florida, an inground pool may boost a home's value by up to 8 percent, according to a 2003 study by the National Association of Realtors. In more temperate areas, however, a pool can be a big turnoff, as prospective buyers imagine all the work they'll have to do to maintain it, not to mention safety issues and higher insurance rates. But if you plan to enjoy a pool for a few years and it improves your quality of life, "then go for it," says Tom Kraeutler, a cohost of The Money Pit, a home-improvement radio show, and a coauthor of "My Home, My Money Pit". "You can't put a number on that."
By Allegra Muzzillo, RealSimple.com
Photo: Getty Images
No sugar coating here: The housing market is in trouble. But some experts say that it will start turning around as early as 2010. So while you're waiting for it to recover, you might want to reconsider putting off that kitchen redo or landscaping job. "Any changes you make on your house now should increase your home value later," says Kermit Baker, project director for the Remodeling Futures program at Harvard University. But which projects will yield the most bang for your buck? Take a look at this list, starting with the upgrades most likely to recoup your investment, and then enjoy that gleaming new kitchen.
1. Painting
Why It Pays Off: Paint provides dramatic results with little investment. If you decide to hire a professional to do the work, expect to pay $3,600 to $6,000 for the interior of an average American house (about 2,400 square feet). An exterior paint job will run $5,000 or more. Can't decide on a color? Gerri Willis, the anchor of Open House on CNN and the author of "Home Rich," says that pale yellow homes tend to sell faster and for more money. Barbara Richardson, the director of color marketing for Glidden and a noted color-trend forecaster, explains, "Yellow is optimistic and inspirational. It gives people joy and the sense that brighter times are ahead."
More from RealSimple.com
When to Do it Yourself and When to Hire a Pro
Surprise Storage Solutions
How to Organize Bills
2. Adding Siding
Why It Pays Off: According to the 2007 Cost vs. Value Report, a study conducted by Remodeling magazine, fiber-cement siding (which is made of sand, cement, and cellulose fibers and costs an average of $13,200) is estimated to recoup about 88 percent (or $11,635) of a home owner's initial investment. While vinyl can crack, split, and warp and aluminum tends to dent and fade, easy-care fiber cement holds up well against the elements and is resistant to fire, rotting, and termites.
3. Building a Deck
Why It Pays Off: A deck will provide you with more than a place to flip burgers and soak up the sun. "Buyers see a deck as offering a seamless transition from inside to out," says Jerry Levine, president of the Levine Group, an architectural and construction firm in Silver Spring, Md. Experts suggest using natural, rustic wood. In 2007 wooden decks (as opposed to concrete or composite ones) reaped an impressive return on investment: Home owners who spent an average of $10,350 on lumber and labor could expect to recoup $8,840, or 85 percent of their costs.
4. Updating the Kitchen
Why It Pays Off: You really can't go wrong with remodeling your kitchen, which can net up to 83 percent of the cost. "People know that renovating can be a nightmare, and potential buyers will appreciate that you did the dirty work for them," says Vern Yip, a designer and the host of HGTV's Deserving Design. "But stick with high-quality fixtures, like stainless-steel appliances and granite counters, and don't pair them with a cheaper material, like laminate." A word of caution: If your house is a tiny two-bedroom bungalow, don't bother splurging on, say, a high-end stove. "You'll never get your money back by installing fancy appliances in a smaller home," says Leslie Sellers, vice president of the Appraisal Institute, an association of real estate-appraisal professionals in Chicago. And if an appliance overhaul isn't in the cards, "you can easily make cosmetic updates on a kitchen that's in decent shape," says Steven D. Bullock, a designer in New York City and a certified member of the National Kitchen & Bath Association, in Hackettstown, N.J. For example, if your existing appliances are in good working order, coat them with electrostatic paint to give them a metallic or enamel-type finish. And you don't have to rip out your cabinets, either.
5. Replacing the Windows
Why It Pays Off: If you're experiencing cool and blustery weather ... in your living room, it's time to buy new panes, pronto. Not only are you losing precious heat but your utility bill could also be skyrocketing. "Energy-efficient windows eliminate drafts, so your home feels warmer," says Sellers. Last year home owners who spent $11,400 on 10 3-by-5-foot insulated vinyl or aluminum-clad windows got an 81 percent ($9,240) return.
6. Modifying a Bathroom
Why It Pays Off: Bathroom upgrades, like updated countertops and new fixtures, provide solid returns — anywhere from 68 to 78 percent. But "avoid anything too trendy," says designer Vern Yip. "Choose classic features, like off-white subway tiles, that will appeal to people with both traditional and contemporary tastes." There's no need to splurge on fancy fixtures, either. "A tub is a tub. A Jacuzzi will never make or break a sale," says designer Steven D. Bullock. For quick touch-ups on existing sinks, toilets, and tubs, consider hiring Miracle Method, a surface-restoration company that recoats ceramic, porcelain, and fiberglass fixtures with a chemical bonding agent that looks like shiny new porcelain. (Cost: $465 to $600 for a tub.)
7. Landscaping
Why It Pays Off: The front of your house is the first thing people see, so it makes sense that any improvements — from planting petunias to surrounding your home with a hedge — will be worth your while. "Don't be afraid to spend money on perennials, which come back year after year," says Yip. As for big-ticket investments, like trees, they aren't just nice to look at; they also stave off erosion, block storm-water runoff, reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and filter groundwater pollutants. They might make your home sell for more money, too. The Arbor Day Foundation estimates a 6- to 8-foot Colorado blue spruce or live oak (both are commonly found all around the United States) may grow one to two feet a year. And properties with gorgeous, established trees are even more attractive to potential home buyers down the road. When determining which areas of your yard to attend to first, try approaching the house from the curb to the front door. "Buyers make their decisions in exactly eight seconds," says Barbara Corcoran, founder of the Corcoran Group, a Manhattan real estate firm. "After that, they've either fallen in love or are just honoring an appointment."
8. Installing Central Air-Conditioning
Why It Pays Off: Adding central air to an average 2,400-square-foot house could cost upward of $10,000 and boost your home's value by 10 to 20 percent, says appraiser Leslie Sellers. And central air-conditioning is energy-efficient too. Centralized units have an average energy-efficiency rating (EER) of 11.5, compared with an 8.5 EER in single-window models, making them less expensive to run. What's more, central air won't block the view the way a window unit does.
9. Fixing up the Basement
Why It Pays Off: "There's nothing worse than that unmistakable damp-basement smell," says Corcoran. "A dry basement is far more important than worrying about the right lighting or furnishings." If your basement is prone to flooding, leaks, or excess moisture, call in a pro. If you do want to finish your basement by adding drywall, insulation, laminate flooring, or even a bathroom, "be sure it's proportional in quality to other areas of your home," says Lonny Rutherford, a chairman of the National Association of Home Builders Remodelers, in Washington, D.C. According to Sellers, "basement remodels gain back anywhere from 50 to 100 percent, depending on the quality of the materials."
10. Putting in a Swimming Pool
Why It Pays Off: When you're deciding whether to install a pool, it's important to consider the part of the country where you live. In places where it can get unforgivingly hot, such as Arizona and Florida, an inground pool may boost a home's value by up to 8 percent, according to a 2003 study by the National Association of Realtors. In more temperate areas, however, a pool can be a big turnoff, as prospective buyers imagine all the work they'll have to do to maintain it, not to mention safety issues and higher insurance rates. But if you plan to enjoy a pool for a few years and it improves your quality of life, "then go for it," says Tom Kraeutler, a cohost of The Money Pit, a home-improvement radio show, and a coauthor of "My Home, My Money Pit". "You can't put a number on that."
sexta-feira, 24 de outubro de 2008
Top 7 Ways to Save on Household Expenses
Running a household is an expensive affair, but there are lots of things that you can do to minimize the cost. Here are the top seven:
1. Bundle Your Services
Have Internet, phone and cable service? Move all of your accounts to one provider, and you could save $20 or more per month. Check your mail for bundling offers or visit lowermybills.com to find out which company is offering the best service bundle in your area; then make the switch and save.
