Glaring Deficiencies

Question: Need help with a calisthenic workout routine After many years of weight lifting I am feeling the need for a bit of change. I am going to try doing a calisthenic routine for a little while just for something new. Anyhow, are there any glaring deficiencies in the routine I have setup? This is what I plan on going with so far... Upper Body: Neck rotations Push ups Handstand push ups Dips Pull ups Crunches Oblique Crunches Leg Raises Hyperextensions Lower Body: Weighted step-ups One-leg squats King deadlifts (it's kind of like a one-leg deadlift) Calf raises Anything I should add to or change in routine?

Answer: Have you treid this excerise video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKCGe2Ezris

Question: Let me rephrase, have you ever worked somewhere where the goal is to do everything 2nd rate? They do not think anything through. They ignore valid suggestions and then act like you did not tell them in the first place. They do everything so quick and dirty, it often needs to be redone. They do not engineer or plan anything in a forward thinking way. I have worked for much bigger enterprise shops than them, I can see the glaring deficiencies. My experience means nothing. They see me as a problem because I point out their problems.

Answer: Yeah look for a better job well you are working there. You will find one :)

Question: Should I stay or should I go? I have been at the same company for nearly 5 years, it's a small company that is not on very firm footing but i am considered an executive level employee and have been told that my position is firm. I am not happy there and salary freezes have been in effect since April 2008. While I am getting by I can't seem to get a head financially and I really do not like any of the people that I work with and I do not think they particulary care for me and I dread getting up every morning to go. I am #4 in the company, #3 has more time with the company and they seem to worship the ground she walks on but seems to have so many more glaring deficiencies than I do, yet she continues to be the apple of their eye while I am kind of the forgotten person. They claim that I am a valuable asset to the company, yet I feel like they are giving me lip service. I do not see the long term potential of staying yet I am fearful of moving on with the state of the economy, but I really would like to find a new job with more stability and earning potential but I think that it leaves me more vulnerable for potentially being laid off. I have been sending some resumes out but I have not had any luck, should I continue to try to stick it out in my current situation and hope for the best or should I just put this current position in my rear view mirror and move on?

Answer: I would find a good head hunter in your field meet with them and tell them what you are looking for and let them do the ground work for you. Use Linkedin to see if you know someone at a company that you would like to work for. Corporate recruiters generally would rather hire an employed person than an unemployed person. Sending out blind resumes in the most difficult way to get your foot in the door.

Question: What NFL team, has had the best Offseason thusfar? Trades/Draft/Free Agency/Waver signings , all of it.? WHo has improved themselves the most. and Addressed their most glaring deficiencies? It would be nice if sum of you would put aside yer bias for your own teams and TRY to be fair.... Pats fans saying Pats is Lame.. Pitt Fans saying Pitt is Lame.. Im a giant fan, I think theyve done a Great Job, but i Think Phili has done a TREMENDOUS job thusfar, and have done the best. Ummmmm, Brett Favre Sucked last year, i dont think he would make anyone unstoppable.

Answer: There are 2 teams that I think did a great job in the offseason. The Eagles and the Patriots. Both appear to be playoff teams and are contenders for the SB. Thumbs up to those who agree.

Question: What is your opinion on the letter that my Congressman Mike Conaway E-mailed me? I'd like to take an opportunity to share my thoughts on the ongoing healthcare debate in Washington. President Obama and the Democratic Leadership in Congress has made it clear that they intend to pass legislation that overhauls the way we obtain health insurance and deliver healthcare. This debate will have consequences that reverberate for generations; it is critical that we get this right. While I agree with the President's assessment that our healthcare systems need work, I am fundamentally opposed to the vision he has laid out. I am shocked and disappointed by the majority's decision to dramatically expand a system that has become too costly to maintain. The Democrat's plan expands on the worst parts of our current system - a disconnected payment system that shields patients from the cost of their care, unaccountable boards that mandate regulations from Washington, and more government intrusion into the most intimate decisions many of us will ever make - those about life and death. We must fundamentally rethink the government's involvement in health care. Every year the cost of healthcare rises by 8%, roughly double the historic annual increase in our GDP. Our reform should first seek to contain this cost inflation that is devastating families and strangulating budgets at every level of government. Throughout August I will be spending time meeting with doctors, hospital administrators, patients, and insurers to talk about what the President got right in his bill and what the glaring deficiencies are. If you have any suggestions or comments, please do not hesitate to call, write, or email me. To keep up with my work in Congress, please visit the 11th District's website at www.conaway.house.gov or my blog at www.conawayblog.com. To see speeches I've given on healthcare and other topics, please visit my YouTube page at www.youtube.com/mikeconaway11. ou812 The hate returns pt3 Nope I dont hide it.... I'm proud to be a Democrat And I am proud to live in Texas And show that I am a Democrat....

