Saturday, January 16, 2016



For those of you who use energy drinks, this is the only supplement that should be on your list.  I have used a variety of supplements in this particular case, energy drinks and I must say this is the best thus far.  I have used Rockstar, Amped and Monster just to name a few.  The bottom line is that this drink has no harmful ingredients sugar being the most important ingredient to mention.  This drink is pure energy and I mean energy that is clean.  There is no after effects of any kind whatsoever. There is no tingling or hyperactivity from the drink as well.  In fact, I don't even need to use my pre-workout supplement anymore.  A full can isn't even necessary.  I use one half of the can at a time and that is enough.  The idea isn't to abuse the supplement either.  I only use it on training days when I really need it.  I bought a case and I still have plenty left over and it has been a full month.  I think that if you are using energy drinks, this one has to be at the top of the list.  Glutamine and Creatine are two important ingredients that is present in the drink.  

Power up with BANG’s potent brain & body-rocking fuel: Creatine, Caffeine, & BCAAs (Branched Chain Amino Acids). *

If anyone has testimonials or would like to comment, feel free to do so.
Yours In Training,

Post Commentary:

I absolutely love the product.  I only use it on days that I train. I only use half of  the can.  I get two workouts from one can of bang.  I am careful not to overload on any product.  I know how much of a stimulant that is necessary for the workouts.  If you are using this product, use carefully.  I do not recommend using a whole can at once.  I say this especially for the athletes who stack pre-workout drinks with other supplements.  So far, I have no issues with the product.  I will keep using it.
Yours in training. T

The black unemployment rate has been cut in half under President Obama from 16.8% in 2010 to 8.3% now. #JobsReport

Shanker Institute panel takes on K-12 tenure

The bristly topic of teacher tenure ignited a spirited exchange during the most recent session of the Reclaiming the Promise of Public Education Conversation Series, a monthly panel discussion jointly sponsored by the AFT and the Albert Shanker Institute. "Teacher Tenure: An Outmoded 'Job For Life' or Essential Right to Due Process?" was the topic on the table when some of education's major thought leaders gathered Jan. 12 at AFT headquarters for the discussion, which was streamed to a national audience.
Joining AFT President Randi Weingarten on the panel and weighing in with sharp, provocative and often contrasting views of tenure were Jane Hannaway of Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy; Richard Kahlenberg, senior fellow at the Century Foundation; and Marc Tucker, president and CEO of the National Center on Education and the Economy. The wide-ranging discussion touched on several important aspects of the tenure debate—from the historical pressures that gave rise to teacher tenure and their intersection with national labor laws to what some panelists argued was the need for a discussion of tenure within a broader, more appropriate context of support and improvement.
Predating America's major labor laws, teacher tenure emerged in the Progressive Era as a way to buffer schools from patronage hiring practices, a shield for academic freedom in the classroom, and a defense against race and sex discrimination. The concept today often "elicits such outrage and anger," Kahlenberg observed, because of a general misunderstanding of what tenure is and what it is not. Put simply, tenure "is not a lifetime guaranteed job but provides teachers who have demonstrated competence after a probationary period with due-process rights before being fired."
Among the topics addressed by panelists: Tenure as a recruiting incentive, how the tenure debate is shaped by public perception of teaching and by socioeconomic forces in public education, the connection between sound management practices and tenure, and the ways that supports such as peer review and career ladders factor into the discussion.

Supreme Court seems sure to rule against unions Richard Wolf,

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court left little doubt Monday where it stands on forcing teachers and government workers to contribute to public employee unions against their will: It's ready to strike the requirement down.
The court's more conservative justices sharply criticized the current system in which public employees in 23 states and the District of Columbia must pay for the cost of collective bargaining, even if they disagree with their unions' demands. The problem, those justices said, is that virtually everything the unions do affects public policy and tax dollars.
"Everything that is collectively bargained with the government is within the political sphere, almost by definition," said Justice Antonin Scalia, seen as the lone conservative who might side with the unions because of past statements.
When lawyers for California and its teachers union cited more mundane collective bargaining issues such as mileage rates and public safety, Chief Justice John Roberts objected. "It's all money," Roberts said. "The amount of money that's going to be allocated to public education as opposed to public housing, welfare benefits, that's always a public policy issue."
Their comments and others from justices who previously have criticized the practice of compelling union fees made it clear that the court is likely to strike down its nearly 40-year-old precedent allowing unions to impose such requirements on non-members. That would make it harder for unions representing teachers, police and firefighters, and other government workers to maintain their power by affecting their pocketbooks.
The ruling, expected by late June, will come in the middle of an election year in which unions are overwhelmingly aligned with the Democratic Party. It could elevate bread-and-butter issues such as the minimum wage and income inequality on the political agenda, which has been dominated lately by the threats of international terrorism, illegal immigration and guns. And it could energize the Democrats' union base, as Supreme Court defeats often do.
                   To read more click on the following link: