Student debt has been rising and the average undergraduate doesn’t feel confident they will pay off their loans before middle age.
Lots of factors contribute to the increased debt a student faces. Some of these include:
Higher tuition costs
Increased time requirements to obtain a degree (5 year program vs 4 year)
Fewer students work while taking classes
More competition after graduation
Higher cost of living precludes early repayment of loans
And it is projected to rise. The Congressional Budget Office each year projects the total amount of new federal student loans the office believes they will issue with this year projected to be nearly $1.5 trillion.
Andrew Coates, candidate for University Regent in Southern Nevada, states, “One way that colleges can help students keep their debt under control is by locking-in tuition rates. This means that tuition will not be increased while a student pursues their degree. By locking-in tuition, students will know exactly how much they will pay each year in college, which will help them budget accordingly.”
So how can students curb their debt?
According to US News data, the average cost of tuition and fees for the 2018–2019 school year was $35,676 at private colleges, $9,716 for state residents at public colleges and $21,629 for out-of-state students at state school, with many universities easily exceeding these numbers. So students may want to consider getting early credits completed at community colleges and then finishing their degree at a university. Additionally, many will need to decide if its worth picking an out-of-state college for a degree that provides the same job market edge as an in-state school.
Many students don’t apply for grants, loans and scholarships because of time constraints, misconceptions such as they don’t fit a demographic, or “will be credit history required?”, and lack of optimism that they will even qualify.
Mark Kantrowitz, publisher and vice president of saveforcollege.com states, “More than 2 million students did not get a Federal Pell Grant even though they were eligible because they did not file the FAFSA.” FAFSA (link attached) is a free application for federal student aid assisting students who want to apply for a loan, grant or work study.
Scholarships are ideal in that they do not need to be paid back. Many can be found at scholarships.com.
Many students get a culture shock living on their own when they spend as if Mom or Dad is still footing the bill. If eating out nightly, shopping online, or using excess data does not fit into the amount your trying to live on each month, budget expenses early on and stick to it.
When we try to build our credit as a young adult, we may apply for a credit card that advertises to college students with no monthly fee and “rewards.” However, the interest rates can be up to 25%. If you do use the credit card don’t borrow more than you can pay off each month, always shooting for a zero balance.
Rent, transportation, utilities, meals, entertainment, internet and phone service, add up and can be more costly than tuition. Share expenses with roommates or family members to lessen your loan debt.
Cook and prepare meals for the coming days, use school Wi-Fi, carpool to class, purchase less beer, and use the university gym to save money.
But most importantly, don’t stress about the debt. Your efforts should be concentrated on your schooling and getting a degree is one of the best ways to combat your debt later in life.
Celebrities such as Julia Louise-Dreyfus, Olivia Newton-John, Christina Applegate and Cynthia Nixon have revealed their breast cancer diagnoses, helping raise awareness for the most common cancer to affect women. It’s the second most common cause of cancer death in females.
1 in 8 women will develop invasive breast cancer over the course of their lifetime. According to the American Cancer Society, an estimated 266,120 cases of invasive breast cancer are expected to be diagnosed in women in the US with 63,960 cases of non-invasive breast cancer, a rise from last year.
40,920 women and 480 men are expected to die this year of breast cancer.
Risk factors for breast cancer include:
Breast cancer is staged based on size of the tumor, if lymph nodes are affected and whether the cancer has spread to distant areas of the body. Prognosis varies greatly on the stage.
85% of breast cancer cases occur in women with NO family history.
Mammograms are the first line screening tool for breast cancer and are currently recommended biennial for women aged 50-74. However for those at higher risk, mammogram screening should start earlier, with possible follow-up ultrasound, and be performed more regularly.
"We have a good military and we can take down government…” -General Wesley Clark
Throughout the book of 1 and 2 Kings, conspiracy after conspiracy took place to overthrow the powers of that time. It is, in fact, a biblical truth no one can deny (Jeremiah 11:9).
In America today, to talk of conspiracy always seems to fall on deaf ears, as if it were just a theory. And, of course, it is only a theory until it comes to pass, then it's a fact! Then those who cried "conspiracy theorists" sit back and try to figure out why no one told them. Yet, most have learned this deceptive lesson by listening to the lying CIA-media that they denounce as a bunch of corporate liars (John 8:44). How this works I do not know, it is simply the reflection of hypocrisy concerning that of the people in this country and that on a massive scale (Romans 1:18).
Little by little, the people in this country are discovering that conspiracy theories are simply conspiracies (Jeremiah 11:9), as they are also discovering that the CIA-controlled media has a history of giving cover for the conspirators themselves.
One such case is the new world order (Revelation 17:17) in which no can any longer cast off as some sort of theory in the way that Americans have done for decades in the past.
Incrementally, and through political and media deception, conspirators are hard at work creating the American empire by conquering nation after nation under the guise of “we are being threatened again, and we must deal with them or else.” And this all at the expense of the blood of your sons and daughters.
Did you know that America has over 737 military bases in 148 countries? (Editor’s note: The number of countries the US has bases in is actually, unclear. The ‘737 military bases in 148 countries' seems to originate from a quote by Rand Paul in 2011 who said, “We’re in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world” and at the time, the folks that fact checked the story claim to have found Pentagon sources that backed these numbers up; however, the problem now is that all the links they sourced are broken. So, it’s true there are a huge amount of US foreign military bases in the world but these exact numbers may or may not be accurate. Modern experts, scholars and sources all appear to suggest that there are several hundred US military bases in approx. 80 countries. All that being said, Bradlee’s main point - in that there are a huge number of US military bases all over the world, is still valid, especially his next statement...)
Can someone please show me where Americans have delegated authority to representatives to plunder and conquer other nations on the biddings of the military industrial complex, only then to put American military presence in their place?
If that is not enough evidence of what corruption in American government has been busy doing on a global scale, I have to say, that I do not know how to help you understand.
America, what is happening right before your eyes is treason (Luke 22:48). It is treason against Americans, as well as unlawful invasions into foreign countries (Article 3, Section 3, US Constitution).
How many times the American government and the media have convinced Americans of some monstrous dictator in a third world country that needs be dealt with or else, because they are some sort of threat, only to find that they were the ones responsible for creating and inciting the wars from the very offset (Psalm 94:20).
Again, at length, those particular countries are then plundered of their resources while American military presence is left in control. It is called totalitarianism. Wake up!
One thing you might want to ask yourselves next time you hear the "we need to deal with them or else" you might want to ask the question, who is doing the attacking?
Whatever the final result over the confirmation battle of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, one thing is becoming more urgent. The court itself has a crisis of legitimacy. And one way to restore its genuineness is to require term limits for all future judges.
The Supreme Court of old was more majestic with few periods of confrontation. Just a decade ago, 2/3rds of Americans had great confidence in the Court. No more. There’s trouble brewing in those marble temple walls. Confidence in the workings of the court and the Justices themselves have dropped to a mere 50% approval rating.
And it should not be any surprise as to why the Supremes are held is such low esteem. They have become a partisan body, every bit as political as the other two branches of government. We saw such partisanship front and center in the Bush-Gore election decision and in the court’s blessing of Obamacare. Five to four split decisions are becoming the norm with Republican appointees voting one way and their Democratic counterparts voting just the opposite. No more moderates or progressives on the court. Just jurists who are either hard right or hard left.
The writers of the constitution never envisioned such partisanship. The nation’s founding fathers imagined a court made up of legal sages, devoid of the political pressures experienced by congress and the president. Justices of the past seemed to relish in their image of being independent and simply interpreting the law as written.
Current Chief Justice John Roberts made a vain attempt to enunciate such a balanced philosophy at his confirmation hearings back in 2005 when he told the Senate judiciary Committee:
“Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire. Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent, shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.”
