Happy BD America-100 Great Things About You This Year

Around July 4th, Fortune Magazine issues 100 great things that Americans can be proud of. This is the third year Fortune is doing it and no repeats are allowed. Moreover only living things are eligible. In this year list, I personally like only about 30 items. The rest are baloney and not great at all, and not even worth mentioning. How about you? Read the list below and let me know what you think. Your opinion is highly welcome. I also added five items in the list as my personal favorite at the bottom of the page.

1. Resilience 2. Title IX 3. The Ford assembly line 4. Batman 5. Bald eagle 6. The G.I. Bill 7. Smithsonian 8. Idaho potatos 9. Brooklyn Bridge 10. Smokey Bear

11. Groundhog Day 12. Tupac's hologram 13. Polio vaccine 14. Omaha Steaks 15. Bob Dylan, 1965, Newport Folk Festival 16. Pete Seeger 17. Mini golf 18. The White House 19. Pictionary 20. Snuggies

21. Basketball 22. Scooby-doo 23. Sleepaway camp 24. Mormons 25. The DynaTAC "brick" 26. Capture the flag 27. Bruce Springsteen's "Born to Run" 28. U.S. Open 29. Hollywood sign 30. Lady Gaga

31. Saturday Night Live 32. Charlotte's Web 33. The cheeseburger 34. I have a dream speech 35. Jukebox 36. The Triple Crown 37. Roller derbies 38. Campbell's Soup cans 39. Megamillions 40. Texas linedancing

41. Marshmallow Peeps 42. Skateboarding 43. Polaroid (and its successors) 44. Teddy bears 45. Woody Allen 46. Microwave 47. Credit cards 48. Beach volleyball 49. Twister 50. QWERTY

51. Silicon Valley 52. Pride Week 53. The Blues 54. Flapjacks 55. Kickstarter 56. Peanut butter 57. Hershey's 58. Pacific Coast Highway 59. Comic-Con 60. Swanson

61. NASA 62. Trick-or-treating 63. Dolly Parton 64. The soda shop 65. NPR 66. Moore's law 67. Crayola 68. Human Genome Project 69. Rube Goldberg machines 70. Maine Lobster Festival

71. The Dougie 72. Rodeos 73. Muppets 74. Lucas films 75. Cheer leading 76. Shark Week 77. Internet memes 78. Ticker-tape parades 79. Kool-Aid 80. Dr. Seuss books

81. Key Lime Pie 82. Tailgating 83. Pop-tarts 84. Tipping 85. Stephen Colbert 86. Fender guitars 87. Chevrolet Corvette 88. Instagram 89. Play-doh 90. Top Chef

91. Potato chips 92. Happy hour 93. ProPublica 94. Appalachian Trail 95. Star Trek 96. New England Clam Chowder 97. WiFi 98. The GIF 99. Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition 100. American Psycho

As Ronald Reagan was so fond of saying: "There you go again." That's right, there Fortune goes again with another 100 great things about America. This is Fortune's third annual list -- our favorite way to kick off the high-summer season -- and we're still following the house rules: No repeats from previous years' lists, which is why you won't see The Mighty Mississippi (it was included last year) or the Ford Mustang (it was on the list the year before). Also, only the living are eligible, so apologies not only to the Great Communicator himself, as well as Andrew Carnegie and Amelia Earhart, but also to Lassie, Flipper, and Mr. Ed.

On this year's list you will find an iconic bridge (we have a bunch of those in this country), a cartoon dog (ditto) and a certain Valley to the south of San Francisco that just happens to be the cradle of global technology innovation (there’s only one of those).

The list is great fun to argue about with friends. Just please remember that we are now up to 300 great things cumulatively with our three years of lists and we aim to keep going (for another seven years) until we hit a thousand! Somewhere, I think the Gipper -- and FDR too -- are smiling in approval.

Can you add your own favorites in the list: Mine are: same sex marriages, obamacare, the dream act immigration law, Anderson Cooper( coming out) and Romney and Mormons.

Happy July 4th to All and Happy Birthday America

Anderson Cooper is Out-So What? No Big Deal to Me!

Cooper and Friend

Yesterday, Anderson Cooper, one of my favorite newscaster for CNN officially declared he is gay. So what? To me it is not news, I have known it for quite sometime, when the first rumor about his sexual orientation was a subject of the gossipers of our news media in 2003. I believe however that his official outing is a benefit to all the gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals of the world.

Hooray and More Power for You, Anderson Cooper. You are still-one of my most beloved TV personality of the Decade! Gay, Bi or Straight, I still admired your courage and professionalism as a reporter and a human being.

Here's the news about his outing from Daily Beast in case you have not read it. This is Anderson Cooper reply to Andrew Sullivan ( his friend) questions about his reaction of being gay.

“Andrew, as you know, the issue you raise is one that I've thought about for years. Even though my job puts me in the public eye, I have tried to maintain some level of privacy in my life. Part of that has been for purely personal reasons. I think most people want some privacy for themselves and the people they are close to. But I've also wanted to retain some privacy for professional reasons. Since I started as a reporter in war zones 20 years ago, I've often found myself in some very dangerous places. For my safety and the safety of those I work with, I try to blend in as much as possible, and prefer to stick to my job of telling other people’s stories, and not my own. I have found that sometimes the less an interview subject knows about me, the better I can safely and effectively do my job as a journalist.

