On of my favorite movies, fantastic sailing sequences

Buckingham Palace has become part of a small but fast-growing trend that is redefining the century-old conception of lighting, replacing energy-wasting disposable bulbs with semi-permanent light-emitting diodes, or LEDs. The new lights are expected to last more than 22 years and enormously reduce energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions – a big plus for Prince Charles, an ardent environmentalist. Over the past two years, the palace has installed the lighting in chandeliers and on the exterior, where illuminating the entire facade uses less electricity than running an electric teakettle. A recent report by McKinsey & Co. cited conversion to LED lighting as potentially the most cost-effective of a number of simple approaches to tackling global warming using existing technology. Studies suggest that a complete conversion to the lights could decrease carbon dioxide emissions from electric power use for lighting by up to 50 percent in just over 20 years; in the United States, lighting accounts for about 6 percent of all energy use. LED lighting was once relegated to basketball scoreboards, cell phone consoles, traffic lights and colored Christmas lights. As a result of rapid developments in the technology, it is poised to become a staple on streets and in buildings, as well as in homes and offices. Some American cities, including Ann Arbor, Mich., and Raleigh, N.C., are using the lights to illuminate streets and parking garages, and dozens more are exploring the technology. The lighting adorns the conference rooms and bars of some Renaissance hotels, a corridor in the Pentagon and a new green building at Stanford University. LEDs are more than twice as efficient as compact fluorescent bulbs, now the standard for greener lighting. Unlike compact fluorescents, LEDs turn on quickly and are compatible with dimmer switches. And while fluorescent bulbs contain mercury, which requires special disposal, LED bulbs contain no toxic elements and last so long that disposal is not much of an issue. “It is fit-and-forget lighting that is essentially there for as long as you live,” said Colin Humphreys, a researcher at Cambridge University who works on gallium nitride LED lights, which now adorn structures in Britain, including the massive Severn Bridge. The switch to LEDs is proceeding far more rapidly than experts had predicted just two years ago. President Barack Obama's stimulus package, which offers money for green infrastructure investment, will accelerate that pace, experts say. San Jose plans to use $2 million in energy-efficiency grants to install 1,500 LED streetlights. Thanks in part to the injection of federal cash, sales of the lights in new “solid state” fixtures – a $297 million industry in 2007 – are likely to become a near-billion-dollar industry by 2013, said Stephen Montgomery, director of LED research projects at ElectroniCast, a California consultancy. After years of resisting what they had dismissed as a fringe technology, even giants such as General Electric and Philips have begun making LEDs. Although the U.S. Department of Energy calls LEDs “a pivotal emerging technology,” significant barriers remain. Homeowners may balk at the high initial cost, which lighting experts say will take five to 10 years currently to recoup in electricity savings. An outdoor LED spotlight today costs $100, as opposed to $7 for a regular bulb. Another issue is that LEDs now provide only “directional light” rather than a 360-degree glow, meaning they are better suited to downward-facing streetlights and ceiling lights than to many lamp-type settings. And in the rush to make cheaper LED lights, poorly manufactured products could erase the technology's natural advantage, experts warn. LEDs are tiny sandwiches of two different materials that release light as electrons jump from one to the other. The lights must be carefully designed so that heat does not damage them, reducing their life span from decades to months. Brian Owen, a contributor to the trade magazine LEDs, said that while it is good that cities are exploring LED lighting: “They have to do their due diligence. Rash decisions can result in disappointment or disaster.” At the same time, nearly monthly scientific advances are addressing many of the problems, decreasing the price of the bulbs somewhat and improving their ability to provide normal white light bright enough to illuminate rooms and streets. “This is a technology on a very fast learning curve,” said Jon Creyts, an author of the McKinsey report, who predicted that the technology could be in widespread use within five years. So far, the use of LEDs has been predominantly in outdoor settings. Toronto, Raleigh, Ann Arbor and Anchorage – not to mention Tianjin, China, and Torraca, Italy – have adopted LEDs for street and parking garage lighting, forsaking the yellow glow of traditional high-pressure sodium lamps. Three major California cities – Los Angeles (140,000 streetlights), San Jose (62,000) and San Francisco (30,000) – have embarked on some LED conversions. Nonetheless, the lights are also rapidly moving indoors, where they could have an enormous effect on climate change. About 20 percent of carbon dioxide emissions associated with buildings in the United States and the United Kingdom is related to indoor lighting; in some houses the number is as high as 40 percent. Buoyed by the improvements in the technology, Peter Byrne, the lighting designer and energy consultant for Buckingham Palace, installed the 32,000 custom LEDs in the ceiling of the grand stairwell when older fixtures wore out. He estimates that half of lights in homes, and particularly those in offices and stores, can already be replaced by LEDs. “At this point LEDs can't be used in all lights, but that's changing every month,” Byrne said. “If you go into Wal-Mart and look at all those twin 8-foot fluorescents above every aisle, you realize that the potential is enormous.” http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/may/30/1n30bulbs00101-al-gore-nah-make-way-royal-family/?uniontrib

1. “Good luck finding the best deal.”

When it not to buy gas so I can fill up after I leave.” King says he can save 10 cents a gallon by purchasing gas on the road. You’d be similarly wise to shop around—with prices constantly in motion, the cheapest gas may not be at the same station every time.

2. “I hate it when gas prices go up.”

Stations earn on average between 10 and 15 cents on a gallon of gas. Ironically, they earn the least when prices are highest. When fuel climbs, gas stations must shrink their profit margin to remain competitive, meaning they comes to gas prices, most stations are branded—meaning the name of a major oil company hangs out front—and must buy gas from their proprietary company. They can’t shop around. With a lock on sales, the oil companies charge each station a different price depending on various factors, such as the station’s competition and its location. That means a station can pay as much as 46 cents a gallon more than one down the street, and that cost gets passed along to you.

Faced with such instability, Gainesville, Fla., resident Steven King plans ahead: “If I know I’m going out of town, I try earn less per gallon than usual. But another big cost during tough times is something they can’t do anything about—credit card fees, which add up to about 2.5 percent of all purchases. When gas is at, say, $2 a gallon, the station pays credit card companies 5 cents a gallon; when gas hits $3, that fee becomes 7.5 cents—more than half the station’s entire average profit. “Those credit card fees are miserable for the gas station business,” says Mohsen Arabshahi, who owns five Southern California gas stations.

How do station owners make up for lost revenue? “Prices go up like a rocket and come down like a feather,” says Richard Gilbert, a professor of economics at UC Berkeley. For several weeks after wholesale prices drop, stations can earn as much as 20 cents a gallon before retail prices are lowered to reflect the change.

3. “My gas isn’t better for your car; it’s just more expensive.”

Oil companies spend lots of money explaining why their gas is better than the competition’s. Chevron’s gas, for example, is fortified with “Techron,” and Amoco Ultimate is supposed to save the planet along with your engine. But today more than ever, one gallon of gas is as good as the next.

True, additives help to clean your engine, but what the companies don’t tell you is that all gas has them. Since 1994 the government has required that detergents be added to all gasoline to help prevent fuel injectors from clogging. State and local regulators keep a close watch to make sure those standards are met; a 2005 study indicated that Florida inspectors checked 45,000 samples to ensure the state’s gas supply was up to snuff, and 99 percent of the time it was. “There’s little difference between brand-name gas and any other,” says AAA spokesperson Geoff Sundstrom.

What’s more, your local Chevron station may sell gas refined by Shell or Exxon Mobil. Suppliers share pipelines, so they all use the same fuel. And the difference between the most expensive brand-name gas and the lowliest gallon of no-brand fuel? Often just a quart of detergent added to an 8,000-gallon tanker truck.

4. “If you’re smart, you’ll put that debit card away . . .”

Your debit card might be a convenient way to pay for gas, but it’s a no-win proposition. When you swipe a debit card at the pump, the bank doesn’t know how much money you’ll be spending until you’ve finished pumping. So to make sure you have the funds to cover the purchase, some stations ask banks to automatically set aside some of your money: That amount can be $20 or more. That means even if you just topped off your tank for $10, you could be out $30, $50, even $100 until the station sends over its bulk transactions, which can take up to three days. If your funds are running low, you might end up bouncing a check in the meantime—even though you had the money in your account.

Unfortunately, paying inside with your debit card isn’t much of a solution either. Many banks charge their customers between 50 cents and $1 for the privilege of using their debit card in any PINbased transaction. The American Bankers Association estimates only 13 percent of consumers pay these fees, but critics say the practice is on the rise and consumers are often unaware of these charges.

5. “. . . and don’t even consider applying for our gas card.”

When it comes to gasoline credit cards, a little research goes a long way. The good deals are great, but the bad deals are really bad. Similar to store cards issued through retailers, gas cards are riddled with drawbacks, says Curtis Arnold, founder of CardRatings.com. APRs are high, starting above 20 percent; many don’t offer rebates on gas purchases; and they often lack standard protections such as fraud monitoring and zero liability for unauthorized transactions.

What about a Visa or MasterCard affiliated with a gasoline brand like Exxon or BP? They often offer lower interest rates and significant rebates, but limit your ability to shop around. In December 2005, a few months after gas hit $3 a gallon, Justin Andringa of Minneapolis considered a Shell MasterCard with a 15 percent rebate on gas purchases. But the rebate was temporary; he decided to stick with his Citi Dividend Platinum Select card, which gives him a 5 percent rebate on all gas purchases no matter where he buys it. “I’m a college student,” Andringa says. “I need to save money.” The deals on these cards are constantly changing. So visit CardRatings.com to find updated information.

6. “Looking for the cheapest gas in town? Try the Internet.”

You can’t actually buy gas online, but Web resources can help you find the cheapest fill-up in town. Among them, GasPriceWatch.com and GasWatch.info help people track pump prices. But the most comprehensive of the bunch is GasBuddy.com, which includes a network of 174 local sites, complete with maps and message boards that tally gas price by ZIP code. “People are frustrated by the variation in the price of gas,” says GasBuddy.com cofounder Jason Toews, and they’re using the Internet to take control.

It has worked wonders for Sue Foust. Every day, as she passes roughly 10 stations on her commute across Tucson, Ariz., Foust makes a mental note of their prices, then posts them on TucsonGasPrices.com, a local affiliate of GasBuddy.com. Then every four days or so, when she needs to fill up, she checks the prices others have posted in her area. It turned out the Shell station she used to frequent is one of the most expensive in the city. Now she fills up elsewhere. “I really do feel like I’m saving money,” she says.

7. “It’s a gallon when I say it’s a gallon.”

It’s hard to know if you’re getting all the gas you paid for at the pump. But in some places there’s a very good chance you’re not. The state or county weightsand- measures department usually checks pumps for accuracy, but in some areas it can be years between inspections. Arizona, for example, has only 18 staff members to check the state’s 2,300 stations.

That means stations there can expect a visit once every three to four years, according to Steve Meissner, an Arizona Department of Weights and Measures spokesperson. In 2005, 30 percent of the more than 2,000 complaints the department received were valid, and it levied $167,000 in fines. The good news is that it’s often easy to catch the most common problem: Older pumps in poor repair may begin charging you for gas before you’ve pumped it. Check the meter to make sure it registers $0.00 before you begin and doesn’t start charging you before the fuel is flowing.

8. “I might gouge you on a soda, but my coffee’s a real bargain.”

With margins on gas taking a hit—in 2006, fuel sales made up 71 percent of revenue but only 34 percent of gross margins—stations are increasingly looking to their convenience stores for income. Given that fact, you’d assume the average Kwik-E-Mart to be a terrible place to buy just about anything. But that’s only partially true.