So justices are not influenced by their own personal opinions? Good luck with that. Partisanship has never been so extreme. Judge Kavanaugh was never going to receive any democratic support from the day he was nominated. And republicans in the senate refused to even consider or hold a hearing on President Obama’s last pick, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland. New justices taking office are well aware of their partisan supporters. And such awareness certainly affects their view of becoming activists by extending or even creating the law, rather than merely interpreting it as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.
So why term limits? For a starter, no other democracy in the world gives life tenure to a sitting judge. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any other profession that makes appointments for life. Sure, the constitutional scholars back in the 1770s created lifetime appointments. But remember that the average life span back then for a U. S. citizen was 35 years.
Chief Justice Roberts endorsed term limits back in 1983 when he stated: “Setting a term of, say, 15 years would ensure that federal judges would not lose all touch with reality through decades of ivory tower existence.” And that’s an important point. The court has, too often, been occupied by aging justices who habitually seem disengaged from the world surrounding them. You would think that the court should have dynamism and consistency that a rotation of new judges would bring. It’s hard to breathe new life into a court that bases its make up on actuarial tables and the luck of the draw as to who lives the longest.
Under the current system, a president can only serve in office for eight years yet can appoint a Justice or judge who can stay on the bench for 40 year or more. One term of say 16 years makes sense. Poll after poll show that voters want term limits for judges. With all the controversy in Washington over who ends up on the court, now seems like a good time to consider such a change.
Another warning has been issued to adults and seniors who mix herbal remedies, over the counter supplements and prescription medications.
A study from the University of Hertfordshire in the UK found 44% of women and 22% of men surveyed mixed their prescription medications with herbal remedies and over the counter supplements.
Individuals may have changes in their metabolism and medication breakdown as they age causing variances in body absorption and efficacy of medications. Adding supplements or herbal remedies could cause unpredictable reactions.
These effects could include:
For example, St. John’s Wort could interfere with the effectiveness of one’s birth control and ginseng could worsen one's hypoglycemia if they are taking insulin.
Grapefruit juice could interfere with the metabolism of a statin, a popular medication used to decrease cholesterol. By raising its levels in the blood, one drink could cause a patient to have increased side effects such as muscle cramps and liver issues.
Iron supplements can interfere with one’s absorption of their thyroid medication, and ginkgo biloba, if taken with a blood pressure medication, could cause the blood pressure to drop even lower. Moreover it can increase bleeding if taken with an anticoagulant.
And if alcohol is mixed with any prescription medication, deadly side effects (such as respiratory depression when used with opiates) can ensue.
So the moral is, just because a supplement states is “natural,” or a frequently consumed food appears to be safe, its combination with medication could prove deadly.
Although the interactions are numerous, the AAFP created a table of common ones:
HERBAL OR DIETARY SUPPLEMENT
Patients taking oral anticoagulants
Suspect an interaction if INR elevated
Suspect an interaction if INR elevated
Interaction unlikely based on a clinical study that found garlic is relatively safe and poses no serious hemorrhagic risk for closely monitored patients taking warfarin oral anticoagulation therapy10
Suspect an interaction if bruising or bleeding occurs despite an appropriate INR
One review found no case reports of interactions with garlic and warfarin11
Experts recommend caution, although available research does not support this conclusion
Suspect an interaction if spontaneous bleeding occurs
Interaction possible based on conflicting research findings
Avoid combination if possible
Coadministration of warfarin with Asian ginseng (Panax ginseng) did not affect the pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of warfarin18
St. John’s wort
Interaction suspected based on decreases in INR in case reports and in a study in 12 healthy volunteers18
Evaluate warfarin response when St. John’s wort is initiated or stopped
Vitamin E (> 400 IU daily)
Interaction suspected based on a single patient (with rechallenge), resulting in an increase in INR19
Evaluate warfarin response when vitamin E is used in combination
One clinical trial showed no interaction20
Patients taking cardiovascular medications
Eleuthero (Eleutherococcus senticosus) [corrected]
Possible increase in digoxin levels without clinical signs (case report)21
Monitor digoxin level when eleuthero is initiated or stopped [corrected]
St. John’s wort
Suspected decrease in digoxin levels without clinical signs in a controlled study22
Monitor digoxin level when St. John’s wort is initiated or stopped
Interaction suspected based on decreased bioavailability in a study in eight healthy volunteers23
Increase verapamil dose, if necessary, if diminished response occurs
Interaction suspected based on decreased plasma blood levels in a clinical study24
Monitor serum lipid levels after St. John’s wort is added
Patients taking psychiatric medications
Atypical antidepressant (trazodone [Desyrel])
Interaction possible based on one case report of coma25
Evaluate for emotional and/or behavioral changes in patient response after ginkgo is initiated or stopped
Monoamine oxidase inhibitors
Interaction possible based on two case reports of manic-like symptoms, headache, and tremulousness17
Avoid combination if possible
St. John’s wort
Interaction suspected based on case reports of drowsiness or serotonin syndrome26
Taper off St. John’s wort when initiating an SSRI
Adjust the dose of benzodiazepine as needed
Monitor patient response after St. John’s wort is initiated or stopped
INR = International Normalized Ratio; SSRI = selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.
*— All recommendations have a strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT) evidence rating of C (consensus, disease-oriented evidence, usual practice, expert opinion, or case series). For information about the SORT evidence rating system, see https://www.aafp.org/afpsort.xml.
Bill Cosby has been denied bail and was sentenced to 3 - 10 years for drugging and raping Andrea Constand while she was incapacitated. Cosby is now an 81 year old convicted sex offender.
For those who have not heard, Cosby’s record of allegations began back in 2000 when several women came forward accusing him of sexual assault and rape going as far back as 1965 and into the 80’s and 90’s. One of them was Andrea Constand who sued Cosby in civil court after the D.A. refused to prosecute him in criminal court. She settled for an undisclosed amount in 2006.
There was some media coverage but for the most part, too many folks never really believed that TV’s dad (from the Cosby Show in the 80’s) was a serial rapist. And then, suddenly, just as quickly as the accusations were made - the allegations were swept under the rug and went away. For way too long.
Cut to 2014.
Stand up comic Hannibal Buress had been working on new material in his routine. And one of his bits was about Bill Cosby “talking down to young black men about their mode of dress and telling them to pull up their pants.” Buress shot back at Bill with, “Yeah, but you raped women, Bill Cosby, so that kind of brings you down a couple of notches!” You can watch video of the bit here.
The audience laughs along because it sounds like Buress is joking. He is, after all - a comedian. Plus, I mean, Bill Cosby - a rapist? Come on!! But then Buress doubles down and encourages people to go home and Google, “Bill Cosby rape.”
The bit began to get a little press, which is how I heard about it. I did exactly as Buress said (because I couldn’t believe it). I Googled, “Bill Cosby rape.” And I was shocked. There was story after story about Bill Cosby drugging and raping women as far back as the 60’s. And there were trials and investigations back in 2000 and all I could think of is, “How the hell did I not know about this?”
Well, there were many who thought the same thing and suddenly a media firestorm picked up. Then, over the course of the next few years - more than sixty women came forward with similar stories - that Bill Cosby either attempted to assault them (but the woman escaped) or that Cosby drugged them, sexually assaulted or raped them, when they were too incapacitated to give consent or object.
Oh, and there were multiple police reports to back this up in several states from multiple decades, so it’s not like this is anything new. Law enforcement has reports on Cosby ranging from attempted assault, to sexual assault to rape in the 80’s, the 90’s, in 2000, in 2002, multiple reports in 2005, a report of attempted assault in 2013, and then dozens and dozens or reports in 2014 and 2015 who came forward to recount their stories from the past.
One, of course, wonders - if Cosby hadn’t been rich and famous, would he have been caught and put away a long time ago? Well - probably. But - he is rich and famous. And he’s rich and famous for playing a really, really nice guy on TV. And that warps people’s minds. Folks really want to believe that the onscreen persona that actors play is - exactly who they are. So no one wanted to believe that super nice TV personality Cosby dad - was a serial rapist.
