Tips for eating healthfully from a vending machine

While the first tip to eating healthfully usually includes staying away from vending machines, this time it's a little different.

There are about a dozen vending machine companies offering a healthy alternative for those who eat on the run, and one of them is already selling its products in Central New Jersey and Bucks County, PA. Its name is Fresh Healthy Vending, a San Diego franchise operation that offers fresh fruits, natural drinks, yogurts, soy pudding, granola and smoothies as part of its selection.

We can expect to see more companies like this one approaching school districts directly thanks to a new law, regulating schools that participate in the federal school lunch program. The new guidelines enable the Agriculture Department to impose nutritional standards on all snacks and refreshments sold in schools. These guidelines are likely to benefit companies that offer healthy alternatives on its vending machines.

Hopeful of this vision, here are a few things to keep in mind when making a selection on a revamped vending machine:

Determine if you are thirsty or hungry: This might seem obvious, but often people max-out on high caloric snacks, when in fact they are dehydrated and needing liquids.

Select fruits and vegetables first: They contain the strongest nutritional punch and are usually highest in fiber and lowest in calories.

Keep your snack at 100 calories max: Pay attention to the number of servings. You many need to share it with a friend or save it for later.

Choose water over flavored water and flavored water over soft drinks: Consider an unsweetened iced tea, milk or soymilk. Opt for a flavored water if you are craving a sweet drink.

Source http://www.mcall.com/entertainment/mc-health-blogs-healthy-vending-machi20110418-1,0,7668798.story

The New Speed of Politics in 2012

President Barack Obama's formal declaration of his re-election bid Monday actually serves as a reminder that the 2012 campaign is off to such a slow start that it has shattered one piece of conventional wisdom: the notion that each presidential sweepstakes starts earlier than the last one.

Instead, although both parties expect a still-wheezing economy to produce a highly competitive race, the second quarter of 2011 has dawned without a single officially declared candidate on the Republican side. At this time four years ago, by contrast, the top three Republican candidates had raised collectively some $50 million, and the top three Democratic contenders had been running for several months.

America doesn't need longer presidential campaigns, so this isn't a bad thing for the country. Moreover, the Republican contenders are coming, and soon. But the reasons the race is slow to form say a lot about the times and the state of politics—as well as the ways that technology and pervasive communications are changing the process.

Conversations with advisers to several potential candidates suggest that the first reason for the slow ramp-up is a basic one: The coming campaign isn't for an open seat in the White House, but rather will be a race against an incumbent president.

For Republicans, the idea of running against a sitting president, even one who may seem vulnerable, is far more daunting than running to take over an empty seat, and doubtless has given some candidates—think Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels—reason to pause and ponder.

Other factors have to do with the unique political climate of 2011. Last year's midterm elections produced a Republican wave that enabled the party to take back the House of Representatives and to eliminate the Democrats' filibuster-proof Senate majority. The big event in the party became reclaiming a share of power in Washington now, not starting on an election two years hence.

One Republican campaign operative says that after the 2010 election "there wasn't a lot of political oxygen in the party for candidates to break through with interesting messages or a startling program." It seemed wise to let House GOP leaders John Boehner and Eric Cantor, and new Republican governors, be the party leaders for a while.

Moreover, some Republican operatives argue that the 2008 campaign showed that starting early doesn't really offer much of an advantage, and may be a disadvantage.

An early start didn't get Hillary Clinton the Democratic nomination, and early Republican front-runner John McCain flamed out and had to basically resurrect his campaign from the ashes before he prevailed. Notably, the GOP Iowa caucuses were won not by one of the big early juggernaut candidates, but by the underfinanced Mike Huckabee.

"If you look at the results last cycle it's hard to argue that being early or being big was much of an advantage," says Alex Conant, an adviser to former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

At the same time, some of most notable Republican possibilities—Haley Barbour of Mississippi and Mr. Daniels in Indiana in particular—are sitting governors who argue they need to tend to their states' pressing budget business before turning to presidential politics. At a minimum, it might appear unseemly to jump in before taking care of the home front.

But the most intriguing force behind the campaign's pace lies in the way technology has changed the art and practice of both campaigning and fund-raising.