Stock that usually sits on the shelf does tend to be vastly overpriced, so if you forgot ketchup on the way to a barbecue, you can bet you’ll pay a lot more for it at a gas station than you would at a supermarket, says David Bishop, director of convenience retailing for Willard Bishop Consulting. What about popular beverages? You’ll pay more for a 20-ounce soda at a gas station than you would for a two-liter bottle in a supermarket; water and energy drinks similarly tend to have high markups.

But there are bargains to be had: Some high-volume goods, such as cigarettes and beer, are often competitively priced at gas stations. And a cup of coffee goes for a fraction of what you’d pay at Starbucks.

9. “If you’re having car trouble, you’re in the wrong place.”

The days of the local gas station staffed with a skilled mechanic have all but come to an end. Station owners are swapping car lifts for beverage cases and car washes, anything that brings in a highvolume stream of income and traffic, says Dennis DeCota, executive director of the California Service Station and Automotive Repair Association. The more people who pull over for a soda, the greater the chance they’ll top off their tank and vice versa, the thinking goes. Few owners want the hassle of a business like car repair even if it earns the same amount of money as a convenience store.

In addition, repairing cars is increasingly expensive, and the ill will and potential liability from a fix-it job gone wrong are more of a headache than many owners are willing to risk. Today a service station can require $100,000 worth of diagnostic equipment—a significant investment. It’s a risky venture with little payoff, says Southern California station owner Arabshahi. In fact, Arabshahi removed the service station from one of his locations after he bought it. “I don’t have a service station because I am not a mechanic,” he says. “If he messes up a job, then it’s my name on there.”

10. “You don’t even need gas to run your car.”

Cars run on gasoline—but not all cars need gasoline to run. In fact, 6 million cars on the road today (mostly from U.S. manufacturers and built since 1998) are “flexible fuel” vehicles that can run on E85, a fuel that is 85 percent ethanol and only 15 percent gas. When Minneapolis resident John Schafer bought a car in late 2001, he chose a Chevy Tahoe because it’s a flexible-fuel car. Since then he’s filled up almost exclusively with E85. The big difference he’s noticed: Cars using E85 get about 15 percent fewer miles to the gallon. But it’s a drawback he’s willing to put up with. “I’m committed to the technology,” Schafer says. “With E85, it burns cleaner so it won’t pollute as much.”

While E85 generally costs less than regular gas, there is some concern that it may grow prohibitively expensive as demand outpaces supply: By 2006 ethanol was not just being used in E85—it also composed 15 percent of every gallon of gas sold. Supplies of ethanol are likely to grow thin, which could drive up the price of E85. And even die-hard Schafer says he won’t buy E85 if it starts to cost more than gasoline.

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/107117/10-Things-Gas-Stations-Won%27t-Tell-You?mod=family-autos

 

Julien Comblat is a friend of my nieces, he is really good, if you like his music, forward the link to all your friends, let's help him record his first album

Julien Comblat

 

Barbara Walters, of Television ' s 20/20, did a story on gender roles in Kabul , Afghanistan
several years before the Afghan conflict.
  
She noted that women customarily walked five paces behind their husbands.

 She recently returned to Kabul  and observed that women still walk behind their husbands.
  
From Ms .. Walters ' vantage point, despite the overthrow of the oppressive Taliban regime,
the women now seem to walk even further back behind their husbands, and are happy to maintain the old custom.

 Ms . Walters approached one of the Afghani women and asked,
'Why do you now seem happy with an old custom that you once tried so desperately to change? '
  
The woman looked Ms Walters straight in the eyes, and without hesitation said, ' Land Mines. '
  
Moral of the story is (no matter what language you speak and where you go):
BEHIND EVERY MAN, THERE ' S A SMART WOMAN             

Hard times often lead to hard choices. For many these days, a financial emergency means breaking into the retirement piggy bank long before retirement.

Unfortunately for those in need, early withdrawal of money from a 401(k) plan or individual retirement account usually means being hit with penalties and big tax bills.

"This can be the most expensive cash you'll ever withdraw," says Ed Slott, an accountant in Rockville Centre, N.Y., who specializes in retirement issues.