Of course there were some people who knew the nice TV dad guy was an act. Richard Pryor’s widow, Jennifer Lee Pryor, on a 2015 podcast interview for Allison Rosen is Your New Best Friend, had this to say about Cosby and the allegations:
“Bill’s just a fucking hypocrite, and dirty on the inside. It was a well-kept secret that Bill fucked everything that moved.”
Pryor was upset that Cosby came down on her husband and told him to always “be clean” in his act. For anyone who remembers Richard Pryor you know damn well that “be clean” was never, ever on his mind. (Richard Pryor died in 2005).
Jennifer clarifies that no one had any idea about the drugging and the assault, which is probably true. I mean, even if you are married (which Cosby was) it’s totally legal to “fuck anything that moves” - as long as it is all consensual. Adultery is not sexual assault. If Cosby’s wife knew that Cosby was committing adultery and she chose not to leave him - that’s none of our business! So I won’t speculate.
Anyway, all I’m suggesting is that there were obviously folks that knew Cosby’s squeaky clean image was completely fraudulent. Alas, knowing someone is morally dubious doesn’t mean you know they are a serial rapist.
But I digress.
Cosby had his day in court. In fact, he had multiple days in court over multiple decades. And finally, finally his victims get some semblance of justice. A 3-10 year sentence. Hopefully, that sentence is on the longer side but I won’t hold my breath. I’ve seen too many rapist men get sentenced and then released after a shockingly short time incarcerated.
The famous case of Brock Turner comes to mind. You remember that douche bag, right? He raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. He was caught by two Swedish exchange students who luckily happened to be passing by. Brock ran, one of them went to assist the victim, the other chased and caught Brock. Turner was eventually arrested, charged and sentenced. The Judge was super duper nice to the rapist and gave him a six month sentence. Turner was out of jail three months later.
Three months in jail for raping an unconscious woman.
So, forgive me if I don’t hold out much hope that filthy rich Bill Cosby will spend much time in jail. And, he’s at the end of his life. Sure, he’s had a rough few years what with the accusations and the criminal investigation but, basically - he got away with it for almost his entire life. Despite the fact that there were a dozen accusations against him in multiple states over multiple decades - it still took more than 20 years to convict him of sexual assault.
Which, I guess, is better than nothing.
Last month, as you may or may not know, Nike released a new Just Do It campaign starring a variety of young athletes as well as Lebron James and Colin Kaepernick. The ad is great. Before I get back to Nike, a bit about Colin Kaepernick:
Colin has been in and out of the news since 2011. First as a backup QB for the San Francisco 49ers as his team went to the Championship game in 2011. Then Colin took over as the starting QB and led his team to the Super Bowl (where they lost 31-34 to the Ravens). Then in 2012 Colin led them right back to the NFC Championship game in 2013 (which they lost).
Kaepernick's productivity dipped slightly during the next few years, mainly due to an injury that lasted into the 16 season and he never seemed to fully recover and was not named a starter again; however, his 4-2 play off victories and the fact that he’s only one of four quarterbacks to get 3 passing touchdowns and a 100 yards rushing in a single game means that while he might no longer be an elite starter in the NFL, it’s pretty obvious he would make an exceptional backup QB.
But then something happened. Colin decided to protest racism - by silently sitting during the national anthem. And folks took note. And the red, rage conservative aneurysms began. And fake news sites spread the word that Colin Kaepernick was “protesting the flag and disrespecting American troops!”
Also, Kaepernick had grown out his hair into an afro. Which makes conservative Americans uncomfortable. No, seriously. As black comedian Paul Mooney says, “If your hair is relaxed, white people are relaxed. If your hair is nappy, they’re not happy.”
And suddenly - redneck white rage was all over the NFL. And Colin Kaepernick took note. He heard that NFL watching white Americans were angry. Kaepernick didn’t want to appear disrespectful to soldiers and he didn’t want his message mixed so he spoke with former Seattle Seahawks player and U.S. Army veteran Nate Boyer about his idea of “sitting down” during the anthem.
Kaepernick says about the meeting with Boyer:
“After hours of careful consideration, and even a visit from Nate Boyer, a retired Green Beret and former NFL player, we came to the conclusion that we (Kaepernick and teammate Eric Reid) should kneel, rather than sit, the next day during the anthem as a peaceful protest. We chose to kneel because it’s a respectful gesture. I remember thinking our posture was like a flag flown at half-mast to mark a tragedy.”
Well, as you can imagine - conservative white Americans still lost their shit and wrote all sorts of inflammatory, untrue, hit pieces about Kaepernick calling him everything from “ungrateful” to “traitor.” But the hatred focused on the same false narrative over and over - that Kaepernick’s kneeling was purposely disrespectful to the troops and the flag.
It didn’t matter how many times Colin would eloquently speak up and remind people his protest was about police brutality against people of color; redneck Americas still reared up as fast as possible to call him a traitor, a soldier hater, ungrateful and, of course, the oft used, ni***r!
It didn’t matter that, time and again, Colin would put his money where his mouth was as he donated (and raised) money to and for, what he called, “oppressed communities.” In 2016 he gave a million dollars to charities and neighborhoods all over the country to help with homelessness, community-police relations, prison reform, hunger, etc, etc.
If that wasn’t enough he put together his #10For10 pledge where he asked fellow athletes and artists to donate money to a similar cause. Then Colin agreed to match their donation. Here is what was raised and by whom:
1. Kevin Durant: $20k to Silicon Valley De-Bug in San José, California
2. Jesse Williams: $20k to Advancement Project in Washington, DC
3. Steph Curry: $20k to United Playaz in San Francisco, California
4. Snoop Dogg: $20k to Mothers Against Police Brutality in Dallas, TX
5. Serena Williams: $20k to Imagine LA in Los Angeles, California
6. T.I.: $20k to Angel by Nature in Houston, Texas
7. Jhene Aiko and Chris Brown: School on Wheels in Los Angeles, California
8. Nick Cannon and Joey Badass: $40,000 to Communities United by Police Reform in New York, New York
9. Meek Mill: $20k to Youth Service, Inc. in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
10. Usher: $20k to H.O.M.E. in Lithonia, Georgia
Some familiar names to me, some not. But whatever. Money for good causes is still money for good causes (though, I’m not sure what the F! The “Silicon Valley De-Bug” charity is. I’ll have to look into that one a bit further). But I would say for the most part - worthy causes.
And now let’s come full circle. Colin Kaepernick has been universally vilified by conservative white America. And he’s been blackballed by the NFL for “controversy.”
And Nike does not care.
Colin Kaepernick is now the face of Nike’s new long running Just Do It campaign. And, just like when he took a knee - redneck America is in an uproar. Head over to YouTube and search for hilarious videos of people burning Nike product in protest. See if you can find some of the truly genius ones where folks run out and buy hundreds of dollars of Nike products only to come home and burn them!
You read that right. They give $$ to Nike and then burn the product. So, um, Nike already has their money.
Some people are so dumb.
Anyway. Because of the “controversy” of Nike casting Colin, shares for company dropped the day after that ad released by 3%. Conservative fools everywhere whooped their joys of racism! Hell, even our President chimed in via (where else) Twitter:
The President’s Tweet:
“What was Nike thinking? Just like the NFL, whose ratings have gone WAY DOWN, Nike is getting absolutely killed with anger and boycotts. I wonder if they had any idea that it would be this way? As far as the NFL is concerned, I just find it hard to watch, and always will, until they stand for the FLAG!”
But not so fast!
After an initial minor backlash here we are three weeks later and Nike is reporting - all time record sales. Reuters is reporting a huge increase in sold out Nike material (up approx 60%) and anyone can jump online and see that Nike’s market value has surged by $6 billion.
Look, I’m not a Nike guy. At all. This is not a paid advertisement. I’m all with RUN DMC - me and my Adidas! (And Vans). I am however a free speech guy. And, despite the ignorant, racist Kaepernick backlash - he’s clearly one of the good guys.
That being said, I will leave you with Lebron James gloating over President Trump’s “Nike is getting absolutely killed…” Tweet.
Nike stock closes at $83.47, an all-time high for the company.
If you think the American economy is booming now, just think what it would be like if American collegians had an extra $1.5 billion to spend—especially with President Donald Trump’s tariffs set to raise the prices of imported consumer goods despite he and his administration saying the tariffs won’t result in price hikes.
Well, if prices aren’t increasing, tariffs aren’t working. The point of a tariff is to make locally produced products more attractive to local consumers by raising the price of imported alternatives. This, in theory, would result in more local production and fewer imports. But a tariff is paid by the importer of a product, not the exporter. So the 25-percent tariff Trump recently leveled on Chinese imports is transferred to the American consumers of those goods, not the Chinese producers.
The trade war isn’t taking money out of the pockets of Chinese manufacturers; it’s taking money out of the pockets of American consumers of Chinese products and Chinese consumers of American products. And since the United States runs a $375 billion trade deficit with China, the only way Trump can “win” his trade war is if Chinese economists can’t do the math to match Trump’s tariffs dollar-for-dollar. It’s even becoming more likely trade with China ends altogether. China has already cancelled planned trade talks with Trump.
It is impossible for America to run a trade surplus with China because China produces more products Americans consider essential than America produces for the Chinese, including car, computer and mobile phone components. It’s lower labor costs and Americans’ addiction to consumption allow China to perpetually have the upper hand in a trade war. If an iPhone were made entirely in America, it would cost as much as a brand new car, so while Trump might be making some American-made products more attractive to American consumers, he’s doing so at the expense of American consumers who can’t do without many of the Chinese imports found in their technology and automobiles. Even the Tesla Model 3 can only be 95-percent American-made at most.
Since Americans will be paying more for computers, mobile devices and cars, it’s not entirely unreasonable to forgive the $1.5 billion in student loan debt and allow those accepted into college two years of college education free of charge. Students and parents are going to pay more for the devices required to attend college, and colleges are going to pay more for them as well, which will be reflected in tuition costs, which will further increase student loan debt while decreasing consumers’ available income for spending in the American economy, potentially sinking the stock market.
There are other reasons besides boosting the economy for the government to payoff student loan debt. First, today’s Associate’s degree, usually obtained in two years at a community college, is the equivalent of a 1980s high school diploma. Advances in technology have made working in what is now a global economy much more complicated and necessitates further education be obtained. Students are not leaving high school with the education necessary to provide for themselves let alone a family, and it’s not their fault.
Secondly, with 17 states offering tuition-free college programs, the trend seems to be students at least delaying the accumulation of student loan debt for two years, potentially lowering accrued interest as well as principal loan balances. In short, future college students in the United States will be saddled with considerably less student loan debt than current and past college students. Meanwhile, entire generations (and student loan debt does span generations), are suffering student loan debt and unable to stimulate the American economy by spending money on anything but debt and living expenses.
Finally, the collective credit rating of American college students, past, present and future, would receive a boost that could spur entrepreneurial growth and investment in businesses as a whole. America was the land of opportunity, where you could go from “rags to riches” with enough hard work. America used to be the best place to start a small business and be your own boss. That isn’t the case these days because despite incomes increasing for middle-class Americans, their purchasing power has barely budged since 1965. You can’t grow an economy in which most consumers have hardly more purchasing power than their grandparents did over 50 years ago, and consumer confidence in the stock market can’t increase if consumers have no means to express their confidence by purchasing stocks.
Lifting the $1.5 billion in student loan debt owed by 44.2 million American borrowers would allow 44.2 million Americans to spend their student loan payment, averaging $351 per month, stimulating the American economy instead of simply paying off interest. Lenders can’t be the only ones making money if the American economy is going to grow.
If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Costa Report, Drop Your Energy Bill, Free Talk Live, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio, The Tech Night Owl, The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Show
Currently 5.7 million people in the US suffer from the debilitating cause of dementia and the CDC estimates close to 14 million will be affected by the year 2060.
As we’re surviving other illnesses that could take our lives sooner, such as heart disease and cancer, we as a population are living to an age where brain changes can occur.
Alzheimer’s is the 5th leading cause of death and scientists still struggle to find a cure or means to stave it off.
The average age of symptom revelation is 65, but researchers believe the disease may set in sooner. Over 200,000 currently suffer from early onset Alzheimer’s, or onset before age 65.
I believe nightly oxygen or CPAP therapy (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure) might be worth researching as its been postulated that lack of oxygenation can accelerate dementia.
Alzheimer’s, a progressive disease in which the brain loses function, is most commonly associated with memory loss. As abnormal proteins build up in the brain (beta-amyloid and tau), the plaques and neurofibrillary tangles within the nerve cell (neuron), disrupt communication between nerve cells, so memory can easily start to falter. Many people affected with Alzheimer’s lose newer memories first and then progressively lose old ones.
However, since the brain is such a dynamic and brilliantly complex organ, a disease that alters its tissue could manifest in a variety of symptoms, beyond memory loss.
These can include:
Hence if a family member appears to lose his way driving home, has difficulty dressing himself appropriately, avoids family gatherings, appears to get angry for no apparent reason, or even offers a young baby an object for a much older individual, these may be signs of a dementia such as Alzheimer’s.
Although Caucasians comprise the majority of cases overall, the CDC found among those over 65, African-Americans have the highest rate at nearly 14%, and Hispanics at 12%.
In a recent study, researchers from Northwestern University’s Cognitive Neurology and Alzheimer’s Disease Center found four additional symptoms that may be early signs of Alzheimer’s. These include:
The study authors state these signs may be overlooked and could be very telling of one’s early disease progression.
To diagnose Alzheimer’s, the medical provider may employ a variety of testing measures including basic history and physical, blood tests to rule out thyroid and vitamin deficiencies, lumbar puncture, CT Scans to rule out bleeds, masses, or stroke, MRI Brain scans, neuropsychological tests, and amyloid PET scans.
Although currently a cure for Alzheimer’s does not exist, there are many medications being researched to slow down the progression of the disease and a variety of environmental and behavioral interventions could allow the patient to navigate easier with their challenges.
How to prevent Alzheimer’s remains up for debate, but healthy diet, weight, exercise, and control of one’s blood pressure and blood sugar have been suggested.
The earlier Alzheimer’s is diagnosed, the easier it may be to manage, hence family members need to learn and look out for the above symptoms.
“Was is it on a football field or in a boxing ring that your God-given rights were won? Or was it on a battlefield where men sacrificed themselves to give it?”
Americans can attempt to deceive themselves into believing, with the use of sophistries by the corporate-owned and operated media, that they are given correct and right information. Most of you know that they are not telling you the truth concerning any matter, if, in fact, the topic even matters. Unless, of course, it works to their own ends (Psalm 101:3).
You are taught that if you question their narrative, somehow, that you are just conspiratorial (Romans 1:18).
You can send your children to schools where you know the indoctrinators are the “proselytizers of a new faith,” where their books have been revised and fabricated with intentional propaganda (Article 10 of the Bill of Rights; Hosea 4:6).
Yet, you are taught that everyone else is doing it, and you do not want to be ostracized for raising up your own children (Proverbs 22:6), but happily submit to bring them to an agent of the state who is illegally indoctrinating them.
We're in an ever-changing con-game (circus of politics) that is being played out through the mouths of corrupt politicians (Luke 22:48) in hopes of incrementally and unconstitutionally creating a new world which looks and runs contrary to the original God-ordained model and purpose.
