Qualifying For Success

Being on birth control pill can change the physiological state of many adult females in many ways. Different young ladies have different reactions depending on the physical make up of their bodies. Typically, most contraceptive pills contain similar elements to preclude impregnation. One birth control pill worry that has made national news focuses on. Yaz side effects. Know as Yaz, Yasmin, or Ocella, Yaz side effects have caused quite a commotion. Now there is hope for those who may not be sure who to contact about living with possible Yaz side effects.

According to the FDA, Yaz should only claim what has been sanctioned by the FDA as part of the advertisement effects, which does not appear to be the case. Yasmin is a drug that precludes impregnation, however, it was approved for the market to aid problems with PMDD, or Premenstrual dysphoric disorder as well as moderate to sever acne. With this said, the most life-threatening side effects were left out and you are forced to research the side effects the hard way.

There is at least one highly heralded class action suit against the maker of Yaz, Bayer Pharmaceuticals. If the effects of Yaz are modest, then you may want to think about becoming a part of that class action suit. If your Yaz side effects are of a more crucial nature, then you may want to consider seeking out a lawyer who is informed with this type of subject and initiate your own lawsuit against the pharmaceutical business. There may also be a malpractice suit depending on when the doctor prescribed the contraceptive pill and your medical history at the time of the prescription.

Cancer of the mesothelium is a uncommon cancer of the tissues that line the body’s inside organs. About 2,000 brand new occurrences are recognized every year in the whole United States. From these, aroundthree out of four of occurrences affect the sac around the lungs, referred to as the pleura. Also known as pleural mesothelioma. In around ten to 20 percent of instances, malignant mesothelioma may affect the tissue that envelopes visceral organs, called the peritoneal membrane, resulting in what is then acknowledged as peritoneal mesothelioma.

Introduction to asbestos is absolutely the main risk factor for this rare aliment. Following asbestos exposure, the delay to development of the mesothelioma disease could be twenty to forty years. As a result of occupation introduction, cancer of the mesothelium is around 3 times more likely in males, than in women. Due to the amount of instances moves upward with age, there are about ten times more instances in the males over age 64 than in the males in their thirties.

Having Mesothelioma is a severe ailment, that, currently, has a incredibly bad percentage of overall endurance. Nonetheless, if it is pinpointed early, care are then obtainable that will significantly stretch the patient’s life. New therapies continue to be and are being tested through clinical trials.

There seems to be some confusion between patriotism and common sense lately. This is what most nationalistic movements bank on. No one should speak up with the voice of reason; if you do, you will be shouted down, called a coward, and publicly shamed.

There have been more harsh treatments for men and women of reason. Just look at how many firing squads were active in the 20th century in countries that did not allow freedom of speech.

Therefore, let’s review where we were, where we are, and where we should be. Yes, we were shamelessly attacked on 911. Approximately 2752 innocent people were murdered on that day. We should never forget that.

Al-Quaida, Osama Bin Laden, and his associates reluctantly claimed responsibility. We invaded Afghanistan to pursue them and their allies. We did capture and kill some of them. So far, this seems like a reasonable response from the U.S. government and its “allies.”

After a while, Saddam raised his head and most of us believed he had weapons of mass destruction. Intelligence agencies, from more than one country, also believed this. Some of the countries that disagreed with the invasion of Iraq were concerned that the technology we might find were components they exported to Iraq.

On top of that, it was not a good time to “rattle the saber,” against, or to antagonize, the United States government, so Iraq was invaded. Some people still believe, to this day, that those weapons are in Syria or Iran now. Some people also believe this invasion was unfinished business from Desert Storm.

We may never know the real story, or it may be told long after our life times are over, but Saddam has been captured, displaced, and is now on trial for crimes against the Iraqi people. Iraqis have elected their own government, and it is time for us to move on. Let’s leave with the British and wish the Iraqis the best of luck with their new government.

Democracy is not an easy road to travel - just ask anyone from the former Soviet Block countries. There are “growth pains” and a “learning curve” to deal with. The United States had a full-scale civil war before resolving its regional differences. It is arguable that we still have those regional differences to this day. Look at the way the United States votes during a Presidential election.

© Copyright 2005 - Paul Jerard / Aura Publications

Paul Jerard is a co-owner and the director of Yoga teacher training at: Aura Wellness Center, in North Providence, RI. He has been a certified Master Yoga teacher since 1995. He is a master instructor of martial arts, with multiple Black Belts, four martial arts teaching credentials, and was recently inducted into the USA Martial Arts Hall of Fame. He teaches Yoga, martial arts, and fitness to children, adults, and seniors in the greater Providence area. Recently he wrote: Is Running a Yoga Business Right for You? For Yoga students, who may be considering a new career as a Yoga teacher. http://www.yoga-teacher-training.org/index.html

The last two weeks there has been an uproar over who manages our ports. The uproar began when it became public that the British company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., who manages terminal at 6 US ports was being bought out by Dubai Ports World. DPW is owned by Dubai which is one of the 7 Emirates of the United Arab Emirates. Since then there has been many statement made that have no bearing in fact. Any debate needs to be based on facts and not fear and political posturing. While I believe that no port operations should be managed by companies from out side the United States, I do not agree with using false information to promote that position.

Fact 1. DPW is not buying 6 American ports. All ports in the United States are owned by the states they are located in. In fact no part of the ports are owned by companies inside or outside the US. That said there are terminals, warehouses and other facilities that are leased to companies both inside and outside the US. DPW is buying P&O P&O which runs shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Fact 2. None of our ports are managed by companies inside or outside the US. Our ports are run by government bodies called Port Authorities . Many local Port Authorities contract out the management of individual terminals inside the port. Many times these terminals are leased to the company that manages them.

Fact 3. There are companies in America that can manage operations at our ports. I have seen several articles and many postings in blogs that say that our port operations are managed by foreign companies because there are no companies in America that do that kind of job. The truth is that two of the 10 largest port management companies are located here in the US.

Fact 4 The U.S. Coast Guard, Customs, port police and the Department of Homeland Security for all terminal operators. The operators themselves are not responsible for security. That being said there is a lot of information about how our ports are operated and possible vulnerabilities in the hands of companies out side our country.

Does facts 1, 2, and 4 mean that we should allow foreign companies to manage operations at our ports? I do not think so. It is one thing for a private company to out source jobs out side the US and another for our government to do so. If you look at the approval numbers for the President and the Congress you see that 65% to 70% of the people are not happy with the quality of jobs they are doing. We would all agree that it would be wrong to out source these positions to people in other countries who might do the job cheaper. Below are the top 4 reasons I thing we should not allow out sourcing the operations of our ports to companies out side the US.

1. Government: We are all familiar with the concept of government of the people, by the people and for the people. Ports are part of our government. The management of operations of our ports should be done by our people and for our people.

2. Security: Our ports are one of the most sensitive access points to our country. Even though we manage the security do we want people from foreign countries having access to every detail about how one of our ports is run, how to access the port, possible vulnerabilities of the port and access to how the ports security operates.

3. Taxes: Our ports are run by taxes and fees charged to the citizens of the US is it right to take tax money and give it to companies outside the United States. Even though some of those taxes are paid by the shipping company that uses the port. Those taxes are figured into the price of the goods and passed on to the consumer.

4. Economics: Many of our Port Authorities do not want to manage the day to day operations of our ports therefore they out source the management of the ports to private companies. Should our government be out sourcing quality management jobs to companies outside the US just because they pay their people less.

If you are interested in signing the petition to ask our elected officials to require the management of the operations of our ports to be by companies located here in the US then visit this site.
http://common-sense-america.com/port-petition.htm

Rusty Ford is a syndicated writer and president of American Common Sense.

Fearful that terrorists will next target Australia, Prime Minister John Howard broke the silence this week. He reopened the debate on issuing mandated national ID cards.

Those who live topside and think that internal political decisions made down under will have little bearing on our lives, should think again.

A national ID system in Australia will do more than raid that nation of personal liberty. It will set a precedent to be followed by the rest of the world.

So what’s the big deal?

Once the national ID card is adopted in Australia, its effectiveness in curbing terrorism, illegal immigration and host of other social ills will be realized. That will make for an easy sell to Americans, Europeans and others weary of what ails society. The national ID will be seen as a quick fix.

The logical progression will lead to an international interlink between nations. An international ID card will be established. Then, to thwart card theft, the business-card sized documents will be replaced with permanent IDs: computer chips implanted in the hand (for convenience) and the forehead (for permanence).

Once established, implanted IDs will lend themselves for other conveniences, such as biotechnical debit cards and health histories.

So long to liberty

Implanted IDs will be effective. They will do wonders to end terrorism, tax evasion, kidnapping, money laundering and even purse snatching. With the exception of the cumbersome act of bartering, implanted IDs will be required for commerce of any kind. No ID implant? No buying and no selling.

While international IDs will provide a panache of benifits, they will also end personal liberty as we know it. And that, many believe, will be a fair exchange.

End of national sovereignty

The move toward internationalism is not new. What is new is a report issued recently by the Council on Foreign Relations. Like John Howard’s quest to fend off terrorism, the CFR says terrorism can be held at bay if the Americas will form a coalition similar to the European Union.

Called “Building a North American Community,” the plan calls for a “community” (rather than “union”) of nations. It also mandates that national borders be replaced with “common perimeters”.

Those who believe Americans would never agree to such a blantant abandon of national sovereignty will be surprised to know that conversative Republican George W. Bush has already agreed to the plan. Along with Mexican president Vincent Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, Bush committed the government to the CFR plan on March 23, 2005. That, you will remember, is that date that Bush, Fox and Martin met at Bush’s ranch and at Waco, Texas.

What a plan!

In addition to effectively erasing national borders, the plan calls for American taxpayers to provide the following:

• “Long-term loans in pesos” to shore up Mexico’s economy

• A North American Investment Fund to send U.S. private capital to Mexico.

• A “permanent tribunal [ie, court] for North American dispute resolution.” (And you thought the Supreme Court’s decisions were painful.)

• “Social Security Totalization Agreement negotiated between the United States and Mexico.” That is, illegal immigrants living in the United States and will benefit from the Social Security system, a virtual guarantee of the its collapse.

• A fund to finance 60,000 Mexican students to study in U.S. colleges.

The move in Australia to impose a national ID system on that nation’s citizens will get little press attention in America, Europe or elsewhere. But once affected and proven effective, Australia’s national ID program will be one more step toward internationalism, the demise of national sovereignty and an end to personal liberty.

HillarysVillage.com

Another advantage of providing Pakistan with PALS is avoiding a
situation that might force the United States to take military
action within or against Pakistan. The U.S. has reportedly begun
training several groups of marines for a contingency plan to
invade Pakistan and remove its nuclear weapons should any
Islamic regime appear to be taking power (Barry). This situation
would be extremely detrimental to U.S. interests and should be
avoided if at all possible. First, a military incursion into
Pakistan would make any new regime immediately hostile to the
United States, depriving us of a useful strategic staging point
for military actions in the region. The hostility from this kind
of action would endure for years, even if a friendlier regime
should come to power. Second, the risk of U.S. casualties would
be extremely high. This also would have the potential to
seriously undermine support for the U.S. “War on Terrorism”,
hamstringing the ability of the U.S. to respond to future
threats against our interests. Third, a military action that
failed might increase the probability of the new regime actually
using the weapons that remained. It is unlikely that any U.S.
military action could actually secure all 30-50 Pakistani
nuclear weapons. At least a few would be left in the hands of
the incoming regime, which would feel threatened by the chance
of continued U.S. military actions and might adopt a “use ‘em or
lose ‘em” mindset toward their nuclear weapons. This danger
would be increased with a radical Islamic regime that considered
strikes against the West to be divinely ordained. PALS would
allow the outgoing regime to maintain control over the weapons
as they would control the codes, and would mean that the U.S.
only had to provide a means of escape to the leaders who had
them instead of trying to attack literally dozens of secure
installations. While PALS may not be a foolproof solution to
the problem of Pakistan’s nuclear security, they are a step in
the right direction. They are also a far better idea than our
current policy of preparing to take military action instead of
dealing with the problem before it occurs.