There are a handful of options for minimizing -- or even possibly avoiding -- the bite taken by the government. The challenge is navigating a labyrinth of rules that vary significantly based on your age and the source of the money. The complexity calls for working closely with an accountant, financial adviser or 401(k) provider.

Tom Bloom

Accounts such as a 401(k) or an IRA provide varying degrees of tax benefits when socking away money for later in life. But to prevent abuses there are rules to deter early withdrawals.

Withdrawal Penalties

For starters, the federal government normally levies a 10% penalty on money withdrawn from 401(k) accounts and traditional IRAs by those under age 59½. In addition, withdrawals of earnings and deductible contributions are subject to federal income taxes plus any state or local income taxes. If you live in California, you'll also be hit with an early-withdrawal fee from the state. (In a Roth IRA, contributions can always be withdrawn without penalty, but earnings can be taxed and penalized.)

For those investing through their current company's 401(k) plan and under the age of 59½, withdrawals generally aren't permitted. There are, however, certain strictly delineated "hardship" exemptions, including medical expenses, avoiding foreclosure on a home or funeral costs. But those withdrawals are still subject to taxes and penalties.

IRA rules are more lenient, allowing the same kind of hardship withdrawals without the 10% penalty. But the money will still be subject to income taxes.

In most cases, the only way for someone in a 401(k) under the age of 59½ to avoid the penalties and taxes is to borrow from his or her account. These loans can't be more than 50% of your account -- or total more than $50,000 -- and must be paid off within five years. (If the money is used to buy a house, the term of the loan can be much longer.) The interest you pay on the loan goes into your own account.

The risk to taking a loan is that should you lose your job, the loan is typically required to be repaid within 60 days -- or else is subject to penalties and taxes on the amount outstanding. But Rick Meigs, president of 401khelpcenter.com, says in that situation it's still a better option to have taken a loan and paid some of it back instead of getting hit with the added charges on the full amount. "It certainly won't be worse," he says.

There's a little-known wrinkle for 401(k) holders who have an account through an employer they separated from at age 55 or older. Such individuals are permitted to withdraw funds from that account -- without penalty. (Again, this applies only to an account with a former employer -- not a current employer.)

"You don't see people use this much," says Mr. Slott. However, he notes, it may be a reason enough for some who lose a job between age 55 and 59½ to leave money in a 401(k) instead of rolling it over to an IRA.

One strategy sometimes touted as a way to withdraw retirement-account money is so-called 72(t) payments, named for a section in the tax code. Also known as "substantially equal periodic payments," a 72(t) allows periodic withdrawals from an IRA or a former employer's 401(k) plan. There are no penalties, but taxes must be paid.

The rules for 72(t) payments impose significant limitations. The withdrawal amounts are based on a combination of your account value and your expected life span. Withdrawals have to be maintained for at least five years or until age 59½ -- whichever comes later. As a result, the approach is generally of limited appeal. "It gives off such a small amount of income...and you're locked into that amount for years," says Mr. Meigs. For example, a 55-year-old with $100,000 in a 401(k) account would receive less than $5,000 per year.

Older Workers Tap Funds

For those 59½ or older, the landscape is different, but not without nuances.

For those with an IRA, there is no penalty on withdrawals, but income taxes still apply.

It's not common, but some 401(k) plans allow employees over 59½ to take what are known as "in-service" withdrawals.

"Some companies will allow in-service withdrawals only for severe hardships; others don't bother imposing restrictions," says Frank Palmieri, a Princeton, N.J., benefits attorney.

For anyone considering withdrawing money from a retirement account, it's crucial to sit down with an experienced accountant. You'll want to assess as best as possible what the tax hit will be. That should be factored into any calculation of how much money to withdraw.