Yet again, you have been taught that if you dare take a stand against corruption you might look like you are an anarchist, or anti-government (1 Kings 18:17-18).
Most Americans have been good, little subjects when it comes to their masters' directives.
Americans have even gone so far as to believe the “fictitious” when it comes to Hollywood and their productions in an attempt to create a world in which they want to live in by ignoring reality (Jeremiah 8:5).
The truth of the matter is that the Lord God is bringing a reality to your front door, like it or not, and the issues at hand must be dealt with lawfully (Isaiah 51:4).
I know that to some, the truth is stranger than fiction. Yet, it matters not (Amos 7:8), no more than one has to believe in trucks. If you stand in front of a moving one, the rest will take its course, believing in trucks or not.
You cannot do the wrong thing and expect the right results (Galatians 6:7). You can never be doing the right thing by attempting to change God's reality and fighting against His spiritual truths (Exodus 20; Romans 7:12).
You must submit and adhere to His model, and that model is Jesus Christ (John 14:6), and Christ is for us to emulate (John 14:21).
I remember, in passing, I noticed a news anchor on a television broadcast addressing politicians that just violated constitutional law, and in response, he said that it was “nothing personal.” When I heard that and understood the offense (scandals, lies, illegal and unconstitutional bills passed etc…), I said it is “totally offensive.” Does he not understand the price paid for American freedoms too flippantly give a pass to these criminals!?
When a game is played (football, hockey, baseball, soccer boxing etc…) and an offense occurs according to the said rules, often times you will see the two players shake hands, pat each other on the back and continue on as if it never happened.
Yet, when it comes to laws and transgression of constitutional laws, we must keep in mind that these laws are to be magnified against crimes. They are there to ensure our God-given rights; rights in which are blood bought, for “justice is the guardian of liberty" (Psalm 9:16).
As a matter of fact, to show you how this is played out in politics, I remember our trip to the federal floor in Washington D.C. Our guide said that around here, you just go along to get along. Apparently, these politicians have forgotten the awful price paid to give them the opportunity to serve!
Do Americans have any idea as to how many unconstitutional bills have been passed in such a fashion? Go along to get along?
I wonder, did our veterans compromise to go along to get along when many were maimed, shot or killed on the battlefield ratifying the Constitution against an enemy to the United States?
Were our veterans fighting for their favorite unconstitutional party line, the Democrats or the Republicans?
Did our veterans, when fighting for our God-given rights, play diplomatic games with the enemies of our country when being shot at? And to think, many of our veterans that came home after fighting for the corrupt politicians and their unconstitutional wars were being protested by their own people at the airports while the compromised politicians that sent them did nothing to stop it. Apparently, they were to busy diplomatically fraternizing with America’s enemies within. After all, they have to go along to get along.
The price of freedom is always a sacrifice of heroic souls on the behalf of their people (John 15:13). The price is always been blood (Hebrews 9:22).
If you look to Calvary, where the Son of Man took to the battlefield in defeating sin on the behalf of man (1 Peter 3:18), you can see that He was crucified and set forth as the propitiation of the sins of the world (1 John 2:2) as the Lamb of God (John 1:29).
Take heed concerning the cost of redemption and spiritual freedom, which is always a great expense of blood. The lesson is to be learned in the natural (1 Corinthians 2:14).
Next time someone wants to use sophistries or tries to teach you a lesson of “sportsmanlike conduct” in an attempt to add strength to tyranny, consider the severity of the price paid for your freedoms (John 3:16).
I, thankfully, didn’t watch all of the Week 2 matchup between the Minnesota Vikings and Green Bay Packers on Sunday. That’s the case more and more these days, when in the past I’d hardly miss a second of a Vikings game. Rookie kicker Daniel Carlson, who the Vikings selected in the fifth round of the draft five months prior to waiving him Monday, missed three field goals to waste a valiant, 13-point comeback led by new quarterback Kirk Cousins in Green Bay. I stopped watching after the first two series of the second half with the Vikings down 20–7, and I couldn’t be happier with that decision given the resulting tie.
It bothers me that games featuring more than 100 athletes too big to be able to run as fast as they do repeatedly colliding into each other to obtain property like they’re at war are often decided by the least athletic of the 53 players on National Football League (NFL) rosters. NFL kickers are like generals sitting a comfortable distance from enemy lines sipping on Gatorade awaiting a request for an air strike from their foot soldiers taking heavy fire only to bomb their own troops on occasion.
Last season, 22.5 percent of all NFL games (including the postseason) were either decided by three or fewer points or featured scoring exclusively by kickers. Almost a quarter of regular season games played in 2016 were decided by three or fewer points. Between 2003 and 2015, 27.9 percent of games were decided by three or fewer points. As of this writing, 25 percent of 2018 NFL games have been decided by a field goal or less, and the average margin of victory in the NFL continues to fall. Whether it’s one in five or one in four games decided by kickers, one game decided by the least athletic player and the player seeing the least playing time is one game too many.
There were more field goals attempted and made last season than in any other time in the history of professional football, according to Pro Football Reference. The result was 3,664 points scored by kickers in 2017, or almost an even third (32.96 percent) of all NFL scoring. That’s an increase in kicker-exclusive scoring of 5.65 percent over the last 50 years.
Kickers have been ruining the game of football at all levels, especially youth levels, since the game’s inception. Finding someone who could kick and punt the ball were always the hardest positions to fill on our youth teams, and while kickers have gotten better over the years according to FiveThirtyEight, the problem of kickers over-influencing outcomes and under-entertaining fans has worsened with the implementation of longer point-after attempts and uneventful kickoffs.
Instead of stand-still kickoffs that were implemented this year, punters should simply punt the ball as they would on a free kick after a safety. Their teammates wouldn’t get a running start to protect players’ health, but free kicks would result in fewer touchbacks and a higher potential for kick return touchdowns — once the most exciting play in the sport now all but extinct. Most importantly, though, free kicks would make place-kickers entirely unnecessary.
My research found kickers were the exclusive scorers in six NFL games last year, and the touchdown-to-field-goal ratio has declined by almost an entire touchdown per successful field goal since 1975. While these ridiculous roughing-the-passer penalties will assuredly increase the touchdown-to-field-goal ratio, achieving the all-time high of 2.5 touchdowns scored per successful field goal converted is not probable unless kickers are removed from the game.
The more fourth-down plays there are in games, the more intriguing those games will be. Games’ outcomes need to swing on one play every series instead of one play every half. Football is not providing enough moments of perceived momentum shifting from one team to the other. Without place-kicking, fans would be on the edge of their seats more often, as the Dan Bailey bailout would be unavailable to the Vikings or anyone else, forcing coaches to utilize more forward passes — the play that saved American football from extinction and made it the behemoth it is today. There would also be fewer breaks in the action for commercials, but what’s the best option for solving football’s place-kicking problem?
Removing place-kickers from the game doesn’t necessarily mean field goals have to go away. While I think goal posts unnecessarily obstruct the views of fans, we don’t have to tear them down (although it’d be cool if they were moved behind the fans so they could go home with souvenir footballs). They are a symbol of the sport after all, and what would college students do on Saturdays after a big win if they couldn’t tear down the goalposts? They’d probably be at higher risk for alcohol poisoning if they didn’t exert that effort.
If the NFL wanted to continue employing place-kickers and make games more exciting, it could simply make field goals worth two points instead of three. How a field goal is worth more than a safety is disrespectful to defenses everywhere, even though your offense gets the ball back after the defense scores a safety. While kicking was highly emphasized when the game was conceived, the field goal’s point value decreased from five in 1883, to four in 1904 and three points in 1909, three years after what many believe to be the first legally completed forward pass.