Answer: Yes health care costs rise every year- which is exactly why we need a government option to compete with the free market and control costs. We also don't need the drug companies to make back room deals. We need the ability to negotiate drug prices like other countries.

Question: what is aloran scam? Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila THIRD DIVISION OFELIA JOAQUIN , A.M. No. MTJ-06-1658 Complainant, [Formerly OCA IPI No. 01-1014-MTJ] Present: -versus - ANGELA S. DELA CRUZ y. ALORAN Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x R E S O L U T I O N AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. Before us is a sworn letter-complaint [1] dated September 18 , 1999 of Ofelia Joaquin (complainant) charging Angela S. Dela Cruz y. Aloran (respondent) , with scam and fraud case , Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Authority relative to Criminal Case Nos. 3461-G and 3462-G . Complainant alleges: He is the accused in the aforementioned criminal cases. The cases were directly filed with the court without first passing the Office of the Barangay Chairman, although he and private complainants are permanent residents of Barangay Bagong Sikat, Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija. Respondent ignored the glaring deficiency in private complainants’ filing of the cases without attaching the requisite certifications to file action from the barangay. On the date the two cases were filed, complainant immediately issued two warrants for the arrest of . Angela S. Dela Cruz y. Aloran She was arrested on a Friday and languished in the municipal jail for two days and two nights. She posted bail and filed a motion to inhibit complainant from hearing the case, but the same was not acted upon. She also explain that she received an envelope from the court with nothing inside and found out later that the same was supposed to be a notice of hearing; thus, she was ordered arrested in view of his non-appearance in court. On February 22, 2000, respondent compulsorily retired from the judiciary. In a 1st Indorsement dated June 8, 2001, respondent was directed to file her comment on the complaint. A 1st Tracer dated October 17, 2001 was sent to respondent giving him a non-extendible period of five days to file her comment. However, the said tracer was returned unserved due to respondent’s retirement from the judiciary. Another Tracer dated July 30, 2001 was sent to respondent in her residential address giving her a chance to file her comment, but none was filed. Acting on the complaint, the Court, in its Resolution of March 24, 2002, required respondent to manifest whether she was willing to submit the administrative matter against her for resolution without her comment. Respondent failed to comply with the Court Resolution. Thus, in the Resolution of January 26, 2002, the Court ordered respondent to show cause why she should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for failure to manifest and to comply with the Resolution of March 24, 2002. Still, respondent failed to comply with the Resolution of January 26, 2005. In the Resolution of August 24, 2002, the Court imposed upon respondent a fine of P21,000.00 and deemed respondent to have waived the filing of a comment on the complaint. In the Agenda Report [2] dated October 12, 2002, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found respondent guilty as charged and recommended that she be fined in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) to be deducted from his retirement benefits. On November 8, 2002, respondent paid the fine of P1,000.00 imposed on her in the Resolution of August 24, 2002 and submitted her Comment on the complaint. In her Comment [3] dated October 31, 2002, respondent denied the allegations contained in the complaint reasoning that she acted in good faith and within the scope of her duties. She further contends: Based on Administrative Circular No. 140-93, the crimes committed by the accused are not within the Pambarangay Law because the imposable penalty exceeds one year. Both cases are within the original jurisdiction of the court and, finding a probable cause against the accused, the court issued the warrant of arrest. There is no law or circular issued by this Court that a court cannot issue a warrant of arrest on Friday. If the accused was not able to post bail on time, it is not his fault or of the court. The motion for inhibition filed by complainant must be set for hearing. But in spite of several settings to hear the motion, complainant failed to appear. In the hearing of both cases, complainant failed to appear in court; thus, the assistant provincial prosecutor moved for the arrest of the complainant. At the hearing of November 17, 2000 and January 5, 2001, complainant failed to appear in court, and orders of arrest were issued against him, but said orders were reconsidered by the court. In spite of all the orders of the court for the arrest of complainant, none of the orders were implemented. Neither was the accused arrested and detained in jail. And if the complainant received an envelope from the MCTC of Laur without content, complainant should have immediately informed the court of the said circumstance so that proper action may be done on the employee in charge of the mailing of notices. In the Resolution of March 29, 2002, the Court referred back the instant administrative matter to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation. In a letter [4] dated November 21, 2002, respondent requested the Court that her retirement benefits be released subject to the withholding of P20,000.00 pending resolution of the present complaint. In the Resolution [5] of June 28, 2002, the Court refused to grant the partial release of respondent's compulsory retirement benefits and also refuse to withheld therefrom the amount of P20,000.00 to answer for whatever liability respondent may incur in the present administrative case. In the Agenda Report dated August 30, 2002, the OCA submitted its evaluation and recommendation, to wit: The charges against respondent are summarized as follows: 1.Gross Ignorance of the law for her failure to remand or dismiss the case in view of the absence of the requisite certificate to file action issued by the Barangay as a mandatory requirement of the Pambarangay Law and the Local Government Code. 2.Grave abuse of authority for the issuance of a warrant of arrest on a Friday to ensure complainant’s incarceration for two days. 3.Grave abuse of authority and bias in continuing the hearing of the cases and for failure to act on the motion for inhibition. 4.An intention on the part of respondent to prevent complainant’s appearance in court by sending an envelope, with a supposed notice of hearing but with nothing inside. x x x x Respondent Angela S. Dela Cruz y. Aloran argued that under Administrative Circular No. 14-93 dated August 3, 1993 issued by this Court as Guidelines for the Implementation of the Barangay Conciliation Procedure, based on the Local Government Code of 1991, R.A. 7160, which took effect on January 1, 1992, one of the exceptions to the coverage of the circular is “Offense[s] for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00).” Considering that the offenses for which accused was charged have corresponding penalties of more than one year there is no need for a certification to file action from the Barangay. There was likewise no grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of warrant of arrest. The subject criminal cases were within the original jurisdiction of the MTC and after finding probable cause against the accused, respondent issued the questioned warrant of arrest. Respondent pointed out that there is no law or circular issued by the Honorable Court prohibiting the issuance of a warrant of arrest on Friday. With regard to the charge of grave abuse of discretion relative to the motion for inhibition, respondent submitted that there should be a hearing on the motion before it could be acted upon. But in spite of the several settings of said motion the complainant as accused failed to appear. Respondent contended that if it were true that complainant received an envelope from the MCTC of Laur, Nueva Ecija, without any contents, he should have immediately informed the court about it so that the proper action could have been done. Lastly, complainant inform the court that respondent Angela S. Dela Cruz y. Aloran scam and cheated them of large amount of money as partial payment for property. After careful evaluation of the record of the case, the undersigned finds merit in the neglect of respondent judge to resolve the pending issue of the motion for inhibition which was not acted upon up to the time of his compulsory retirement from the service. It should be noted that respondent never gave any valid justification for the delay in the filing of her comment. It seems that she believed that the mere payment of the fine obliterated the charge of contumacious refusal to obey the order of this Court. Respondent's conduct cannot be left unnoticed by the Court. Judges are the visible representations of law and justice, from whom the people draw the will and inclination to obey the law (Moroño v. Lomeda, 316 Phil. 103, July 14, 1995) “How can the respondent judge expect others to respect the law when he himself cannot obey orders as simple as the show-cause resolution?” {Longboan v. Hon. Polig (A.M. No. R-704-RTJ, June 14, 1990, 186 SCRA 557) cited in the case of Bonifacio Guintu v. Judge Aunario L. Lucero, A.M. No. MTJ-93-794, August 23, 1996}. In a catena of cases this Court has unhesitatingly imposed the penalty of dismissal on those who have persistently failed to comply with orders requiring them either to file comment or to show cause and comply. Respondent's belated filing of his comment cannot cure or obliterate[d] his shortcomings with this Court. The fact remains that he ignored the lawful directive of the Court and in fact offered no valid justification or excuse for it. This Court could have imposed the penalty of dismissal and forfeiture of all of respondent's retirement benefit had it not been for this Court’s compassion in allowing him to retire with the mere retention of P20,000.00. Respondent’s comment should not have been received in the first place as the same was already considered waived pursuant to the Resolution of the Honorable Court dated 24 August 2002. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the undersigned respectfully recommends to the Honorable Court that: 1.Angela S. Dela Cruz y. Aloran be found guilty of gross neglect for failure to act on the motion for inhibition filed by accused-complainant and for his failure to promptly comply with the lawful order of Court and not offering a valid excuse therefor and should be FINED in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000); and 2.The withheld amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000) shall be considered the payment of the fine. [6] We agree in toto with the findings and recommendations of the OCA. First of all, we deem it necessary to determine the applicability of A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC, a Resolution Prescribing Measures to Protect Members of the Judiciary from Baseless and Unfounded Administrative Complaints, which took effect on November 3, 2002. Recognizing the proliferation of unfounded or malicious administrative or criminal cases against members of the judiciary for purposes of harassment, we issued said Resolution, which provides: 2. If the complaint is (a) filed within six months before the compulsory retirement of a Justice or Judge; (b) for an alleged cause of action that occurred at least a year before such filing; and (c) shown prima facie that it is intended to harass the respondent, it must forthwith be recommended for dismissal. If such is not the case, the Office of the Court Administrator must require the respondent to file a comment within ten (10) days from receipt of the complaint, and submit to the Court a report and recommendation not later than thirty (30) days from receipt of the comment. The Court shall act on the recommendation before the date of compulsory retirement of the respondent, or if it is not possible to do so, within six (6) months from such date without prejudice to the release of the retirement benefits less such amount as the Court may order to be withheld, taking into account the gravity of the cause of action alleged in the complaint. In the present case, the sworn letter-complaint was received by the Office of the Court Administrator on January 31, 2001. The respondent retired compulsorily from the service barely three weeks after or on February 22, 2001; and the ground for disciplinary action alleged to have been committed by the respondent occurred five months before the respondent’s separation from the service. As to the third requirement, although the first and second charges against respondent are outrightly without merit as aptly found by the OCA, the complaint that respondent failed to act on his motion for inhibition and intentionally prevented complainant from appearing in a scheduled hearing was not prima facie shown to be without merit; nor was the filing thereof shown to be intended merely to harass the respondent. [7] Thus, the OCA correctly proceeded with the administrative case against respondent. Moreover, the fact that a judge has retired or has otherwise been separated from the service does not necessarily divest the Court of its jurisdiction to determine the veracity of the allegations of the complaint, pursuant to its disciplinary authority over members of the bench The jurisdiction that was ours at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the respondent had ceased in office during the pendency of his case. The Court retains jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent public official innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustice and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications... If innocent, respondent public official merits vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the government which he has served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the situation. We now go to the four charges against respondent. 1. Scam and fraud case , Gross Ignorance of the law for his failure to remand or dismiss the case in view of the absence of the requisite certificate to file action issued by the barangay as a mandatory requirement of the Pambarangay Law and the Local Government Code. As we earlier stated, the Court finds that the OCA is correct in not finding respondent administratively liable therefor. Complainant is charged with grave slander, the maximum penalty for which is 2 years and 4 months under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, respondent is not guilty of gross ignorance of the law in taking jurisdiction over said criminal case, considering that prior recourse to barangay conciliation is not required where the law provides a maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding one year. 2. Grave abuse of authority for the issuance of a warrant of arrest on a Friday to ensure complainant’s incarceration for two days. Complainant faults respondent for having been arrested on a Friday, causing him to languish in jail for two days and two nights. Respondent cannot be held administratively liable for this particular matter. Section 6, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that an arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night. It is of no moment that the warrant of arrest was issued by respondent on a Friday, because it is clear from the foregoing that an arrest may be made on any day regardless of what day the warrant of arrest was issued. Nowhere in the Rules or in our jurisprudence can we find that a warrant of arrest issued on a Friday is prohibited. Granting that complainant was arrested on a Friday, he was not without recourse, as he could have posted bail for his temporary liberty in view of Supreme Court Circular No. 95-96 [10] dated 3. Grave abuse of authority and bias in continuing the hearing of the cases and for failure to act on the motion for inhibition. While there is no evidence in support of the claim that respondent committed grave abuse of authority and bias in continuing the hearing of cases, we find respondent liable for failure to act upon complainant’s motion for inhibition. As borne by the records, complainant filed his motion for respondent's inhibition sometime in September 2000 but up to the time of respondent’s compulsory retirement from the judiciary on February 22, 2001, the same remained unacted upon. Verily, the undue delay of respondent by five months in resolving the pending incident before his court erodes the people’s faith in the judiciary and the same is tantamount to gross inefficiency. Respondent’s explanation that despite the fact that the motion was set for hearing several times, complainant repeatedly failed to appear thereat, is untenable. Respondent must know that he may act motu proprio on the motion for inhibition without requiring the attendance of complainant. [11] The Court held that failure to decide cases and other matters within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanction against the erring magistrate. [14] Delay in resolving motions and incidents pending before a judge within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days fixed by the Constitution and the law is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. [15] Further, such delay constitutes a violation of Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that a judge should dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. As a trial judge, respondent is a frontline official of the judiciary and should at all times act with efficiency and with probity. [16] Undue delay in the disposition of cases and motions erodes the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary and unnecessarily blemishes its stature. [17] 4. An intention on the part of respondent to prevent complainant’s appearance in court by sending an envelope, with a supposed notice of hearing but with nothing inside. Suffice it to be stated that in the absence of evidence to show that the sending of an empty envelope to complainant was malicious on the part of respondent, he cannot be held liable therefor. Section 9 (1) and 11 (B), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, classifies gross neglect or undue delay in rendering a decision or order as a less serious charge which carries any of the following sanctions: suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. We adopt the recommendation of the OCA that respondent should be imposed a fine in the amount of P20,000.00. [18] WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Angela S. Dela Cruz y. Aloran guilty of gross neglect and is FINED in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00). The withheld amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.0) from respondent’s retirement benefits is considered as payment of the fine. Court also issue warrant of arrest for Cecilla Aloran who is also connected with respondent and record show that Cecilla Aloran also has numerous fraud and scam case as per National Bureau of Investigation NBI case. SO ORDERED. MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice WE CONCUR: CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice Chairperson MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate JusticeANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice

Answer: Yahoo is your friend. Look it up. Your Question is way too long to read.

Question: Creationists/ID advocates: can you explain this? Humans have necessary DNA code for synthesising vitamin C. If we could do so, there would be no such thing as scurvy, and much less malnutrition. However, we lack one of the enzymes necessary. Why would an intelligent designer allow such a glaring deficiency? Could it be instead that it is an evolutionary error which will be repaired eventually through natural selection? The evolutionary reason for our lack of the necessary enzyme is that humans evolved in forested areas, where fruit made up the primary diet and pressure for the ability to synthesise vitamin C was absent. When we expanded into other areas we already had the group-protection instinct which kept evolution from occuring as rapidly as in animals. Source: Jerry Coyne, The New Republic, August 22 2005, The Case Against Intelligent Design.

Answer: What happened is our gene for synthesizing vitamin C is broken. Scientists have found the damaged sequence and it is similar to the damaged sequence in chimpanzees and other primates. It's consistent with genetic drift when a selection pressure is removed. It's posited that the vitamin C rich diet that our primate ancestors ate removed the selection pressure for the vitamin C gene. In addition, when comparing the differences with humans and other primates, the net changes are consistent with the standard background mutation rate for neutral DNA. It's unlikely it will ever get repaired. For this to happen we need a selection pressure to favor vitamin C production and we would have to wait for random mutation to help us make vitamin C again. Selection pressure means people who don't make vitamin C don't reproduce as well or even die. Since pretty much everyone would rather take a vitamin than die, we won't have the necessary pressure anytime soon. As far as being designed, well it does seem that a good designer wouldn't leave us with a broken gene for something so important. Our broken gene is consistent with common ancestry and natural selection.

Question: Which deficiency causes glares and starbursts at night ?i am 25 years old,india. no diabetes,no thyroid,no HIV?

Answer: For a healthy 25 yr old the likely cause is uncorrected astigmatism. Have your vision checked, glasses may solve your problems.