A combination of Facebook, Twitter and other online organizing tools, along with perches on the Fox News Network and other cable outlets, have given Sarah Palin, in particular, and Mr. Huckabee and Newt Gingrich plenty of exposure that allows them to gather supporters and organize virtually without having to formally declare. This new reality also gives Ms. Palin and Mr. Huckabee an incentive to continue earning money from TV contracts while waiting to decide.

Perhaps as important, the Internet is a fund-raising tool that allows candidates to quickly scoop up large amounts of money, if they strike a spark with voters, without having to rely as much on the traditional, time-consuming slog through fund-raising events night after night.

It's hard to know for sure who might benefit most from the new dynamic. It may well help former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the perceived front-runner, by allowing him to stay above the fray and out of the line of fire longer. And it seems to be benefiting Mr. Pawlenty, who's taking advantage of the extra time and space to quietly line up support in the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Like all twists in the political game, this delayed start doubtless comes with less-obvious consequence, easier to see at the end of the road than the beginning.

Source http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704587004576242652042737250.html

Five senators push Obama to do more in Libya

A leading critic of the Vietnam War, Senator Kerry now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Kerry, who has remained personally engaged in Middle East politics, describes the events unfolding in the Middle East as a “new Arab awakening” and a “huge blow to extremism.”

As with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the challenge to US foreign policy is to usher these nations into a new world, he says. “So how we respond today – right now – will, in my judgment, shape our strategic position in the entire Middle East, and how Muslims around the world see us going forward, probably for decades to come,” he told the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on March 16.

In the past, the US addiction to oil and its fight against terrorism overshadowed the values of democracy and human rights, Kerry said, but now, the US must encourage governments to respond to the hopes and needs of their people.

The goal of the mission in Libya is limited to saving lives, not necessarily getting rid of a tyrant, he said.

Source http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0322/Five-senators-push-Obama-to-do-more-in-Libya/Sen.-John-Kerry-D-of-Massachusetts

Christie beats Obama in "thermometer' poll

Governor Chris Christie is hot.

Not lie-out-on-the-beach hot, but hot enough to beat out President Barack Obama by a half a degree, according to a Quinnipiac University national thermometer poll released today.

The poll, conducted by asking respondents to rate individuals on a 0-to-100-degree "feeling thermometer'' show that first lady Michelle Obama and former President Bill Clinton are the hottest of the political types, with temperatures of 60.1 and 59.2 degrees respectively. But Christie comes in number three with a respectable 57 degrees, followed by Obama at 56.5.

The only drawback to Christie's rating is that 55 percent of the respondents did not know enough about the New Jersey governor to rate him. This was opposed to 4 percent for Michelle Obama, 2 percent for Clinton and 0 percent for the president.

The next Republican on the list is Rudy Giuliani at 52.3 percent, followed by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, House Speaker John Boehner and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, all of whom topped 50 degrees.

"New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie has ruled out running for president next year despite the urging of many Republicans, but he has clearly made a positive impression on the American people, at least the half who are familiar with him,'' Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said in a prepared release. "It is important to remember that this measure is not any kind of presidential trial heat, but it does reflect how voters feel about national figures, including politicians.''

The lowest three on the hot list? Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin at 38.2 degrees, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at 34.8 and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi at 32.9. Palin is a Republican, and Reid and Pelosi are Democrats.

The survey was conducted from Feb. 21 to 28. A total of 1,887 registered voters were polled by phone. The poll has a margin of error of 2.3 percentage points.

Source http://www.app.com/article/CN/20110307/NJNEWS10/110307015/1024/NJNEWS11/Christie-beats-Obama-thermometer-poll

The End of Fannie Mae

It's enough to make you believe in miracles: The Obama Administration is now on record as saying that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should go out of business. It took a global financial panic and $140 billion in taxpayer losses, but on Friday there it was in black-and-white in the U.S. Treasury's report to Congress on reforming the mortgage market: The Administration will "ultimately . . . wind down both institutions."

This marks a break with decades of bipartisan support and protection for the two government-sponsored giants of mortgage finance. Fannie Mae has its roots in the Roosevelt Administration, and a phalanx of bankers, mortgage lenders, homebuilders and Realtors worked together to keep the companies growing and federal mortgage subsidies flowing. Now even some Democrats—though not yet those on Capitol Hill—admit their business model was a catastrophe waiting to happen.