After more than 100 years without a change to the field goal’s point value, I’d say we’re long overdue. But lowering the point value of a field goal does not affect the risk in attempting a field goal, which is the actual problem. Kicking is a bailout in football. Both punts and field goal attempts bail out an offense incapable of scoring touchdowns. I’ve got no problem with punters. I’ve seen punters make plays, but I’d prefer to watch the NFL’s place-kickers play soccer if they’re capable of running and kicking a moving ball. Removing place-kickers from football would enhance the intrigue of games by forcing coaches to be more creative and take more chances on both sides of the ball. That brings me to Rule 1 of football re-imagined without kickers.
“All teams must attempt a two-point conversion after scoring a touchdown.”
That’s where games should be won and lost — in the trenches between lineman at the goal lines. The men risking the most should determine the outcomes of games, but field goals wouldn’t necessarily have to disappear. They could just be altered. The NFL simply needs to make the field goal attempt a less enticing option for coaches — make the bailout riskier.
I recommend the NFL adopt something like the drop goal in rugby, where a player can drop the ball on the ground and kick it through the uprights on any down. The quarterback could avoid a sack and dropkick the ball through the uprights on second down for three points. That might be a big enough change to eliminate field goals altogether, but punters would eventually get the hang of drop-kicking to make it a less riskier option. It’s not as though they have much else to do during practice.
To up the ante even further, the ball’s placement on the field should depend on how close you get to the goal line. The closer a team gets to scoring, the more difficult a drop goal attempt should become. That’s why I recommend the hash marks running down the middle of a football field get wider and wider as they get closer and closer to the goal line. This might even be enough to keep place-kicking in the sport while minimizing kickers’ control over games’ outcomes.
An American football field is 160 feet wide. NFL hash marks are 70 feet, nine inches from the sidelines. That’s where they’d remain between the 40-yard lines on each side of the field because 50-plus-yard field goals are hard enough. At the 39-yard line, however, the ball would be placed on the hash mark 69 feet, nine inches from the sideline closest to the completion of the previous play. At the 38, the ball would be spotted on the hash mark 68 feet, nine inches from the nearest sideline, and so on. At the one-yard line, the ball would be snapped 31 feet, nine inches from the sideline nearest the last completed play. This would result in some new, creative formations, more fourth down plays as well as some drop goals attempted from truly amazing angles. This would make “four-down territory” even larger, increasing excitement even if it results in less scoring.
While we’re not eliminating a third of all scoring in football, points will be harder to come by in the game without kickers. A point-after attempt and two-point attempt have almost the exact same expected value, so forcing teams to go for two would result in almost the exact number of points as point-after attempts. But field goals alone accounted for 23.37 percent of points scored in 2017, and teams won’t be trading those field goals for drop goals or touchdowns at a 1:1 or even 1:2 ratio. That said, an effort should be made to counteract a potential decrease in scoring by providing more scoring opportunities.
Football and rugby are unique in that they offer multiple means of scoring points. You only score in baseball when you touch home plate. You only score in basketball when you put the ball through the hoop, and you only score in soccer and hockey by putting the ball or puck in the net. Scoring in football involves either kicking the ball through goal posts or taking it across a goal line (or downing it there in the case of a safety). But why stop at two means of scoring points? That brings me to Rule 2 of football re-imagined without kickers.
“Award one point for each sack or tackle for loss.”
Awarding one point for sacks and tackles for loss would almost replace every point scored by NFL kickers. Based on 2016 totals, there were 1,118 sacks and 2,218 tackles for loss, totalling 3,336 potential points. Kickers accounted for 3,669 points in 2016, and spreading those points around to players playing and sacrificing most makes for a more democratic game. And frankly, defensive players deserve to score more.
Defensive players seldom score, especially big defensive players. An offensive lineman can at least declare himself eligible and catch a touchdown pass. Defensive players have to either force a fumble, pick it up and run into the end zone, grab an interception and run into the end zone or tackle the ball carrier in their own end zone for a safety. And now that defensive players have to defy physics and somehow stop more than half of their body weight from falling on the quarterback during a sack, their team should at least get a point if it’s likely the sack will result in a 15-yard penalty and automatic first down for the offense.
While this rule might result in more coaches challenging the spot of the ball, I’d rather watch a replay of a quarterback sack or tackle for loss to determine if the ball carrier reached the line of scrimmage than watch a kicker come on the field and make or miss a kick sandwiched between commercials. And the NFL is far past due for placing sensors on the ends of the football and on the players’ knees and elbows to determine the exact location of the ball when the ball carrier is down by contact. But that’s another Grandstand Central story for another day.
Imagine the Vikings just scored a touchdown to tie the Packers with no time left on the clock and only the two-point conversion left to be played. With this rule, either team could win or lose the game right there at the goal line. The Vikings could either convert the two-point attempt to win or take a sack or tackle for loss to give the Packers the win. Green Bay could also intercept the ball or recover a fumble and return it for two points as well. That’s a whole lot more exciting than bringing a kicker onto the field to attempt an extra point converted 94 percent of the time in 2017. It’s also more indicative of which is the better team.
Unless the NFL takes place-kicking out of the game, I’m boycotting the league upon the end of Cousins’s tenure with the Vikings or if the Vikings win the Super Bowl — whichever happens first. And I’m not just saying that because of the Vikings’ rich history of kicking woes in big games. They are the franchise who had a kicker who shall not be named go an entire season without missing a kick only to miss one that would have sent them to the Super Bowl. More recently, they had a kicker who shall also go unnamed miss a 27-yard field goal that would have extended their playoff run in 2016. I just can’t bring myself to pay attention to the game of football anymore. The kickers keep kicking my attention elsewhere.
In large part, the success with the iPhone in recent years was fueled by the release of larger handsets, starting with the iPhone 6 series, with one model at 4.7 niches and a “Plus” variant at 5.5 inches. Supposedly, then, all iPhone uses were expected to adapt.
But that’s not quite how things worked out. There are still many users who don’t want the larger displays an the difficulties involved in single-handed use. This is why Apple came out with the iPhone SE in 2016, which had most of the features and performance of the iPhone 6s installed in what was essentially the case of an iPhone 5s.
Although there has been speculation about an iPhone SE2, with specs matching the more recent models, it hasn’t happened. As of last week’s announcements about a new iPhone lineup, the SE has been removed from the lineup, with no word on when or if a replacement will come.
This isn’t to say the iPhone SE is a bad phone, or necessarily obsolete. Sure, it doesn’t have Face ID, but it’s small, slim, lightweight and more than enough phone for many people. With iOS 12, performance is more than sufficient to satisfy most people, so why did Apple bid it farewell?
For several years, Mrs. Steinberg made do with an iPhone 5c because it fit comfortably into her tiny purses. A larger iPhone would be a squeeze, but a closeout SE might be just the ticket for her if they can be found. Let’s face it, her present iPhone is obsolete, being saddled with iOS 10, and it feels mighty sluggish compared to more recent models. It also became a problem when we stayed at a motel where reception on the AT&T network wasn’t so good, which meant that she’d miss half the calls, because they’d go to voicemail.
Will Apple reconsider an SE successor? If there was a market for it, perhaps. But it may just be that sales of the existing model, available for $349 (the cheapest iPhone ever), just didn’t sell terribly well.
This weekend, we presented a thorough look at tech, microchip credit cards, and identity theft with credit repair specialist Darius Norman, author of “Rewriting Financial Rules.” Following the introduction of microchip equipped credit cards in 2015 in the United States, which make the cards difficult to counterfeit, criminals focused on new forms of account fraud. We are also seeing thieves going after our children’s social security numbers to do this, so our children are in danger and may never know until they are old enough to apply for credit themselves. What do we do? Darius also focused on what you should do in the event your credit history or identity are compromised, as Gene revealed some of his personal experiences.