Five More Ways to Lower Your Phone Bill
13 More Ways to Save on Your Cell Phone Bill
Sponsored Links
Best 10 Work At Home Jobs
Here Are Proven Work At Home Jobs. Independently Reviewed. Scam Free.
Avoid-Work-At-Home-Scams.com
Reduce Your Electric Bill
Reduce Electric Bills 8%-25% Low Cost-Easy To Install-Financing
www.PowerSavingPay.com/lead.php
Free Coupons - Truly FREE
Hundreds of Free Coupons for Top Brands. Sign Up and Save Big $ Now!
FreeCoupons.EverSave.com/SaveNow
2. Cut Back on Extras
Do you really need caller ID ($6) and call waiting ($9)? How about the premium cable ($60) or satellite package ($55) that you subscribe to? Examine your list of monthly expenses, and determine what you can live without – short term or long term.
Cut Back on Extras
3. Clip Coupons and Shop Sales
Groceries can take a big bite out of a budget, but they don't have to take a big bite out of yours. To reign in your grocery spending, start clipping coupons and shopping the sales. Just how big of a savings can you expect? 15 percent is a reasonable expectation for a first time couponer, and with time that could increase to as much as 50 percent!
How to Coupon Effectively
Clever Couponing Strategies
View Sales Ads Online
The Best Time to Buy Everything
4. Slash Your Insurance Premiums
Insurance is important to have, but costly. Shop around for a better auto insurance rate, and you may just shave hundreds of dollars off of your current premium. Can't find a better rate? Talk to your current provider to see if there are discounts that you are missing out on. Do they offer a multi-line discount for customers with multiple policies? A good student discount? A good driver discount? For even more savings, consider increasing your deductible or canceling collision coverage on older vehicles. If you have homeowners or renters insurance, be sure to review those policies as well.
Lower Your Auto Insurance Premium
Lower Your Homeowner's Insurance Premium
5. Get Energy Smart
Do you dread opening your utility bills each month? If so, there's a lot that you can do to reduce your bill. Install a programmable thermostat, and set it to run less when no one is home; turn off lights when they aren't in use; wash your laundry in cold water; turn down the temperature on your hot water heater; only buy Energy Star appliances. Start looking around, and you'll find lots of ways to reduce your energy consumption and your energy bills.
44 Ways to Trim Your Electric Bill
35 Ways to Save on Your Water Bill
6. Seek Cheap Thrills
You don't have to spend a lot of money to have fun, so examine your entertainment spending; and see if there are places where you can make cuts. Could you rent movies instead of seeing them in the theatre? Enjoy free concerts instead of paid concerts? Check out books at the library instead of buying them? Go on a picnic instead of eating out? Challenge yourself to have more fun for less money – and see where you end up.
Free and Nearly-Free Kids' Events
Frugal Date Ideas
7. Pay Your Bills on Time
Are you in the habit of paying your bills late? If so, you're probably paying extra for the privilege. Start paying your bills on time, and say goodbye to late fees and rate hikes once and for all.
How to Set Up Online Bill Pay
Best Moves in a Bad Economy
Make the most of your money despite troubling financial times.
Read MoreSpend Less Resources
Painless Ways to Cut Your Spending
How to Break the Spending Habit
Develop a Monthly Spending Plan
Budgeting Basics
How to Create a Frugal Budget
How to Budget Using the Envelope System
Build-a-Budget Worksheet
Frugal Living Essentials
10 Ways to Start Living the Frugal Life
Frugal Living Worksheets
Organize Your Finances
Related Articles
World News - World's Greatest Challenges
World News - The Environment
Tips To Move From Two Incomes To One
Save on medically related travel expenses
Feng Shui and Energy Levels – Boost Your Energy With Feng Shui – ...
global recession is at hand
By Patrick Rizzo and Ellen Simon,
Stock market rout spreads around the world as recession worries turn to dismay
NEW YORK (AP) -- Stock markets around the world plummeted Friday and oil prices plunged to their lowest in more than a year. Even gold, the traditional safe haven in times of panic, fell sharply.
The common denominator was growing fears that governments, central banks and finance ministers seem powerless to stop the deepening of a global recession that will slam corporate earnings and lead to deep job losses around the world.
The Dow Jones industrial average dropped more than 420 points in early afternoon trading. Before the open of New York trading, Dow futures had dropped 550 points, triggering a temporary trading halt in stock futures contracts in an effort to slow the decline.
"This is beyond volatile: It is chaotic," Carl Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics wrote in note to clients. "This is the kind of day when the central banks step into the market with an 'unexpected' interest rate move to calm things down."
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is monitoring the markets and staying in close touch with market participants, a spokeswoman said.
Oil fell sharply and traded near $63 a barrel amid weakening global demand for crude -- despite a decision by the OPEC cartel to cut production quotas by 1.5 million barrels a day from next month.
The dollar plunged below 93 yen, a 13-year low. Gold fell as low as $681 an ounce, its lowest since January last year.
It was a black Friday overseas. Japan's Nikkei stock average dropped 9.6 percent. Germany's benchmark DAX index plunged as much as 10.8 percent, France's CAC40 slid 10 percent and Britain's FTSE 100 shed 8.7 percent. Stocks in Hong Kong fell 8.3 percent.
Russian stocks fell sharply, the two main exchanges shut early and won't resume trading until Tuesday.
"We are getting used to wild swings in the markets, but today's moves verge on the bizarre," said Julian Jessop, chief international economist at Capital Economics.
The only good news was the 5.5 percent increase in September existing home sales. Median home prices, however, dropped to $191,600, down 9 percent from a year ago.
The U.K.'s third quarter gross domestic product fell 0.5 percent, with the steepest decrease in 18 years putting the country on the brink of recession. Shares of Japan's Sony sank more than 14 percent when it slashed its earnings forecast for the fiscal year. In Germany, Daimler's stock dropped 11.4 percent in morning trading; it reported lower third-quarter earnings and abandoned its 2008 profit and revenue guidance.
Emerging market economies and currencies are coming under extreme pressure. Investors are pulling money out of countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America and Asia on fears vulnerable countries will not only be hit hard by the financial crisis but may also default on debt.
Hong Kong's Hang Seng index fell 8.3 percent and markets in India, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines were also down sharply.
Brazilian stocks slumped for the fourth straight day, with the Ibovespa index down more than 8 percent in early afternoon. Mexico's benchmark index was down 5 percent.
"Periods of panic punctuated by occasional calm appears to be the manner of things for now," said Daragh Maher, a strategist at Calyon Corporate and Investment Bank in London.
Investors around the world seemingly have become more convinced the global economy is on the brink of a long and painful recession, if it's not already in one.
Over the past few weeks, governments have taken unprecedented steps to thaw frozen credit markets and avert the downturn. But while there are signs that credit markets are beginning to thaw -- rates banks charge each other for short-term loans have been falling in recent days -- the outlook from companies reporting earnings are almost universally cautious about their prospects going forward.
That means companies will be reluctant to buy new equipment or hire new workers. U.S. unemployment claims, already well into recession territory, are rising even faster than expected. Economists warn the worst is yet to come.
On Thursday, the government said new applications for unemployment insurance rose 15,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 478,000, above analysts' estimates of 470,000. Jobless claims above 400,000 are considered a sign of recession.
Goldman Sachs, Chrysler and Xerox all announced they were cutting workers by the thousands, adding to the woes of an economy beset by tighter credit and wobbly banks. Chrysler said it would cut about 5,000 of its 18,500 white-collar work force.
PNC Financial Services said it is acquiring National City bank for $5.8 billion and planned to receive $7.7 billion in capital from the federal government as part of its $700 billion financial rescue plan.
The Commerce Department will release its first estimate of third-quarter economic performance Oct. 30, and Wall Street analysts project it will show the economy contracted by 0.5 percent, according to Thomson/IFR.
Many economists expect the decline to continue into the current quarter and the first three months of 2009, if not longer. The classic definition of a recession is at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth.
The Standard & Poor's 500 was down 33.29, or 3.6 percent, to 874.82. Sam Stovall, S&P's chief investment strategist, put a 700 target on the index, saying S&P's equity analysts expect operating results for the 500 large companies to decline 10 percent in 2008.
Associated Press writers Stevenson Jacobs in New York, Louis Watt and Carlo Piovano in London and Martin Crutsinger, Christopher S. Rugaber and Marcy Gordon in Washington contributed to this report.
Stock market rout spreads around the world as recession worries turn to dismay
NEW YORK (AP) -- Stock markets around the world plummeted Friday and oil prices plunged to their lowest in more than a year. Even gold, the traditional safe haven in times of panic, fell sharply.
The common denominator was growing fears that governments, central banks and finance ministers seem powerless to stop the deepening of a global recession that will slam corporate earnings and lead to deep job losses around the world.
The Dow Jones industrial average dropped more than 420 points in early afternoon trading. Before the open of New York trading, Dow futures had dropped 550 points, triggering a temporary trading halt in stock futures contracts in an effort to slow the decline.
"This is beyond volatile: It is chaotic," Carl Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics wrote in note to clients. "This is the kind of day when the central banks step into the market with an 'unexpected' interest rate move to calm things down."
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is monitoring the markets and staying in close touch with market participants, a spokeswoman said.
Oil fell sharply and traded near $63 a barrel amid weakening global demand for crude -- despite a decision by the OPEC cartel to cut production quotas by 1.5 million barrels a day from next month.
The dollar plunged below 93 yen, a 13-year low. Gold fell as low as $681 an ounce, its lowest since January last year.
It was a black Friday overseas. Japan's Nikkei stock average dropped 9.6 percent. Germany's benchmark DAX index plunged as much as 10.8 percent, France's CAC40 slid 10 percent and Britain's FTSE 100 shed 8.7 percent. Stocks in Hong Kong fell 8.3 percent.
Russian stocks fell sharply, the two main exchanges shut early and won't resume trading until Tuesday.
"We are getting used to wild swings in the markets, but today's moves verge on the bizarre," said Julian Jessop, chief international economist at Capital Economics.
The only good news was the 5.5 percent increase in September existing home sales. Median home prices, however, dropped to $191,600, down 9 percent from a year ago.
The U.K.'s third quarter gross domestic product fell 0.5 percent, with the steepest decrease in 18 years putting the country on the brink of recession. Shares of Japan's Sony sank more than 14 percent when it slashed its earnings forecast for the fiscal year. In Germany, Daimler's stock dropped 11.4 percent in morning trading; it reported lower third-quarter earnings and abandoned its 2008 profit and revenue guidance.
Emerging market economies and currencies are coming under extreme pressure. Investors are pulling money out of countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America and Asia on fears vulnerable countries will not only be hit hard by the financial crisis but may also default on debt.
Hong Kong's Hang Seng index fell 8.3 percent and markets in India, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines were also down sharply.
Brazilian stocks slumped for the fourth straight day, with the Ibovespa index down more than 8 percent in early afternoon. Mexico's benchmark index was down 5 percent.
"Periods of panic punctuated by occasional calm appears to be the manner of things for now," said Daragh Maher, a strategist at Calyon Corporate and Investment Bank in London.
Investors around the world seemingly have become more convinced the global economy is on the brink of a long and painful recession, if it's not already in one.
Over the past few weeks, governments have taken unprecedented steps to thaw frozen credit markets and avert the downturn. But while there are signs that credit markets are beginning to thaw -- rates banks charge each other for short-term loans have been falling in recent days -- the outlook from companies reporting earnings are almost universally cautious about their prospects going forward.
That means companies will be reluctant to buy new equipment or hire new workers. U.S. unemployment claims, already well into recession territory, are rising even faster than expected. Economists warn the worst is yet to come.
On Thursday, the government said new applications for unemployment insurance rose 15,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 478,000, above analysts' estimates of 470,000. Jobless claims above 400,000 are considered a sign of recession.
Goldman Sachs, Chrysler and Xerox all announced they were cutting workers by the thousands, adding to the woes of an economy beset by tighter credit and wobbly banks. Chrysler said it would cut about 5,000 of its 18,500 white-collar work force.
PNC Financial Services said it is acquiring National City bank for $5.8 billion and planned to receive $7.7 billion in capital from the federal government as part of its $700 billion financial rescue plan.
The Commerce Department will release its first estimate of third-quarter economic performance Oct. 30, and Wall Street analysts project it will show the economy contracted by 0.5 percent, according to Thomson/IFR.
Many economists expect the decline to continue into the current quarter and the first three months of 2009, if not longer. The classic definition of a recession is at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth.
The Standard & Poor's 500 was down 33.29, or 3.6 percent, to 874.82. Sam Stovall, S&P's chief investment strategist, put a 700 target on the index, saying S&P's equity analysts expect operating results for the 500 large companies to decline 10 percent in 2008.
Associated Press writers Stevenson Jacobs in New York, Louis Watt and Carlo Piovano in London and Martin Crutsinger, Christopher S. Rugaber and Marcy Gordon in Washington contributed to this report.
quinta-feira, 23 de outubro de 2008
Top 10 Ways to Improve Your Memory
by Molly Edmonds
The human brain is like a library that stocks memories instead of books. In some ways, that makes the hippocampus, the part of the brain most involved in memory, the brain's librarian. The hippocampus has the most responsibility in this cranial library, juggling the new releases of short-term memory while cataloging materials for the permanent collection of long-term memory. It's not the only part at work, however, in storing these chapters of our lives. Different kinds of memory are stored in different areas of the brain. With such a large system, the brain needs a system of encoding and retrieving memories, something a bit more complex than the local library's Dewey Decimal System.
The brain has to be able to pull information at the drop of a hat, whether it's a fact on hold (such as a telephone number) or a dusty memory that's been sitting in storage for years (the memory of your first kiss). No one likes a library that loses books or shelves them in the wrong place. Yet sometimes we find ourselves with a very poor librarian on our hands, one that doesn't allow us to retrieve memories when we need them. Sometimes it's trivial, like when we tear apart our homes looking for glasses perched innocuously atop our heads, and sometimes these lapses in memories are more embarrassing, such as when we call a colleague "sport" because we simply can't remember his name.
Whether you're a college student studying for an important test or an aging baby boomer concerned about forgetting a recent doctor's appointment, there are a few things everyone can do to optimize the storage and checkouts in our private libraries of memories. Alert the librarian and head to the next page for the first tip.
quinta-feira, 16 de outubro de 2008
a way to sterilize pets
Inventor Michelson offers $75M for a way to sterilize pets
By Sharon L. Peters, Special for USA TODAY
A very rich, very impatient retired surgeon wants the pet overpopulation solved.
So Gary Michelson has put a hard-to-ignore enticement on the table: $75 million.
The person or group that comes up first with a safe, one-time non-surgical means to sterilize male and female cats and dogs gets $25 million, Michelson's non-profit Found Animals Foundation will announce today at the National Spay/Neuter Conference in Chicago. And up to $50 million more will be available to support the research of one or several individuals who come forward with plausible approaches.
"No one will stop what they're doing and turn their attention to this problem for $10 million. That's not enough," says Michelson, 59, a retired Los Angeles orthopedic surgeon who invented and patented hundreds of surgical instruments, won an infringement case in 2005 and landed at No. 317 on Forbes' 400 Richest Americans list last month.
Animal lover Michelson is convinced, like most animal-welfare experts, that if unwanted litters never materialized, U.S. shelters wouldn't be euthanizing 4 million to 6 million animals a year.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Chicago | Los Angeles | Forbes | Veterinary Medical Association | Richest | Michelson | Gail Golab
He "absolutely" believes that the $25 million carrot, coupled with the cash grants to spur research, will prompt sufficient activity that an affordable non-surgical sterilant will be on the market within 10 years.