Under the Administration's proposals, Fan and Fred wind down over five to seven years. The two mortgage giants would, in effect, gradually price themselves out of the mortgage finance market by raising guarantee prices and down payment requirements, while lowering the size of the mortgages they could securitize and guarantee. This sounds like a plausible set of first steps to lure private capital back into the mortgage market, where some 92% of all new mortgages are currently underwritten or guaranteed by the government.

The $5 trillion question, however, is what would replace Fan and Fred. And here the Obama Administration has punted, offering the "pros and cons" of three broad proposals without endorsing any one of them.

Door No. 1 is the best of the lot by our lights. Under this option, federal guarantees would be limited to Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans for lower-income buyers and VA assistance for veterans and farm programs—each a narrowly targeted market segment. A Treasury official says this would reduce the taxpayer backstop over time to about 10% to 15% of the mortgage market.

The Administration puts the case for federal withdrawal from the broader housing market in compelling terms: "The strength of this option is that it would minimize distortions in capital allocation across sectors, reduce moral hazard in mortgage lending and drastically reduce direct taxpayer exposure to private lenders' losses." Bravo.

Treasury points to other benefits: "With less incentive to invest in housing, more capital will flow into other areas of the economy, potentially leading to more long-run economic growth and reducing the inflationary pressure on housing assets. Risk throughout the system may also be reduced, as private actors will not be as inclined to take on excessive risk without the assurance of a government guarantee behind them. And finally, direct taxpayer risk exposure to private losses in the mortgage market would be limited to the loans guaranteed by FHA and other narrowly targeted government loan programs: no longer would taxpayers be at direct risk for guarantees covering most of the nation's mortgages."

Those two paragraphs more or less sum up 20 years of Journal editorials on housing.

So what's not to like? The Administration says this option could reduce access to credit for some home buyers, and that it would leave the government without the tools to intervene in a future crisis. As for the credit point, other countries have high rates of home ownership with far less government support. If the government stands aside, it would open the way for alternative forms of finance, such as covered bonds, that now can't compete in the U.S. because of government favoritism for the 30-year mortgage model. This would open options for borrowers by increasing the diversity of financing.

As for a future crisis, government intervention is less likely to be needed if the market isn't distorted by government subsidies in the first place.

Behind Door No. 2 is a rump Fan or Fred, one that would stay small in "normal" times but stand ready to step in with Uncle Sam's firepower in a future housing-finance crisis. But as the Administration acknowledges, it would be difficult both to stay small and retain the capacity to go large when needed. We'd add that the political pressure to expand any federal mortgage-lending program would be too great for lawmakers to resist. Within a generation, the winding down of Fan and Fred would be unwound.

But the greatest danger lies behind Door No. 3, which looks like Fannie in a new suit. Under this last option, the Administration envisages a group of tightly regulated, well-capitalized private mortgage insurers whose policies would be backstopped by government reinsurance. The government would charge premiums for this insurance, "which would be used to cover future claims and recoup losses to protect taxpayers." This reintroduces the lethal mix of private profit and public risk by other means.

The problem with Fan and Fred from the beginning was not—despite the Administration's claims—that the profit motive corrupted their benign goals. Rather, the political influence and financial power of the housing lobby ensured that the companies operated outside the normal rules of politics and financial discipline. Thanks to an implicit government guarantee, the market never put any limit on their growth, even as their liabilities climbed into the trillions. Few politicians had the nerve to challenge a housing lobby that would attack them for opposing home ownership. The same political flaws would afflict a future reinsurer and its coterie of putatively private insurers.

The power of the housing lobby is implicit even in the Treasury's refusal to pick a preferred reform. As with entitlement reform, the Administration is leaving the hard work to House Republicans, who will bear the brunt of the political blowback. A reasonable GOP fear is that the Administration, whatever its rhetoric now, will pounce with a veto when it's politically advantageous—in, say, 2012.

Source http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704657104576141891006477826.html

Not one question about illegal immigration during O’Reilly/Obama interview

On Sunday, Fox News aired the much-advertised Bill O’Reilly interview with President Obama. The host of The Factor asked Obama about the ongoing unrest in Egypt, the healthcare bill and even if it bothered the president that “so many people hate” him?