You also heard from tech editor Bryan Chaffin, co-founder and co-publisher of The Mac Observer. During this segment, Bryan talked at length about Apple’s September 12th media event, in which three new iPhone X variants were demonstrated. Bryan covered his experiences in ordering one of the new smartphones, plus an Apple Watch Series 4. As a long-time user of luxury watches, Bryan related his experience with an Apple Watch Series 2 and his expectations for the Series 4, which includes more health-related features, such as an ECG to measure the health of your heart. There was also some talk about iOS 12. which was released on September 17th.
On this week’s episode of our other radio show, The Paracast: Gene and Randall presented Bryan Bonner of the Rocky Mountain Paranormal Research Society. For over two decades Bryan, with a healthy dose of skepticism, has examined a wide range of reported paranormal phenomena, including ghosts, poltergeists, psychics, UFOs, conspiracy theories, urban legends, and much more. Unlike others in the field, Bryan has made sure not to run around cemeteries, screaming and scaring the group with overactive imaginations. From the field to the lab, he tests bizarre beliefs and practices, conducts experiments and on-site investigations, and recreates unusual events. He has confronted hauntings, Ouija board activity, levitation, psychic readings, alien abductions, and telephones that try to talk to the dead.
A PREDICTABLE APPLE MEDIA EVENT WITH A PREDICTABLE OUTCOME
In the run-up to Apple’s September 12th media event last week, there was speculation aplenty. But most of it coalesced on three new iPhones and an Apple Watch Series 4, the new operating systems under test since June — and not much else.
This is not to say that Apple’s announcements were disappointing. The new products are tempting, particularly one reasonably affordable iPhone that I’ll mention shortly. But it may well be that the Apple Watch Series 4 turned out to be the star of the show.
But I’m getting ahead of myself.
So as predicted, there are three new iPhones fashioned after last year’s iPhone X. Typical of Apple’s mostly usual approach, there’s the tick-tock pattern. The brand new design one year, the minor refresh the next.
So this year, the iPhone X was replaced with the iPhone XS. Despite predictions that it would be $100 cheaper, it remains at $999. Based on Apple’s report that it has been the best-selling smartphone on the planet for months, Apple had no reason to change its pricing strategy.
In addition to the 5.8-inch model, there is a “Plus” model, dubbed iPhone XS Max, which offers a 6.5-inch display and retails for $1,099 for the 64GB model. But since Samsung offers a maxed out Galaxy Note9 for $1,249, Apple is not really going overboard, although its maxed out Max costs even more.
Being an “S” model, just what do you get that wasn’t on last year’s iPhone X? Well, there’s of course the A12 Bionic CPU, with the promise of 15% faster performance with 40% greater power efficiency. The four-core graphics processor offers 50% greater performance than its predecessor according to Apple.
But the one feature that has true geek appeal is the fact that the A12 is fabricated on a 7-nanometer manufacturing process, with some 6.9 billion transistors. This comes at the same time that Intel is reportedly encountering problems building chips with a 14-nanometer process. Indeed, I read a story that Intel might actually outsource support to one of Apple’s key CPU makers, TSMC.
There are the usual improvements in camera quality and processing features, along with tougher glass, reputedly Corning Gorilla Glass 6, and improved water- and dust-proofing. More power efficiency means that the iPhone XS will offer the promise of 30 minutes longer battery life; it’s up to an hour and a half more on the iPhone XS Max.
Yet the real star of the new lineup may very well be the 6.1-inch LCD version dubbed iPhone XR. At a starting price of $749, it provides most of the features of its bigger brothers, and the tradeoffs seem sensible enough.
So the new display doesn’t offer HDR, which promises richer colors with the right content, and a single camera rather than two, although there will evidently still be a way to take portrait-style photos. 3D touch is missing in action, as if anyone cares. Also you can only safely dunk it in one meter of water rather than two meters.
But the XR still comes equipped with Face ID and an edge-to-edge display complete with the famous notch. Since it’s also equipped with the A12 CPU, performance should be identical to its big brothers. It also comes with a less expensive case design and a wider choice of colors.
The original iPhone X is gone. The iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 remain in the product lineup at cheaper prices to give customers more options, but there’s nothing to match the $349 iPhone SE.
Assuming the XR’s Liquid Retina display is as good as Apple claims, and you can live with the few tradeoffs, $749 is far friendlier than $999 and up, even if you consider a monthly payment plan. But you’ll have to wait, since it won’t arrive until roughly a month after the rest of the lineup.
Predictions for the Apple Watch Series 4 were quite in line with predictions. It’s slimmer with narrower screen bezels, thus allowing for larger displays. One of the most important health-related features is an FDA-certified electrocardiogram (ECG) sensor. So is the Apple Watch now a Tricorder or does it need some additional health-tracking features to make the grade?
It can also call emergency services you fall and you can’t get up for a minute or longer. Prices start at $399, and the version with an LTE radio is $100 more.
The two OLED iPhones and the Apple Watch Series 4 ship this weekend, and have already garnered mostly positive reviews.
Golden Masters of the various Apple OS upgrades were seeded to developers and public beta testers last week, and final version so everything but macOS Mojave shipped on September 17th. The macOS Mojave upgrade will arrive next week, but the GM should pretty much be it except for a possible last-minute change before the final release.
All in all, Apple did what it expected to do. I can’t say I’m prepared to buy any of the new gear for the time being, but I am using the GMs of iOS 12 and macOS Mojave with mostly good success so far. And, yes, I still have my $12.88 stainless steel Walmart calendar watch. An Apple Watch is not on the horizon for me.
Reports have surfaced that Coca-Cola is eyeing a deal with Aurora Cannabis, which may result in the production of a cannabis-infused cola drink.
The talks between the Canadian cannabis company and the famous Atlanta-based cola corporation was reported by Bloomberg.
Cannabis-infused foods have been a favorite in legalized markets where consumers wish to avoid inhaling the plant.
A legalized market coupled with a high demand for such a beverage could send shares “flying.”
However its safety, such as when mixed with alcohol, raises concerns.
Cannabis plants produce cannabinoids, or chemicals that can induce an effect on the body. When cannabinoids are produced by a plant they are called phytocannabinoids. Humans produce their own cannabinoids, called endogenous cannabinoids. Laboratory or synthetically produced cannabinoids are called synthetic cannabinoids.
The human body has a very intricate endocannabinoid (endogenous cannabinoid) system, with receptors throughout our brain, organs, glands, and immune system. Hence a wide variety of physiological responses, occur when these receptors are stimulated by cannabinoids. These include responses to sleep, memory, appetite, pain, immune response, mood, and cell damage repair and death, Research is currently investigating what endogenous chemicals the human body produces, but the majority of medical discussions surrounding cannabinoids includes the phytocannabinoids.
Cannabis plants produce many phytocannabinoids, but the most well-known and studied include CBD (cannabidiol) and THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol). The latter is psychoactive, meaning it can give the user a feeling of euphoria. The former, CBD, in non-psychoactive and researched more than others for its medicinal benefits.
Now plants, just like animals, are classified from Kingdom (Plantae) down to Genus and species. Cannabis comes in a variety of species, including the major ones: C. sativa, C. indica and C. ruderalis.
C. ruderalis is less popular as it has a lower THC content. However it has “autoflowering” qualities, making them useful to cultivators, and if bred with C. sativa or C. indica could enhance the new hybrid in its reproduction.
C. sativa has a higher THC/CBD ratio, hence can provide more euphoria. It reportedly helps decrease anxiety, treat depression and increase appetite. It’s been touted to increase energy and boost creativity. It's also used to help manage attention deficit disorder. Although not approved yet in the US, an oral spray, nabiximol, has been developed and sold in multiple countries to treat neuropathic cancer pain. Its brand name is sold, by prescription, as Sativex® .
C. indica has a higher CBD content and has been used for its sedative properties. It's also used to help anxiety and induce appetite, but will additionally be used to treat pain and muscle spasms.
Epidiolex has received FDA approval to treat some seizures. Its high CBD component is credited for its anti-seizure activity.