"People take the money and spend it because they need it, then comes tax time," says Mr. Slott. "If there's any way they can keep something aside for the taxes, they should."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124311499012450115.html#mod=sunday_journal_primary_hs

 

Help stop the wasteful practice of "finning" — slicing off a shark's valuable fins for soup and tossing the body back to sea. Contact your senators and urge them to vote "YES" on the Shark Conservation Act of 2009. It's shocking, really, that a practice like this can continue in US waters. I'm Sonja Fordham, Ocean Conservancy's Shark Conservation Program Director, and I'm talking about "finning" — the practice of slicing off a shark’s valuable fins for soup and tossing the body back to sea. If you're like me, the thought of it makes you outraged and eager to end it. Me, I've dedicated almost two decades to conserving sharks. You, I just need you to urge your senators to pass the Shark Conservation Act of 2009 right now. The bill, which already passed in the House of Representatives last March, is needed to end the practice of shark finning in US waters and to step up shark conservation efforts in other countries. The US passed a national finning ban in 2000, but the practice continues and is still legal in many other nations. The demand for the fins, which can sell for up to hundreds of dollars per pound, remains high for shark fin soup, an Asian delicacy. The Shark Conservation Act of 2009 closes loopholes in the US finning ban and can revitalize shark conservation efforts on a global scale. It must be passed without further delay. Please join me, and the thousands of other Ocean Conservancy supporters, by sending a powerful message to your senators. A growing number of shark populations are in peril from overfishing and unsustainable finning — we must do better. Prohibiting the removal of shark fins at sea takes the guesswork out of determining if sharks were finned and greatly improves the ability of experts to accurately record the shark species taken. This bill can end the waste of these vulnerable animals and will contribute to our knowledge of shark population health and conservation needs. When the passionate support of people like you combines with our policy expertise, we can end harmful fishing practices and turn the tide for sharks. We can end the wasteful practice of shark finning. Working together, we can save our sharks. Thank you for all that you do to fight for a healthy and diverse ocean, Sonja Fordham Shark Conservation Program Director Ocean Conservancy

Federal regulators are close to filing lawsuits against companies behind a national wave of spam "robo-calls" that warn people their auto warranties are about to expire and offer new service plans, two senators said Tuesday.

The Federal Trade Commission has started investigations into several companies involved in the deceptive calls, and the agency expects to bring cases against them within days, Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Mark Warner, D-Va., said at a news conference. The FTC also is providing a link on its website for consumers to file complaints.

The message "Your Car Warranty Has Expired," offering a deal on an extended warranty, already has brought some 300,000 inquiries and 4,000 complaints to the Better Business Bureau from consumers who received the calls over the past two years. The calls come even if the consumer has signed up for the national "Do Not Call" registry, which is maintained by the FTC.

"Law enforcement action in this area can be expected imminently," FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said Monday in a letter to Schumer. A spokeswoman for the agency declined further comment Tuesday.

Schumer had asked for an investigation by the agency into what he calls a scam of "robo-dialer harassment." The computerized calls can eat up a consumer's cellphone minutes, possibly jacking up phone charges, Schumer said.

The calls target people regardless of whether they have warranties or even own cars and have become such a nuisance that officials in 40 states are investigating the companies behind them.

About three dozen companies offer contracts similar to insurance policies, pledging to pay for car repairs in exchange for fees paid up front, according to the Better Business Bureau. They call numbers randomly and leave messages with a computerized voice telling people, falsely, that their auto warranties are about to expire.

"Out of warranty? You are still eligible to reactivate warranty coverage. This is the final call before we close the file." The recording typically gives the caller an option to stop receiving calls, but they continue to come even if consumers opt out, the officials say.

If people call back and agree to buy policies, the companies often don't let them see the contracts until they agree to pay, the BBB says. And some people don't learn until they've spent thousands of dollars that the deals don't cover many types of repairs.

Schumer and Warner have received the calls themselves on their personal cellphones.

"It's about time these robo-calls were terminated," Schumer said. "This prompt, aggressive action by the FTC should provide a bit of relief to the Americans besieged by these fraudulent calls."

Leibowitz noted in his letter to Schumer that such "robo-call" or "voiceblasting" phone campaigns may violate a number of telemarketing sales and other FTC rules.