I've always believed that who a reporter votes for, what religion they are, who they love, should not be something they have to discuss publicly. As long as a journalist shows fairness and honesty in his or her work, their private life shouldn't matter. I’ve stuck to those principles for my entire professional career, even when I’ve been directly asked “the gay question,” which happens occasionally. I did not address my sexual orientation in the memoir I wrote several years ago because it was a book focused on war, disasters, loss and survival. I didn't set out to write about other aspects of my life.

Recently, however, I’ve begun to consider whether the unintended outcomes of maintaining my privacy outweigh personal and professional principle. It’s become clear to me that by remaining silent on certain aspects of my personal life for so long, I have given some the mistaken impression that I am trying to hide something - something that makes me uncomfortable, ashamed or even afraid. This is distressing because it is simply not true.

I’ve also been reminded recently that while as a society we are moving toward greater inclusion and equality for all people, the tide of history only advances when people make themselves fully visible. There continue to be far too many incidences of bullying of young people, as well as discrimination and violence against people of all ages, based on their sexual orientation, and I believe there is value in making clear where I stand.

The fact is, I'm gay, always have been, always will be, and I couldn’t be any more happy, comfortable with myself, and proud. I have always been very open and honest about this part of my life with my friends, my family, and my colleagues. In a perfect world, I don't think it's anyone else's business, but I do think there is value in standing up and being counted. I’m not an activist, but I am a human being and I don't give that up by being a journalist.

Since my early days as a reporter, I have worked hard to accurately and fairly portray gay and lesbian people in the media - and to fairly and accurately portray those who for whatever reason disapprove of them. It is not part of my job to push an agenda, but rather to be relentlessly honest in everything I see, say and do. I’ve never wanted to be any kind of reporter other than a good one, and I do not desire to promote any cause other than the truth. Being a journalist, traveling to remote places, trying to understand people from all walks of life, telling their stories, has been the greatest joy of my professional career, and I hope to continue doing it for a long time to come. But while I feel very blessed to have had so many opportunities as a journalist, I am also blessed far beyond having a great career. I love, and I am loved.

In my opinion, the ability to love another person is one of God’s greatest gifts, and I thank God every day for enabling me to give and share love with the people in my life. I appreciate your asking me to weigh in on this, and I would be happy for you to share my thoughts with your readers. I still consider myself a reserved person and I hope this doesn’t mean an end to a small amount of personal space. But I do think visibility is important, more important than preserving my reporter’s shield of privacy.”

What a beautiful and decent way to come out. I salute you, Anderson!

Here's a list of 100 Greatest Classical Composers from www.digitaldreamdon.com THE RANKING Criteria: - Composers are ranked for their innovation and influence, as well as their aesthetic importance and historical significance.

1. Ludwig Van Beethoven - 1770-1827 2. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - 1756-1791 3. Johann Sebastian Bach - 1685-1750 4. Richard Wagner - 1813-1883 5. Joseph Haydn - 1732-1809 6. Johannes Brahms - 1833-1897 7. Franz Schubert - 1797-1828 8. Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky - 1840-1893 9. George Frideric Handel - 1685-1759 10. Igor Stravinsky - 1882-1971 I agree with the top ten List

11. Robert Schumann - 1810-1856 12. Frederic Chopin - 1810-1849 13. Felix Mendelssohn - 1809-1847 14. Claude Debussy - 1862-1918 15. Franz Liszt - 1811-1886 16. Antonin Dvorak - 1841-1904 17. Giuseppe Verdi - 1813-1901 18. Gustav Mahler - 1860-1911 19. Hector Berlioz - 1803-1869 20. Antonio Vivaldi - 1678-1741

21. Richard Strauss - 1864-1949 22. Serge Prokofiev - 1891-1953 23. Dmitri Shostakovich - 1906-1975 24. Béla Bartók - 1881-1945 25. Anton Bruckner - 1824-1896 26. Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina - 1525-1594 27. Claudio Monteverdi - 1567-1643 28. Jean Sibelius - 1865-1957 29. Maurice Ravel - 1875-1937 30. Ralph Vaughan Williams - 1872-1958

31. Modest Mussorgsky - 1839-1881 32. Giacomo Puccini - 1858-1924 33. Henry Purcell - 1659-1695 34. Gioacchino Rossini - 1792-1868 35. Edward Elgar - 1857-1934 36. Sergei Rachmaninoff - 1873-1943 37. Camille Saint-Saëns - 1835-1921 38. Josquin Des Prez - c.1440-1521 39. Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov - 1844-1908 40. Carl Maria von Weber - 1786-1826