There are multiple other strains, each touted to have their own unique properties. 420medbook.com provides the below table.
The challenge, however, is the lack of medical research in each of the different strains. And when a study does come out discussing the medical advantages or disadvantages to using cannabis medicinally, the specific strain may not be mentioned or easily found in the report.
I believe that various strains do have unique properties and there is an art to the field of medical marijuana but more research needs to be done and quickly to avoid random use of cannabis products for treatment of medical conditions.
I am probably like you in that - I hardly ever watch the Emmy Awards. And why is that? Well, for starters there was a run of 20 years where the exact same network shows won year after year. And if it wasn’t the exact same show it was, well, kind of the same type of show. Hill Street Blues, LA Law, NYPD Blue, The Practice, West Wing, the Sopranos. Seriously, that was like - 20 years! The same shows.
And what about those same 20 years in comedy? Well - Cheers, Murphy Brown and Frasier basically dominated from 83-98. Fifteen years and three shows pretty much won year after year.
And that gets pretty dull.
Don’t get me wrong. The morning after the Emmy’s I would always check in to see who won. But I don’t think I saw the show once between maybe 1988 and 2005. Or maybe I saw it once, or twice. But not often.
And that seems to be par for the course for most Americans. Now, keep in mind that the Emmy awards never kept track of viewers until 1990 and for about a decade viewership remained consistently within the 15-20 million range; however, ever since Ryan Seacrest took over the Emmy awards in 2007 (where The Sopranos and 30 Rock won top honors) the Emmys have struggled to get more than 12 million viewers.
There was one highlight in 2013 where show host Neil Patrick Harris brought in almost 18 million viewers (I watched that one!) but for the most part viewership has been declining for the past decade.
This seems odd to me. Once the “Golden Age of Television” began, about - ten years ago, I assumed that a wider variety of nominated shows would bring in a wider audience. For those not in the know, the “Golden Age of Television” has kind of universally been known as the rise of the cable programing and the decline of network TV all within the past decade.
Basically, all it suggests is that extremely high quality, high concept, original and sophisticated TV is universally found on cable stations these days, with the networks picking up a rare gem but usually floundering in the dark with dead fish, after dead fish.
Again, I assumed that a wider net cast by the Emmys would pull in a bigger catch. But, I was wrong. (And enough with the fish metaphors).
The most Emmy nominations by network for 2018 (2017 was similar with Netflix and HBO swapping places):
Wow. So Netflix received almost as many nominations as all three major networks combined. Of course, with the amount of original content that Netflix pumps out, I guess I am not surprised (I confess I get a little overwhelmed when decided what to watch on Netflix). But still. How long are the networks going to broadcast the Emmy awards when the prime time networks hardly win any Emmys?
In the past ten years, all the best drama winners have been from cable stations (mainly AMC and HBO). Best variety show has been a cable show since 2003 (Comedy Central has dominated this category until HBO took over very recently). Admittedly, 6 of the past 10 comedy winners were from the networks but that was because Modern Family won for 5 years in a row until Veep (HBO) took over for three years. Glancing over all acting categories I would say there is a pretty even mix of network to cable stations winning.
So, yes, there is a network that wins here there and everywhere but those number dwindle as the years pass. One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to see where this is heading.
Anyway, it has been reported everywhere that this year was the lowest rated Emmy awards ever. I don’t know why. Perhaps audiences have grown tired of the same old cable shows winning again and again. And I guess I can’t blame them. It’s the very same reason I stopped watching in the first place.
Also, it should be noted. I didn’t watch the Emmy awards this year, either. But the morning after I looked over the winners and I did watch the opening monologue, which I thought that was pretty good. So I attached it.
And for those that are interested in such things, here is a list of all the nominations and winners:
Louie Anderson," Baskets"
Alec Baldwin, "Saturday Night Live"
Tituss Burgess, "Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt"
Brian Tyree Henry, "Atlanta"
Tony Shalhoub, "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel"
Kenan Thompson, "Saturday Night Live"
Henry Winkler, "Barry" *WINNER
Zazie Beetz, "Atlanta"
Alex Borstein, "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" *WINNER
Aidy Bryant, "Saturday Night Live"
Betty Gilpin, "GLOW"
Leslie Jones, "Saturday Night Live"
Kate McKinnon, "Saturday Night Live"
Laurie Metcalf, "Roseanne"
Megan Mullally, "Will & Grace"
Antonio Banderas, "Genius: Picasso"
Darren Criss, "The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story" *WINNER
Benedict Cumberbatch, "Patrick Melrose"
Jeff Daniels, "The Looming Tower"
John Legend, "Jesus Christ Superstar Live in Concert"
Jesse Plemons, "USS Callister (Black Mirror)"
Jessica Biel, "The Sinner"
Laura Dern, "The Tale"
Michelle Dockery, "Godless"
Edie Falco, "Law & Order True Crime: The Menendez Murders"
Regina King, "Seven Seconds" *WINNER
Sarah Paulson, "American Horror Story: Cult"
Anthony Anderson, "Black-ish"
Ted Danson, "The Good Place"
Larry David, "Curb Your Enthusiasm"
Donald Glover, "Atlanta"
Bill Hader, "Barry" *WINNER
William H. Macy, "Shameless"
Pamela Adlon, "Better Things"
Rachel Brosnahan, "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" *WINNER
Allison Janney, "Mom"
Issa Rae, "Insecure"
Tracee Ellis Ross, "Black-ish"
Lily Tomlin, "Grace and Frankie"
Sara Bareilles, "Jesus Christ Superstar Live In Concert"
Penelope Cruz, "The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story"
Judith Light, "The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story"
Adina Porter, "American Horror Story: Cult"
Merritt Wever, "Godless" *WINNER
Letitia Wright,"Black Mirror (Black Museum)"
Jeff Daniels, "Godless" *WINNER
Brandon Victor Dixon,"Jesus Christ Superstar Live in Concert"
John Leguizamo, "Waco"
Ricky Martin, "The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story"
Edgar Ramirez, "The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story"
Michael Stuhlbarg, "The Looming Tower"
Finn Wittrock, "The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story"
Jason Bateman, "Ozark"
Sterling K. Brown, "This Is Us"
Ed Harris, "Westworld"
Matthew Rhys, "The Americans" *WINNER
Milo Ventimiglia, "This Is Us"
Jeffrey Wright, "Westworld"
Claire Foy, "The Crown" *WINNER
Tatiana Maslany, "Orphan Black"
Elisabeth Moss, "The Handmaid's Tale"
Sandra Oh, "Killing Eve"
Keri Russell, "The Americans"
Evan Rachel Wood, "Westworld"
Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, "Game of Thrones"
Peter Dinklage, "Game of Thrones" *WINNER
Joseph Fiennes, "The Handmaid's Tale"
David Harbour, "Stranger Things"
Mandy Patinkin, "Homeland"
Matt Smith, "The Crown"
Alexis Bledel, "The Handmaid's Tale"
Millie Bobby Brown, "Stranger Things"
Ann Dowd, "The Handmaid's Tale"
Lena Headey,"Game of Thrones"
Vanessa Kirby, "The Crown"
Thandie Newton, "Westworld" *WINNER
Yvonne Strahovski, "The Handmaid's Tale"
"The Amazing Race"
"American Ninja Warrior"
"RuPaul's Drag Race" *WINNER
"At Home with Amy Sedaris"
"I Love You, America"
"Saturday Night Live" *WINNER
"Tracey Ullman's Show"
"Full Frontal with Samantha Bee"
"Jimmy Kimmel Live!"
"Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" *WINNER
"The Daily Show with Trevor Noah"
"The Late Late Show with James Corden"
"The Late Show with Stephen Colbert"
"The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story" *WINNER
"Curb Your Enthusiasm"
"The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" *WINNER
"Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt"
"Game of Thrones" *WINNER
"The Handmaid's Tale"
"This Is Us"