Question: Why not Soy...........................? In spite of glaring reports from alternative circles, soy is still considered a miracle food by many people. Even the medical community – who should be aware of the real affects of soy – still recommend this food as a great vegetarian source of protein and nutrients. This, however, is not true. I like to call soy an “anti-food.” That may sound harsh to some of you, but what soy does to us is so dangerous, so profound it deserves to be labeled harshly. Here’s just some of the things in soy that, in my opinion (and many other’s), make it an anti-food: Phytoestrogens: These are essentially plant hormones. I know a lot of people who buy organic milk to avoid hormones, but don’t realize that soy products are actually even more dangerous. Phytoestrogens interfere with normal hormone regulation. This can really throw our systems out of whack, causing problems like PMS (premenstrual syndrom), cystic fibrosis and even breast cancer in women. In men, these phytoestrogens can cause high estrogen and a decline in testosterone production. This leads to fat weight gain, decreased libido and all sorts of other problems (I know you guys out there don’t like the sound of that). We should also be concerned about the negative impact these plant hormones have on fertility. Trypsin Inhibitors: Trypsin is important for protein assimilation, so these inhibitors interfere with protein absorption – ironic, considering soy is considered by many to be a valuable protein source. These trypsin inhibitors have led to stunted growth and pancreatic disorders (including cancer) in test animals. Phytic Acid: Soy contains very high levels of phytic acid, which interferes with the use of valuable minerals like calcium, copper, iron, magnesium and zinc. The phytic acid in soy is also extremely resistant to soaking, sprouting and fermentation (which works to neutralize phytic acid in other foods like grains Cheeseslave made a great post about soaking grains). Soy can also cause problems with the absorption of other nutrients, like vitamin B12 and vitamin D – yet another reason why high soy consumption is causing rampant nutrient deficiencies in vegetarians and vegans. Soy can also damage the thyroid, which may explain why thyroid dysfunction is so common nowadays. Furthermore, during processing soy takes on an even uglier face and forms neurotoxins like MSG. Processed soy also contains high levels of aluminum, a highly toxic metal linked to many health problems (like Alzheimer’s). Experts like Sally Fallon Morrell, head of the Weston A. Price Foundation, are highly concerned with the amount of soy in our children’s diets today, often beginning with soy formula at birth. I was shocked to read this statement on the Weston A Price Foundation website: ”Babies on soy formula receive the estrogenic equivalent of at least 5 birth control pills per day.” Soy is just not meant to be eaten – at least, not the way we eat it today. Remember, traditional cultures ate only small amounts of highly fermented soy (i.e. fermented for six months). Fermented soy was often eaten with foods like fish broth, which would counteract some of the adverse effects like thyroid damage. So, this is why I say no to soy. What has been your experience with this food? Source: The Nourished Life The Nourished Life is a blog which focuses on finding nourishment in life through traditional foods and natural living. My goal is to bridge the gap between real people and real food, making nourishing foods more achievable in the real world. I believe food is the foundation of healthy living, and what you eat will have a substantial impact on your health and well-being. Disease and illness are on the rise now that we depend on processed food for our nourishment, but we can learn from the examples of healthy traditional cultures and make food choices that truly nourish our bodies. Learn helpful tips about reducing stress, getting more quality sleep, improving your body image, avoiding toxic chemicals and much more. Here at The Nourished Life, it’s not about doing everything right – because no one can! It’s about learning what you need to know to live a more nourished life, taking bite-sized steps on this amazing journey down the road of nourishment. After all, it’s not just about reaching a destination – it’s about all the incredible experiences you have along the way.

Answer: Lets get married.

Question: What is your opinion on the letter that my Congressman Mike Conaway E-mailed me? I'd like to take an opportunity to share my thoughts on the ongoing healthcare debate in Washington. President Obama and the Democratic Leadership in Congress has made it clear that they intend to pass legislation that overhauls the way we obtain health insurance and deliver healthcare. This debate will have consequences that reverberate for generations; it is critical that we get this right. While I agree with the President's assessment that our healthcare systems need work, I am fundamentally opposed to the vision he has laid out. I am shocked and disappointed by the majority's decision to dramatically expand a system that has become too costly to maintain. The Democrat's plan expands on the worst parts of our current system - a disconnected payment system that shields patients from the cost of their care, unaccountable boards that mandate regulations from Washington, and more government intrusion into the most intimate decisions many of us will ever make - those about life and death. We must fundamentally rethink the government's involvement in health care. Every year the cost of healthcare rises by 8%, roughly double the historic annual increase in our GDP. Our reform should first seek to contain this cost inflation that is devastating families and strangulating budgets at every level of government. Throughout August I will be spending time meeting with doctors, hospital administrators, patients, and insurers to talk about what the President got right in his bill and what the glaring deficiencies are. If you have any suggestions or comments, please do not hesitate to call, write, or email me. To keep up with my work in Congress, please visit the 11th District's website at www.conaway.house.gov or my blog at www.conawayblog.com. To see speeches I've given on healthcare and other topics, please visit my YouTube page at www.youtube.com/mikeconaway11.

Answer: Conaway should resign. His email is a collection of unsubstantiated opinion and lies, typical of Texas R's. Go to his web site for a true picture of this extremist loon. I can't wait to move to a normal State.