However, O’Reilly failed to mention the looming elephant in the room…illegal immigration and the threat now posed to this country from the drug cartels.

Of course, it is undoubtedly an uncomfortable subject for Obama and it may have been deemed ‘off limits’ for the interview to take place.

Here are the questions that this reporter would have asked:

1) Your Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, continues to say there is no “spillover violence” in this country from Mexico’s drug cartels. However, about 300 kidnappings are reported in Phoenix annually, and Americans are being murdered by drug smugglers. Most recently, Arizona rancher Rob Krentz and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry were killed on U.S. soil.

So, in light of these occurrences…How can your administration continue to claim that Americans are not at risk from any “spillover violence?”

2) Last year, Department of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, announced the “We Can Help” campaign designed to protect day laborers, even if they are illegal aliens. Solis sys the agency added 250 field investigators to enforce labor laws, but will not report those here illegally to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

With actual unemployment in this country at 17 percent…How can you possibly justify such an effort?

3) During your recent State of the Union speech, you said: “I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration. I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows.”

However, federal law already dictates that we “protect our borders.”

We simply don’t do it.

The invasion of this country by the violent Mexican drug cartels and the hellish life they have created for those Americans living in the American Southwest presents a clear and present danger, and is one that only the U.S. military can adequately answer.

Why when we use our military to protect the borders of countries such South Korea and Iraq, can’t we use those same active duty troops to protect our own country?

4) In 2006, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law, the Secure Fence Act was supposed to see to it that 700 miles of double-layered, barbed wire fence was built along the U.S./Mexican border, along with more vehicle barriers and manned checkpoints, only about 30 miles of the double-layered, 14-foot high fencing has actually been built.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, only 34.3 miles of double-layered fencing has been completed along the border. Most of that, (13.5 miles), is in Texas, with 11.8 miles in California and a mere 9.1 miles of double-layer fencing now sits along the border in Arizona.

In fact, in early 2009, the Government Accountability Office reported that only 32 miles of double-layered fencing had been constructed. As Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) pointed out in a May 2010 Human Events op-ed: “That means under President Obama, only 2.3 miles of it has been built over an entire year.”

Why have you stopped building the fence that would greatly improve our security?

5) Because the federal government has refused to defend the border and enforce immigration laws, there are about states around the country are now enacting their own legislation to do so.

Do you plan on suing those states, along with Arizona?

6) Finally, Mr. President, I have to tell you that I sort through dozens of crimes committed by illegal aliens on a daily basis. Those crimes include DUIs, child molestation, rape and murder.

I have also spoken to many Americans who have lost family members at the hands of criminal aliens, many of whom tell me they no longer recognize their own country, and cannot understand why the federal government allows millions of illegal aliens to remain here.

What would you say to those folks?

Source http://www.examiner.com/immigration-reform-in-national/not-one-question-about-illegal-immigration-during-o-reilly-obama-interview

Obama's health care law may boil down to a single judge

Four federal judges have reviewed President Obama's health care law and split evenly on whether it is constitutional -- now four appeals courts get their chance.

Millions of voters have offered their views of the health care plan, and so have 535 members of Congress.

In the end, the fate of Obama's signature domestic program may well boil down to a single person: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

"Nothing matters in the federal courts until Anthony Kennedy flips his magic coin," writes the Ace of Spades HQ blog. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, a lawyer and a former congressman, said this morning, "It's going to come down to Anthony Kennedy."

Many observers, including some in the White House, expect health care lawsuits to wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court and suspect it could wind up being one of those 5-4 decisions.

Supporters of the health care law have high hopes for four Democrat-appointed justices: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Opponents of what they call "Obamacare" count on four Republican-appointed conservatives: Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

That leaves Justice Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee who often decides 5-4 cases.

Congressional Republicans say they will maintain efforts to repeal the health care law or at least undercut its funding.

Health care will probably play a major political role when President Obama seeks re-election in 2012 -- perhaps the same year the Supreme Court takes up the health care case.

Source http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/02/obamas-health-care-law-may-rise-or-fall-with-one-judge/1