Missouri authorities filed a suit last month against one of the largest car-warranty companies, USfidelis Inc., based in Wentzville, Mo., charging that company officials ignored a subpoena demanding that they answer questions about their business.

USfidelis spokesman Ken Fields said there was "some confusion" about the date in the subpoena for the company to appear before Missouri's Department of Insurance. "We are working that through," Fields said Tuesday.

USfidelis stopped making unsolicited calls last year and now uses only television advertising to market extended vehicle warranties, Fields said.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/regulation/2009-05-12-ftc-auto-warranties-scam_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

May 12, 2009 Dear BoatUS Member, In just two days, on May 14, the California Senate Budget Subcommittee will vote on a critical proposal that could alter the future of boating in your state. Cal Boating, your state's boating agency, could be dismantled and boaters will lose a department that works on your behalf, for boating safety and infrastructure. Please take a minute, right now to call your state Senator and ask for their vote to save Cal Boating. Background As you may know, Gov. Schwarzenegger proposed closing the independent California Dept. of Boating and Waterways (Cal Boating), ostensibly to save $600,000 a year, and merge the agency into the Dept of Parks and Recreation. But Cal Boating is funded solely by your boater fuel tax dollars, registration fees, and interest payments on infrastructure loans - not General Fund dollars - and its work makes boating safer and more accessible to everyone. There is nothing new about the Governor's proposal; it came up as a money-saving measure in 1992, 1996 and 2003. The Legislature carefully considered the proposal and rejected it each time. BoatUS believes that California's more than 3,000,000 boaters, who support a $17 billion per year boating industry, must have a department with a Director whose primary focus is boating. If you agree, please tell your state Senators to oppose the planned merger when they vote on the budget this Thursday. Action Needed You can find out more about the issue, and a sample message, at: http://www.rboc.org/call_to_arms.html. We can't let Cal Boating - and your boating dollars - get swallowed up in state bureaucracy. But time is running out so, please telephone your senator or send an e-mail message today. (If you need phone numbers, go to: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html) Thank you for your help, Margaret Podlich, Vice President BoatUS Government Affairs GovtAffairs@BoatUS.com

Help stop the wasteful practice of "finning" — slicing off a shark's valuable fins for soup and tossing the body back to sea. Contact your senators and urge them to vote "YES" on the Shark Conservation Act of 2009. It's shocking, really, that a practice like this can continue in US waters. I'm Sonja Fordham, Ocean Conservancy's Shark Conservation Program Director, and I'm talking about "finning" — the practice of slicing off a shark’s valuable fins for soup and tossing the body back to sea. If you're like me, the thought of it makes you outraged and eager to end it. Me, I've dedicated almost two decades to conserving sharks. You, I just need you to urge your senators to pass the Shark Conservation Act of 2009 right now. The bill, which already passed in the House of Representatives last March, is needed to end the practice of shark finning in US waters and to step up shark conservation efforts in other countries. The US passed a national finning ban in 2000, but the practice continues and is still legal in many other nations. The demand for the fins, which can sell for up to hundreds of dollars per pound, remains high for shark fin soup, an Asian delicacy. The Shark Conservation Act of 2009 closes loopholes in the US finning ban and can revitalize shark conservation efforts on a global scale. It must be passed without further delay. Please join me, and the thousands of other Ocean Conservancy supporters, by sending a powerful message to your senators. A growing number of shark populations are in peril from overfishing and unsustainable finning — we must do better. Prohibiting the removal of shark fins at sea takes the guesswork out of determining if sharks were finned and greatly improves the ability of experts to accurately record the shark species taken. This bill can end the waste of these vulnerable animals and will contribute to our knowledge of shark population health and conservation needs. When the passionate support of people like you combines with our policy expertise, we can end harmful fishing practices and turn the tide for sharks. We can end the wasteful practice of shark finning. Working together, we can save our sharks. Thank you for all that you do to fight for a healthy and diverse ocean, Sonja Fordham Shark Conservation Program Director Ocean Conservancy

A little perspective...Mayonnaise jar & Two Beers...