The solution may originate from any of several arenas — from human or animal researchers who are endocrinologists, neuroscientists, reproductive biologists, molecular technology experts, or even pharmacology specialists.
"We're completely agnostic regarding the approach," says foundation executive director Aimee Gilbreath. "We'll consider anything. We really believe if cutting-edge technologies are applied we can solve this."
The foundation is partnering with the Alliance for Contraception in Cats and Dogs, a non-profit that for eight years has pressed for non-surgical approaches to pet sterilization, believing that millions more pets would be sterilized if there were a non-surgical alternative. "This is huge for our cause," says alliance president Joyce Briggs.
Removing barriers to sterilization
It is estimated that nearly 73% of dog owners and 86% of cat owners now spay or neuter their pets. But the rest mostly seem inclined to keep things as they are. The very notion of surgery is off-putting or scary to some of them, many of whom worry about anesthesia, experts say. Sterilization can cost $150 or more per animal and requires a substantial time commitment as the owner must transport the animal to a vet and return hours later, a journey of many miles in rural areas.
Also, surgery is cumbersome "in the field," where groups attempt to conduct on-site mobile sterilizations in neighborhoods or communities where a high percentage of pets are known to be producing litters year after year.
A quick, reliable, life-of-the-pet sterilant "would completely change" the way sterilization-focused non-profit groups spend their time and resources, says Tonja Robertson, founder of Spay/Neuter Indiana Pets. She and three other volunteers devoted nearly 600 hours from April 1 to Sept. 30.
They spread the spay/neuter word in grocery-store parking lots in rural, low-income southern Indiana. They distributed discount sterilization vouchers and, three times a month, transported a dozen or more pets to a veterinarian, then picked them up after the surgery (200 miles in all).
That resulted in 205 cats and 38 dogs being fixed. "If we could have a quick, non-surgical method," Robertson says, "we'd set up once a week in areas of need, get the job done, and we could redirect our efforts to adoption or cruelty."
Dependent on humans 'for a good life'
Michelson's foundation has put together a review board of experts from several disciplines and will add more if proposals from unexpected arenas arrive. The board will meet in January to consider which proposals will receive a first-stage grant.
To those who object to his channeling so much money to help animals when there are so many human problems to be solved, Michelson has a simple answer: his medical research foundation, which has funded more than $110 million in research and discovery, most of it related to hereditary diseases.
He offers no apologies for his pet program.
Animals are "helpless. They depend on humans for a good life," says Michelson, who shares his home with two rescued pit bulls and a runt-of-the-litter whippet.
It's unclear how veterinarians will react to whatever alternative sterilization method might emerge from the contest as they will want to assess its safety and effectiveness, says Gail Golab of the American Veterinary Medical Association. But, she says, her group is on record as supporting efforts to non-surgically sterilize dogs and cats.
Share this story:
sábado, 27 de setembro de 2008
Fact Checking the Debate
by Mike Krumboltz
Last night's debate provided viewers the chance to see the two presidential candidates talk turkey on a variety of issues. It also gave voters the opportunity to see if Senators Obama and McCain knew the difference between fact and fiction. A slew of sources within the Buzz examine whether what each candidate said was actually, well, true.
Associated Press
The AP offers in-depth analysis on statements from each candidate. Their findings are that (surprise!) both Obama and McCain stretched the truth at times. For example, Senator Obama's line that his Republican rival wants to give "oil companies another $4 billion" in tax breaks may have been misleading. Meanwhile, Senator McCain's accusation that Senator Obama voted to cut funding to the troops was a bit vague. The Democrat opposed the bill in question because it did not contain "language calling for a troop withdrawl." He did support "another bill that had such language — and money for the troops."
USA Today
The colorful newspaper investigated the candidates' claims and concluded that both senators know how to spin. Obama asserted that the current economic fiasco was caused by President Bush's policies, which were supported by Senator McCain. In reality, McCain voted against "two of the most important parts of President Bush's policy — the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts."
But, according to USA Today, McCain also stretched the truth when he accused Obama of asking for $932 million in earmarked and pork-barrel spending. In reality Obama, like most lawmakers, obtained only a small fraction of what he requested. Side note: Many viewers seemed confused by this Beltway lingo. Searches on "what are earmarks" and "what is a pork barrel" both skyrocketed.
The New York Times
The "Paper of Record" kept its own scorecard. McCain said Obama voted "to increase taxes on people who make as low as $42,000 a year." The Times reports that, according to the nonpartisan FactCheck.org, the claim is "simply false. However, when it comes to how much the United States owes China, Senator McCain said the amount is $500 billion. Senator Obama claimed it's actually a trillion bucks. McCain was correct on this one.
CNN
The news outlet's Political Ticker breaks down the statements made by the candidates during the debate and while out on the campaign trail. Check out their analysis and see for yourself what you've probably suspected all along: A politican's version of "fact" is probably very different than yours.
quarta-feira, 24 de setembro de 2008
The Democrats' Missing History
By JEFFREY LORD
As Democrats prepare to nominate Sen. Barack Obama to be the first black president, the Democratic National Committee and its chairman, Howard Dean, have whitewashed the party's horrific and lengthy record of racism. The omission is in the section of the DNC Web site that describes the party's history. The missing history raises the obvious question of whether the Democrats, unable or simply unwilling to put their party on record as taking direct responsibility for one of the worst racial crimes of the ages, will be able to run a campaign free of the racial animosities it has regularly brought both to American presidential campaigns and American political and social life in general.
What else to make of the official party history as presented by the DNC on its Web site? It is a history so sanitized of historical reality it makes Stalin look like David McCullough.
The DNC Web site section labeled "Party History," linked here, is in fact scrubbed clean of the not-so-little dirty secret that fueled Democrats' political successes for over a century and a half and made American life a hell on earth for black Americans. Literally, the DNC official history, which begins with the creation of the party in 1800, gets to the creation of the DNC itself in 1848 and then--poof!--the next sentence says: "As the 19th Century came to a close, the American electorate changed more and more rapidly." It quickly heads into a riff on poor immigrants coming to America.
In a stroke, 52 years of Democratic history vanishes. Disappeared faster than the truth in the Clinton administration. Why would this be? Allow me to sketch in a few facts from those missing 52 years. For that matter, lets add in the facts from the party history before and after those 52 years, since they aren't mentioned by the Democrats' National Committee either.
* * *
So what's missing?
· There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were six from 1840 through 1860.
· There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were seven from 1800 through 1861
· There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868 through 1948.
· There is no reference to "Jim Crow" as in "Jim Crow laws," nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC's missing years. These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the "whites only" front section of a bus, the "whites only" designation the direct result of Democrats.
· There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, became "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party."
· Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party."
· There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery. The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.
· There is no reference to the fact that Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, who had been a Democrat before joining Lincoln's ticket in 1864. The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.
· There is no reference to the Democrats' opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.
· There is no reference to the Democrats' 1904 platform, which devotes a section to "Sectional and Racial Agitation," claiming the GOP's protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to "revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country," which in turn "means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed."
· There is no reference to four Democratic platforms, 1908-20, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount. By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address "Rights of the Negro" (1908), oppose lynching (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks "wards of the state."
· There is no reference to the Democratic Convention of 1924, known to history as the "Klanbake." The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright. To celebrate, the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the convention. Attended by hundreds of cheering convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African-Americans and Catholics.
· There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government, at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There \is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II.
· There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws, and created Social Security with Wilson's New Freedom and FDR's New Deal.
· There is no mention that these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. congressmen and U.S. senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965. Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democratic presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.
· There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80% of the "nay" vote in the Senate came from Democrats. Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Vice President Al Gore.
Last but certainly not least,
· there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Ala., Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact--yes indeed--a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.
Reading the DNC's official "Party History" of the Democrats and the race issue and civil rights is not unlike reading "In Through the Looking Glass": " 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.' "
Here's this line from the DNC: "With the election of Harry Truman, Democrats began the fight to bring down the final barriers of race . . ." Truman, of course, was elected in 1948, and to his great credit he did in fact, along with then-Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey, begin to push the Democrats towards a pro-civil-rights stance. This culminated in the passage of the 1960s civil rights laws--legislation that redid what had been done by Republicans a hundred years earlier but undone by the Democrats' support for segregation. But the notion that "Democrats began to bring down the final barriers of race" raises the obvious questions. What were these barriers doing there in the first place? And who exactly was responsible for creating them?
* * *
AS IF TO CONFIRM the "Who, me?" racial psychology behind the DNC Web site, Nancy Pelosi's Democrats passed a House resolution on July 29 sponsored by Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen. The resolution, passed by voice vote, concludes this way:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) acknowledges that slavery is incompatible with the basic founding principles recognized in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal;
(2) acknowledges the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow;
(3) apologizes to African Americans on behalf of the people of the United States, for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow; and
(4) expresses its commitment to rectify the lingering consequences of the misdeeds committed against African Americans under slavery and Jim Crow and to stop the occurrence of human rights violations in the future.
What word is missing here?
You got it. The word "Democrat." Never mentioned anywhere. As with the DNC website, all these terrible things--somehow, apparently, it seems, so they keep hearing--happened. Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Cohen and their fellow House Democrats just can't understand how. But, you know, whatever. They are sorry. Really.
Are they? Let's take them up on this.
After all those Democratic platforms and conventions that championed slavery and segregation, what do you think the chances are they will use the occasion of Mr. Obama's nomination to have the Democratic platform formally apologize for the active, frequently violent and decidedly official support of the Democratic Party for slavery, segregation, lynching, the Ku Klux Klan and all the rest?
Better yet, do you think they'll pass a resolution promising to use the funds raised from all those Jefferson-Jackson Day fundraisers to pay reparations for slavery? (Did I mention that while the DNC discusses party co-founders Jefferson and Jackson, it neglects to mention that between them the two owned an estimated 360 slaves?)
Will the NAACP and other groups seeking reparations from nongovernment entities for their role in supporting slavery (companies like Aetna, Wachovia and Chase along with educational institutions like Brown University) finally zero in on the prime historical mover behind some of the worst chapters in American history? Will they sue the Democrats?
The Democrats are poised to nominate a black man for president of the United States. But will they apologize for slavery? Will they start paying reparations not from tax dollars but their own dollars for what they have done?
Do they have the guts to publicly admit what serious history records of their deeds? Are they capable of running a campaign without playing the race card as they have played it for the better part of two centuries? Can they even escape the race psychology that has indelibly branded them as America's Party of Race?
Or, when it comes to their own responsibility for race relations in America, will they order up more of what, under the circumstances, is a very appropriate word for the DNC website?
Whitewash.
Mr. Lord is creator, co-founder and CEO of , a conservative video site. A Reagan White House political director and author, he writes from Pennsylvania.
As Democrats prepare to nominate Sen. Barack Obama to be the first black president, the Democratic National Committee and its chairman, Howard Dean, have whitewashed the party's horrific and lengthy record of racism. The omission is in the section of the DNC Web site that describes the party's history. The missing history raises the obvious question of whether the Democrats, unable or simply unwilling to put their party on record as taking direct responsibility for one of the worst racial crimes of the ages, will be able to run a campaign free of the racial animosities it has regularly brought both to American presidential campaigns and American political and social life in general.
What else to make of the official party history as presented by the DNC on its Web site? It is a history so sanitized of historical reality it makes Stalin look like David McCullough.
The DNC Web site section labeled "Party History," linked here, is in fact scrubbed clean of the not-so-little dirty secret that fueled Democrats' political successes for over a century and a half and made American life a hell on earth for black Americans. Literally, the DNC official history, which begins with the creation of the party in 1800, gets to the creation of the DNC itself in 1848 and then--poof!--the next sentence says: "As the 19th Century came to a close, the American electorate changed more and more rapidly." It quickly heads into a riff on poor immigrants coming to America.
In a stroke, 52 years of Democratic history vanishes. Disappeared faster than the truth in the Clinton administration. Why would this be? Allow me to sketch in a few facts from those missing 52 years. For that matter, lets add in the facts from the party history before and after those 52 years, since they aren't mentioned by the Democrats' National Committee either.
* * *
So what's missing?
· There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were six from 1840 through 1860.
· There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were seven from 1800 through 1861
· There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868 through 1948.
· There is no reference to "Jim Crow" as in "Jim Crow laws," nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC's missing years. These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the "whites only" front section of a bus, the "whites only" designation the direct result of Democrats.
· There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, became "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party."
· Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party."
· There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery. The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.
· There is no reference to the fact that Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, who had been a Democrat before joining Lincoln's ticket in 1864. The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.
· There is no reference to the Democrats' opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.
· There is no reference to the Democrats' 1904 platform, which devotes a section to "Sectional and Racial Agitation," claiming the GOP's protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to "revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country," which in turn "means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed."
· There is no reference to four Democratic platforms, 1908-20, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount. By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address "Rights of the Negro" (1908), oppose lynching (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks "wards of the state."
· There is no reference to the Democratic Convention of 1924, known to history as the "Klanbake." The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright. To celebrate, the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the convention. Attended by hundreds of cheering convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African-Americans and Catholics.
· There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government, at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There \is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II.
· There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws, and created Social Security with Wilson's New Freedom and FDR's New Deal.
· There is no mention that these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. congressmen and U.S. senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965. Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democratic presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.
· There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80% of the "nay" vote in the Senate came from Democrats. Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Vice President Al Gore.
Last but certainly not least,
· there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Ala., Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact--yes indeed--a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.
Reading the DNC's official "Party History" of the Democrats and the race issue and civil rights is not unlike reading "In Through the Looking Glass": " 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.' "
Here's this line from the DNC: "With the election of Harry Truman, Democrats began the fight to bring down the final barriers of race . . ." Truman, of course, was elected in 1948, and to his great credit he did in fact, along with then-Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey, begin to push the Democrats towards a pro-civil-rights stance. This culminated in the passage of the 1960s civil rights laws--legislation that redid what had been done by Republicans a hundred years earlier but undone by the Democrats' support for segregation. But the notion that "Democrats began to bring down the final barriers of race" raises the obvious questions. What were these barriers doing there in the first place? And who exactly was responsible for creating them?
* * *
AS IF TO CONFIRM the "Who, me?" racial psychology behind the DNC Web site, Nancy Pelosi's Democrats passed a House resolution on July 29 sponsored by Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen. The resolution, passed by voice vote, concludes this way:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) acknowledges that slavery is incompatible with the basic founding principles recognized in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal;
(2) acknowledges the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow;
(3) apologizes to African Americans on behalf of the people of the United States, for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow; and
(4) expresses its commitment to rectify the lingering consequences of the misdeeds committed against African Americans under slavery and Jim Crow and to stop the occurrence of human rights violations in the future.
What word is missing here?
You got it. The word "Democrat." Never mentioned anywhere. As with the DNC website, all these terrible things--somehow, apparently, it seems, so they keep hearing--happened. Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Cohen and their fellow House Democrats just can't understand how. But, you know, whatever. They are sorry. Really.
Are they? Let's take them up on this.
After all those Democratic platforms and conventions that championed slavery and segregation, what do you think the chances are they will use the occasion of Mr. Obama's nomination to have the Democratic platform formally apologize for the active, frequently violent and decidedly official support of the Democratic Party for slavery, segregation, lynching, the Ku Klux Klan and all the rest?
Better yet, do you think they'll pass a resolution promising to use the funds raised from all those Jefferson-Jackson Day fundraisers to pay reparations for slavery? (Did I mention that while the DNC discusses party co-founders Jefferson and Jackson, it neglects to mention that between them the two owned an estimated 360 slaves?)
Will the NAACP and other groups seeking reparations from nongovernment entities for their role in supporting slavery (companies like Aetna, Wachovia and Chase along with educational institutions like Brown University) finally zero in on the prime historical mover behind some of the worst chapters in American history? Will they sue the Democrats?
The Democrats are poised to nominate a black man for president of the United States. But will they apologize for slavery? Will they start paying reparations not from tax dollars but their own dollars for what they have done?
Do they have the guts to publicly admit what serious history records of their deeds? Are they capable of running a campaign without playing the race card as they have played it for the better part of two centuries? Can they even escape the race psychology that has indelibly branded them as America's Party of Race?
Or, when it comes to their own responsibility for race relations in America, will they order up more of what, under the circumstances, is a very appropriate word for the DNC website?
Whitewash.
Mr. Lord is creator, co-founder and CEO of , a conservative video site. A Reagan White House political director and author, he writes from Pennsylvania.
What Happens When We Die?
By M.J. STEPHEY
Tue Sep 23, 6:40 PM ET
A fellow at New York City's Weill Cornell Medical Center, Dr. Sam Parnia is one of the world's leading experts on the scientific study of death. Last week Parnia and his colleagues at the Human Consciousness Project announced their first major undertaking: a 3-year exploration of the biology behind "out-of-body" experiences. The study, known as AWARE (AWAreness during REsuscitation), involves the collaboration of 25 major medical centers through Europe, Canada and the U.S. and will examine some 1,500 survivors of cardiac arrest. TIME spoke with Parnia about the project's origins, its skeptics and the difference between the mind and the brain.
ADVERTISEMENT
What sort of methods will this project use to try and verify people's claims of "near-death" experience?
When your heart stops beating, there is no blood getting to your brain. And so what happens is that within about 10 sec., brain activity ceases - as you would imagine. Yet paradoxically, 10% or 20% of people who are then brought back to life from that period, which may be a few minutes or over an hour, will report having consciousness. So the key thing here is, Are these real, or is it some sort of illusion? So the only way to tell is to have pictures only visible from the ceiling and nowhere else, because they claim they can see everything from the ceiling. So if we then get a series of 200 or 300 people who all were clinically dead, and yet they're able to come back and tell us what we were doing and were able see those pictures, that confirms consciousness really was continuing even though the brain wasn't functioning.
How does this project relate to society's perception of death?
People commonly perceive death as being a moment - you're either dead or you're alive. And that's a social definition we have. But the clinical definition we use is when the heart stops beating, the lungs stop working, and as a consequence the brain itself stops working. When doctors shine a light into someone's pupil, it's to demonstrate that there is no reflex present. The eye reflex is mediated by the brain stem, and that's the area that keeps us alive; if that doesn't work, then that means that the brain itself isn't working. At that point, I'll call a nurse into the room so I can certify that this patient is dead. Fifty years ago, people couldn't survive after that.
How is technology challenging the perception that death is a moment?
Nowadays, we have technology that's improved so that we can bring people back to life. In fact, there are drugs being developed right now - who knows if they'll ever make it to the market - that may actually slow down the process of brain-cell injury and death. Imagine you fast-forward to 10 years down the line; and you've given a patient, whose heart has just stopped, this amazing drug; and actually what it does is, it slows everything down so that the things that would've happened over an hour, now happen over two days. As medicine progresses, we will end up with lots and lots of ethical questions.
But what is happening to the individual at that time? What's really going on? Because there is a lack of blood flow, the cells go into a kind of a frenzy to keep themselves alive. And within about 5 min. or so they start to damage or change. After an hour or so the damage is so great that even if we restart the heart again and pump blood, the person can no longer be viable, because the cells have just been changed too much. And then the cells continue to change so that within a couple of days the body actually decomposes. So it's not a moment; it's a process that actually begins when the heart stops and culminates in the complete loss of the body, the decompositions of all the cells. However, ultimately what matters is, What's going on to a person's mind? What happens to the human mind and consciousness during death? Does that cease immediately as soon as the heart stops? Does it cease activity within the first 2 sec., the first 2 min.? Because we know that cells are continuously changing at that time. Does it stop after 10 min., after half an hour, after an hour? And at this point we don't know.
What was your first interview like with someone who had reported an out-of-body experience?
Eye-opening and very humbling. Because what you see is that, first of all, they are completely genuine people who are not looking for any kind of fame or attention. In many cases they haven't even told anybody else about it because they're afraid of what people will think of them. I have about 500 or so cases of people that I've interviewed since I first started out more than 10 years ago. It's the consistency of the experiences, the reality of what they were describing. I managed to speak to doctors and nurses who had been present who said these patients had told them exactly what had happened, and they couldn't explain it. I actually documented a few of those in my book What Happens When We Die because I wanted people to get both angles - not just the patients' side but also the doctors' side - and see how it feels for the doctors to have a patient come back and tell them what was going on. There was a cardiologist that I spoke with who said he hasn't told anyone else about it because he has no explanation for how this patient could have been able to describe in detail what he had said and done. He was so freaked out by it that he just decided not to think about it anymore.
Why do you think there is such resistance to studies like yours?
Because we're pushing through the boundaries of science, working against assumptions and perceptions that have been fixed. A lot of people hold this idea that, well, when you die, you die; that's it. Death is a moment - you know you're either dead or alive. All these things are not scientifically valid, but they're social perceptions. If you look back at the end of the 19th century, physicists at that time had been working with Newtonian laws of motion, and they really felt they had all the answers to everything that was out there in the universe. When we look at the world around us, Newtonian physics is perfectly sufficient. It explains most things that we deal with. But then it was discovered that actually when you look at motion at really small levels - beyond the level of the atoms - Newton's laws no longer apply. A new physics was needed, hence, we eventually ended up with quantum physics. It caused a lot of controversy - even Einstein himself didn't believe in it.
Now, if you look at the mind, consciousness, and the brain, the assumption that the mind and brain are the same thing is fine for most circumstances, because in 99% of circumstances we can't separate the mind and brain; they work at the exactly the same time. But then there are certain extreme examples, like when the brain shuts down, that we see that this assumption may no longer seem to hold true. So a new science is needed in the same way that we had to have a new quantum physics. The CERN particle accelerator may take us back to our roots. It may take us back to the first moments after the Big Bang, the very beginning. With our study, for the first time, we have the technology and the means to be able to investigate this. To see what happens at the end for us. Does something continue?
terça-feira, 23 de setembro de 2008
The United States of Mind
Certain regional stereotypes have long since become cliches: The stressed-out New Yorker. The laid-back Californian.
But the conscientious Floridian? The neurotic Kentuckian?
You bet -- at least, according to new research on the geography of personality. Based on more than 600,000 questionnaires and published in the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science, the study maps regional clusters of personality traits, then overlays state-by-state data on crime, health and economic development in search of correlations.
View Interactive
The Geography of Personality
View an interactive map of states' personality profiles, with details on each state's rankings in all five categories.
Even after controlling for variables such as race, income and education levels, a state's dominant personality turns out to be strongly linked to certain outcomes. Amiable states, like Minnesota, tend to be lower in crime. Dutiful states -- an eclectic bunch that includes New Mexico, North Carolina and Utah -- produce a disproportionate share of mathematicians. States that rank high in openness to new ideas are quite creative, as measured by per-capita patent production. But they're also high-crime and a bit aloof. Apparently, Californians don't much like socializing, the research suggests.
As for high-anxiety states, that group includes not just Type A New York and New Jersey, but also states stressed by poverty, such as West Virginia and Mississippi. As a group, these neurotic states tend to have higher rates of heart disease and lower life expectancy.
Lead researcher Peter Jason Rentfrow, lecturer at the University of Cambridge in England, said he was startled to find such correlations. "That just blew me away," he said.
Psychologists unaffiliated with the study say it's intriguing but limited. There's no way to unravel the chicken-and-egg question: Do states tend to nurture specific personalities because of their histories, cultures, even climates? Or do Americans, seeking kindred spirits, migrate to the states where they feel at home? Maybe both forces are at work -- but in what balance?
Another issue: The personality maps may reinforce stereotypes and tempt us to draw overly simplistic conclusions, said Toni Schmader, a psychologist at the University of Arizona. Knowing Arizona ranks low in neuroticism, Ms. Schmader said, she might conclude that sunny weather makes for sunny dispositions. But if the data had turned out the other way, the sun could just as easily be blamed for high neuroticism -- for driving Arizonans stir crazy by keeping them cooped up in air conditioning.
"We tend to reject information that doesn't agree with our stereotypes," Ms. Schmader said.
Cross-cultural psychology was all the rage in the 1930s and 1940s, driven by a craze among anthropologists for comparing child-rearing practices in modern and pre-industrial societies. But the discipline fell out of favor, partly because of concerns that the comparisons were driven more by value judgments than standardized assessments.
In the past decade, the field has been reinvigorated by the development of a 44-question personality test that evaluates five traits: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness. Some psychologists disagree with this matrix; others would add traits such as honesty. But the assessment, called the Big Five Inventory, has been widely used in scientific research.
Mr. Rentfrow came to the field full of questions gleaned from a life spent hop-scotching across America. Why were his neighbors in Texas so relaxed, so courteous, so obsessed with sports? Why did New Yorkers seem so tense and inward-focused, often brusque to the point of rudeness?
Eager to dig deeper, Mr. Rentfrow turned to a huge collection of psychological tests administered online from 1999 to 2005.
The assessments were linked to each respondent's current residence, so there was no way to tell if a New Yorker was a New Yorker born and bred, or had just moved from Kansas. But that suited Mr. Rentfrow's purposes. He wasn't trying to gauge how life in New York had shaped any one individual. His goal was a psychological snapshot of the state, and for that he needed to include even recent migrants -- who may, after all, have been drawn to New York because the big-city bustle suited their personality.
Mr. Rentfrow said his sample was proportionate to the U.S. population by state and race. Though it underrepresented the extremes of poor and rich, that shouldn't skew the results, he said.
While the findings broadly uphold regional stereotypes, there are more than a few surprises. The flinty pragmatists of New England? They're not as dutiful as they may seem, ranking at the bottom of the "conscientious" scale. High scores for openness to new ideas strongly correlates to liberal social values and Democratic voting habits. But three of the top ten "open" states -- Nevada, Colorado and Virginia -- traditionally vote Republican in presidential politics. (All three are prime battlegrounds this election.)
And what of the unexpected finding that North Dakota is the most outgoing state in the union? Yes, North Dakota, the same state memorialized years ago in the movie "Fargo" as a frozen wasteland of taciturn souls. Turns out you can be a laconic extrovert, at least in the world of psychology. The trait is defined in part by strong social networks and tight community bonds, which are characteristic of small towns across the Great Plains. (Though not, apparently, small towns in New England, which ranks quite low on the extraversion scale.)
The findings pleased Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, who said it was nice to have scientific proof that his state is super-friendly. "That's the Nebraska I know," he said.
But Las Vegas Mayor Oscar B. Goodman can't understand how Nevada got ranked so low in agreeableness. "We're probably the most agreeable folks in the world, because we have to treat visitors with a great deal of kindness ... to get a big tip," he said.
In Florida, meanwhile, tourism official Dia Kuykendall groped to explain her state's high "conscientious" ranking. She was having trouble reconciling that with, say, the party scene on Miami Beach. "Conscientious of how they look?" she wondered.
The research did give Ms. Kuykendall an idea for a new Florida tourism pitch: "Come visit us, we're not neurotic!"
Social scientists suggest other applications for the research as well. In the Northeast "stress belt," health officials might consider programs to help folks relax. In the Midwest, a dutiful state like Kansas might look to woo more innovative personalities, perhaps by nurturing an artists' enclave or encouraging young chefs to start restaurants, said Richard Florida, an economic development analyst who has written extensively on geography and psychology.
"Most cities are still trapped in the idea that they can recruit a call center or build a big stadium" to spur revitalization, Mr. Florida said. "This is a big wake-up call for policy makers."
It's also a wake-up call for proud residents of the great state of wherever -- some of whom aren't fond of the findings. Mr. Rentfrow said he's had to help some of them feel better. Yes, North Dakota and Wyoming rank quite low in openness to new ideas. But why label them narrow-minded and insular? Say, instead, he suggests, that they value tradition. New York may be neurotic, but he offers another way to put it: "It's a state in touch with its feelings."
Or take a cue from Ted Ownby, who studies Southern culture at the University of Mississippi. His state came up highly neurotic -- and he suspects his neighbors would be proud.
"Here in the home of William Faulkner," Mr. Ownby said, "we take intense, almost perverse neuroticism as a sign of emotional depth."
Write to Stephanie Simon at stephanie.simon@wsj.com
sexta-feira, 5 de setembro de 2008
Avoid this easy email scam
"Forgot your password" links the easy way in for hackers
Never mind creating a password with at least eight characters, two of which are numbers, one of which is a capital letter, and one of which is a symbol like (*&^%$). The easiest way for a hacker to weasel into your account is likely the "Forgot your password?" link.
"Forgot your password?" features are older than the Internet, providing businesses and site owners a simple way to let a user reset a forgotten password, provided he can verify his credentials by asking a few personal questions that only the rightful user should know.
For years the archetypical question was, of course, the "Mother's maiden name" challenge. In recent years, additional challenges have emerged, such as asking the street you grew up on, your favorite pet, and grandparents' first names.
Is all of this stuff really secure? More than one researcher is sounding the alarm over these tools, noting that while this data may have been private a decade ago, in an era of personal blogs, online resumes, and rampant social networking services, "personal" information drawn from your past is now widely available for public consumption. According to a researcher at PARC, you can even buy black market directories of personal information "like dog's names," for about $15 per batch. It's certainly a lot easier than guessing passwords like AHFplug41*.
Think this doesn't happen? There aren't any statistics available, but these hacks are widely suspected in myriad cases where accounts have been compromised. (Even Paris Hilton is said to have fallen prey to the "what is your dog's name?" password reset hack. It doesn't help to have one of the most infamous dogs in America...) But if you need more proof, check out this "how I did it" step by step guide to hacking a password from one writer at Scientific American. In about an hour, it seems, our researcher managed to compromise one (willing) victim's life entirely through password reset links.
MSNBC has an exhaustive amount of additional information on the issue, but the takeaway is clear: If you provide information for password reset systems, don't use data (like other people's names and addresses) that can be easily discovered or guessed. Better yet, consider creating a second tier of passwords you use for questions like these, and keep them written down and locked in a safe if you must. In other words: Your mother's maiden name may really be Jones, but that you can't pretend it wasn't Mxlpxlxl!7631.
Yahoo
sexta-feira, 22 de agosto de 2008
7 Counterintuitive Ways to Save Money
TREINE SEU INGLES PARA NAO FALAR ASSIM PLEASE! :)
by Jeffrey Strain
Saturday, August 16, 2008
provided by TheStreet.com
Earnest attempts to save money here and there don't always add up to much. When traditional methods fail, it's time to consider a few counterintuitive options.
Spend Money
If you want to get the most for your money, you are going to have to spend. One of the biggest mistakes people make when they are trying to get their finances in order is to stop spending money alogether.
Not all spending is the same. You should limit unnecessary purchases, but spending on essential upkeep, preventive measures and items that will save money in the long run is vital for getting and keeping your finances in order.
Scrimp now on items and services that can help prevent larger expenses in the long run--such as routine car maintenance and energy-saving bulbs--and you could pay for it later.
Don't Stay Home in Front of the TV
While staying home is certainly less expensive than going out with your friends, it isn't likely to improve your financial situation significantly. In fact, it can cost you a lot of money.
Instead of staying home and lamenting that you can't afford to go out, take the initiative. Sign up for some classes to improve your job prospects and learn new cost-cutting skills so that next year you don't have to sit at home thinking about the things that you want but still can't afford.
Don't Spend Time Learning How to Invest
When you are first starting to improve your finances, don't make learning how to invest a priority. Instead, put your investing on autopilot and follow the advice of Warren Buffett: "The best way to own common stocks is through an index fund."
Once you've mastered your finances and have saved a nice nest egg, then you'll have time to research individual stocks. Until then, your time will be much better spent on improving your finances through other means.
Don't Leave Your Investments to Experts
Do your own investment research. This research should include getting experts' opinion, but don't rely on it exclusively.
You should make the final decision for your circumstances. Giving your finances completely over to someone else to take care of, no matter how much of an expert he or she may be, is asking for financial trouble.
Don't Let Salary Determine Job Choice
One of the worst financial mistakes you can make is to base your job choice on salary alone.
More from Yahoo! Finance: • How to Find and Understand Your Credit Score
• 25 Ways to Save More Each Month
• 8 Who Saw the Credit Crisis Coming
Visit the Banking & Budgeting Center
For long-term earning and financial health, you're almost always better off choosing the job you will find most satisfying.
Even if the salary is lower at the outset, you'll be more productive -- and more likely to advance -- if you're engaged and motivated.
Don't Buy What Is Cheapest
"Cheap" rarely means "the best value." To get the most out of your hard-earned money, you must think value rather than price. A car that is inexpensive, but costs a lot to drive and needs frequent repairs has less value than a car with a higher price tag but costs less to run and maintain.
This concept of buying value over price can be applied to anything and will mean that you rarely buy items which are the least expensive.
Don't Buy Things That Are on Sale
Much like things that are on the cheap, things that are on sale are rarely the best value.
There are two major problems with most items on sale: They are often something that you really don't need, and even if you do need them, you can usually find an alternative with better value.
If it's not something you'd buy even if it weren't on sale, it's a purchase you shouldn't make.
When you find something on sale that you do need, don't buy it without looking at other options. If you need the item and there aren't better options, buy away.
Copyrighted, TheStreet.Com. All rights reserved.
terça-feira, 19 de agosto de 2008
Survivalism
In the 1970s, widespread fear of imminent natural and artificial disasters and societal collapse led to the development of survivalism, a subculture based on the anticipation of catastrophic events and the preparations involved in surviving disaster. Survivalists stockpile food and water, build shelters, and learn skills that they believe will help them live through apocalyptic chaos. Today, many survivalists exchange information via the Internet. What are Alpha-Rubicon and the Zombie Squad?
Source
Source
quinta-feira, 17 de janeiro de 2008
Bottled water has contaminants too, study finds
By JEFF DONN, AP National Writer
Tests on leading brands of bottled water turned up a variety of contaminants often found in tap water, according to a study released Wednesday by an environmental advocacy group.
The findings challenge the popular impression — and marketing pitch — that bottled water is purer than tap water, the researchers say.
However, all the brands met federal health standards for drinking water. Two violated a California state standard, the study said.
An industry group branded the findings "alarmist." Joe Doss, president of the International Bottled Water Association, said the study is based on the faulty premise that a contaminant is a health concern "even if it does not exceed the established regulatory limit or no standard has been set."
The study's lab tests on 10 brands of bottled water detected 38 chemicals including bacteria, caffeine, the pain reliever acetaminophen, fertilizer, solvents, plastic-making chemicals and the radioactive element strontium. Though some probably came from tap water that some companies use for their bottled water, other contaminants probably leached from plastic bottles, the researchers said.
"In some cases, it appears bottled water is no less polluted than tap water and, at 1,900 times the cost, consumers should expect better," said Jane Houlihan, an environmental engineer who co-authored the study.
The two-year study was done by the Washington-based Environmental Working Group, an organization founded by scientists that advocates stricter regulation. It found the contaminants in bottled water purchased in nine states and Washington, D.C.
Researchers tested one batch for each of 10 brands. Eight did not have contaminants high enough to warrant further testing. But two brands did, so more tests were done and those revealed chlorine byproducts above California's standard, the group reported. The researchers identified those two brands as Sam's Choice sold by Wal-Mart and Acadia of Giant Food supermarkets.
In the Wal-Mart and Giant Food bottled water, the highest concentration of chlorine byproducts, known as trihalomethanes, was over 35 parts per billion. California's limit is 10 parts per billion or less, and the industry's International Bottled Water Association makes 10 its voluntary guideline. The federal limit is 80.
Wal-Mart said its own studies did not turn up illegal levels of contaminants. Giant Food officials released a statement asserting that Acadia meets all regulatory standards. Acadia is sold in the mid-Atlantic states, so it isn't held to California's standard. In most places, bottled water must meet roughly the same federal standards as tap water.
The researchers also said the Wal-Mart brand was five times California's limit for one particular chlorine byproduct, bromodichloromethane. The environmental group wants Wal-Mart to label its bottles in California with a warning because the chlorine-based contaminants have been linked with cancer. It has filed a notice of intent to sue.
Wal-Mart spokeswoman Shannon Frederick said the company was "puzzled" by the findings because testing by suppliers and another lab had detected no "reportable amounts" of such contaminants. She said Wal-Mart would investigate further but defended the quality of its bottled water.
The researchers recommend that people worried about water contaminants drink tap water with a carbon filter.
Tests on leading brands of bottled water turned up a variety of contaminants often found in tap water, according to a study released Wednesday by an environmental advocacy group.
The findings challenge the popular impression — and marketing pitch — that bottled water is purer than tap water, the researchers say.
However, all the brands met federal health standards for drinking water. Two violated a California state standard, the study said.
An industry group branded the findings "alarmist." Joe Doss, president of the International Bottled Water Association, said the study is based on the faulty premise that a contaminant is a health concern "even if it does not exceed the established regulatory limit or no standard has been set."
The study's lab tests on 10 brands of bottled water detected 38 chemicals including bacteria, caffeine, the pain reliever acetaminophen, fertilizer, solvents, plastic-making chemicals and the radioactive element strontium. Though some probably came from tap water that some companies use for their bottled water, other contaminants probably leached from plastic bottles, the researchers said.
"In some cases, it appears bottled water is no less polluted than tap water and, at 1,900 times the cost, consumers should expect better," said Jane Houlihan, an environmental engineer who co-authored the study.
The two-year study was done by the Washington-based Environmental Working Group, an organization founded by scientists that advocates stricter regulation. It found the contaminants in bottled water purchased in nine states and Washington, D.C.
Researchers tested one batch for each of 10 brands. Eight did not have contaminants high enough to warrant further testing. But two brands did, so more tests were done and those revealed chlorine byproducts above California's standard, the group reported. The researchers identified those two brands as Sam's Choice sold by Wal-Mart and Acadia of Giant Food supermarkets.
In the Wal-Mart and Giant Food bottled water, the highest concentration of chlorine byproducts, known as trihalomethanes, was over 35 parts per billion. California's limit is 10 parts per billion or less, and the industry's International Bottled Water Association makes 10 its voluntary guideline. The federal limit is 80.
Wal-Mart said its own studies did not turn up illegal levels of contaminants. Giant Food officials released a statement asserting that Acadia meets all regulatory standards. Acadia is sold in the mid-Atlantic states, so it isn't held to California's standard. In most places, bottled water must meet roughly the same federal standards as tap water.
The researchers also said the Wal-Mart brand was five times California's limit for one particular chlorine byproduct, bromodichloromethane. The environmental group wants Wal-Mart to label its bottles in California with a warning because the chlorine-based contaminants have been linked with cancer. It has filed a notice of intent to sue.
Wal-Mart spokeswoman Shannon Frederick said the company was "puzzled" by the findings because testing by suppliers and another lab had detected no "reportable amounts" of such contaminants. She said Wal-Mart would investigate further but defended the quality of its bottled water.
The researchers recommend that people worried about water contaminants drink tap water with a carbon filter.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)