When things in your life seem almost too much to handle, when 24 hours
in a day are not enough, remember the mayonnaise jar and the 2 Beers.

A professor stood before his philosophy class and had some items in
front of him.

When the class began, he wordlessly picked up a very large and empty
mayonnaise jar and proceeded to fill it with golf balls.

He then asked the students if the jar was full.

They agreed that it was.

The professor then picked up a box of pebbles and poured them into the
jar. He shook the jar lightly.

The pebbles rolled into the open areas between the golf balls.

He then asked the students again if the jar was full.

They agreed it was.

The professor next picked up a box of sand and poured it into the jar.

Of course, the sand filled up everything else.

He asked once more if the jar was full.

The students responded with a unanimous 'yes.'

The professor then produced two Beers from under the table and poured
the entire contents into the jar effectively filling the empty space
between the sand.

The students laughed..

'Now,' said the professor as the laughter subsided, 'I want you to
recognize that this jar represents your life.

The golf balls are the important things---your family, your children,
your health, your friends and your favorite passions---and if
everything else was lost and only they remained, your life would still
be full.

The pebbles are the other things that matter like your job, your house
and your car.

The sand is everything else---the small stuff.

'If you put the sand into the jar first,' he continued, 'there is no
room for the pebbles or the golf balls.

The same goes for life.

If you spend all your time and energy on the small stuff you will
never have room for the things that are important to you.

Pay attention to the things that are critical to your happiness.


Spend time with your children.

Spend time with your parents.

Visit with grandparents.

Take time to get medical checkups.

take care of you, Take your spouse out to dinner.

Dance another dance, skate another lap,

There will always be time to clean the house and fix the lawn mower.

Take care of the golf balls first---the things that really matter.

The rest is just sand.

One of the students raised her hand and inquired what the Beer represented.

The professor smiled and said, 'I'm glad you asked.'

The Beer just shows you that no matter how full your life may seem,
there's always room for a couple of Beers with a friend.

Please share this with someone you care about. "I juts did"

Remember ladies

FDA announces recall of popular diet pill

U.S. government health officials warned dieters and body builders Friday to immediately stop using Hydroxycut, a widely sold Canadian-made supplement linked to cases of serious liver damage and at least one death.

The Food and Drug Administration said the maker of the dietary supplement has agreed to recall 14 Hydroxycut products. Available in grocery stores and pharmacies, Hydroxycut is advertised as made from natural ingredients. At least 9 million packages were sold last year, the FDA said.

Dr. Linda Katz of the FDA's food and nutrition division said the agency has received 23 reports of liver problems, including the death of a 19-year-old boy living in the Southwest. The teenager died in 2007, and the death was reported to the FDA this March.

Other patients experienced symptoms ranging from jaundice, or yellowing of the skin, to liver failure. One received a transplant and another was placed on a list to await a new liver.

There was no immediate comment from the U.S. distributor of the diet pill, Iovate Health Sciences, headquartered near Buffalo, New York. Hydroxycut is used by people trying to shed pounds and by body builders to sharpen their muscles.

Dietary supplements aren't as tightly regulated by the government as medications. Manufacturers don't need to prove to the FDA that their products are safe and effective before they can sell them to consumers. But regulators monitor aftermarket reports for signs of trouble, and in recent years companies have been put under stricter requirements to alert the FDA when they learn of problems.

Katz said it has taken so long to get a handle on the Hydroxycut problem because the cases of liver damage were rare and the FDA has no authority to review supplements before they're marketed. "Part of the problem is that the FDA looks at dietary supplements from a post-market perspective, and an isolated incident is often difficult to follow," she said.

The FDA relies on voluntary reports to detect such problems, and many cases are never reported, officials acknowledge.

Health officials said they have been unable to determine which Hydroxycut ingredients are potentially toxic, partially because the formulation of the products has changed several times. A medical journal report last month raised questions about one ingredient, hydroxycitric acid, derived from a tropical fruit. The article said it could potentially damage the liver.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30518843/