41. Jean-Philippe Rameau - 1683-1764 42. Jean-Baptiste Lully - 1632-1687 43. Gabriel Fauré - 1845-1924 44. Edvard Grieg - 1843-1907 45. Christoph Willibald Gluck - 1714-1787 46. Arnold Schoenberg - 1874-1951 47. Charles Ives - 1874-1954 48. Paul Hindemith - 1895-1963 49. Olivier Messiaen - 1908-1992 50. Aaron Copland - 1900-1990

51. Francois Couperin - 1668-1733 52. William Byrd - 1539-1623 53. Erik Satie - 1866-1925 54. Benjamin Britten - 1913-1976 55. Bedrick Smetana - 1824-1884 56. César Franck - 1822-1890 57. Alexander Nikolayevich Scriabin - 1872-1915 58. Georges Bizet - 1838-1875 59. Domenico Scarlatti - 1685-1757 60. Georg Philipp Telemann - 1681-1767

61. Anton Webern - 1883-1945 62. Roland de Lassus - 1532-1594 63. George Gershwin - 1898-1937 64. Gaetano Donizetti - 1797-1848 65. Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach - 1714-1788 66. Archangelo Corelli - 1653-1713 67. Thomas Tallis - 1505-1585 68. Jules Massenet - 1842-1912 69. Johann Strauss II - 1825-1899 70. Leos Janácek - 1854-1928

71. Guillaume de Machaut - 1300-1377 72. Alban Berg - 1885-1935 73. Alexander Borodin - 1833-1887 74. Vincenzo Bellini - 1801-1835 75. Charles Gounod - 1818-1893 76. Francis Poulenc - 1899-1963 77. Giovanni Gabrieli - 1554-1612 78. Pérotin - 1160-1225 79. Heinrich Schütz - 1585-1672 80. John Cage - 1912-1992

81. Giovanni Battista Pergolesi - 1710-1736 82. John Dowland - 1563-1626 83. Gustav Holst - 1874-1934 84. Dietrich Buxtehude - 1637-1707 85. Ottorino Respighi - 1879-1936 86. Guillaume Dufay - 1400-1474 87. Hugo Wolf - 1860-1903 88. Carl Nielsen - 1865-1931 89. William Walton - 1902-1983 90. Darius Milhaud - 1892-1974

91 Orlando Gibbons - 1583-1625 92. Giacomo Meyerbeer - 1791-1864 93. Samuel Barber - 1910-1981 94. Tomás Luis de Victoria - 1549-1611 95. Léonin - 1135-1201 96. Manuel de Falla - 1876-1946 97. Hildegard von Bingen - 1098-1179 98. Mikhail Glinka - 1804-1857 99. Alexander Glazunov - 1865-1936 100. Don Carlo Gesualdo - 1566-1613

One of my favorite classical piece not in the video above is Romance by composer #23 Dmitri Shoskatovich I have listened to works of composers #1 to #50. I only recognized a few names in the list from 51 to 100. How about you?

Women's Gymnastic Olympic Trials and the Beam Mount

I have been glued to Television for the last 3 days watching the women's( girls) gymnastic Olympic trials. Last night the 5 Olympians and 3 replacements were announced. I can not be happier since all my favorites have been selected. The above event reminded of the following video. If you love gymnastics, this video is a must see. Enjoy!

Anti-Facebook Sentiments Brewing Among Users

The following article from CNN attracted my attention today. I could personally identify with the sentiments expressed in this posting.

Item One: Last week, it was discovered that the 900 million-person social network was "testing" a feature that would let people see a digital list of the people who were nearby in real life. Called "Find Friends Nearby," the app was pulled down by Tuesday morning after the Internet freaked out. Commenters said things like "Hell to the naw" and "BAD FACEBOOK!!" and generally complaining that the feature, which was difficult to find, much less use, invades privacy and will lead to stalking. If that's not enough, a company named Friendthem reportedly threatened a lawsuit, saying Facebook stole its idea for the location-aware feature. Apparently, Friendthem would like to share the heat.

Item two:: A blogger noticed over the weekend that Facebook, without asking permission, had changed the default e-mail addresses of all of its digital residents to @facebook.com accounts. It's easy enough to change back, as the site Lifehacker and others have detailed, but that little invasion of the hub of digital identity -- the Facebook Timeline -- was enough to make quite a few Facebookers fire back at their digital overlords. Security researchers called the move dangerous. Normal people felt violated. "Up next: Facebook inside your underwear drawer!" a commenter wrote on our site. So that was this week. But it seems like every week has been feeling a little like that. br />
The fact that an anti-Facebook sentiment bubbles beneath the currents of modern life is, of course, nothing new. When the company introduced the now-popular News Feed in September 2006, users threw a fit -- and many abandoned the young network, at least for a moment.

Let's put the brakes on for just a second and ask a few questions: Are people mad about Facebook's individual decisions -- the e-mail, the tracking, the News Feed -- or do the roots of this discontent reach into deeper, darker places? If it's the latter, why are people so continually frustrated? Do we hold Facebook to too high of a standard? Is the social network turning its back on users? Or is it just that our digital lives are now so invested in Facebook that it would be nearly impossible to pull out at this point -- and, because of that, we feel helpless?

Here are a few theories about what's actually going on with people's unhappiness with Facebook. Take a look and let us know which you think is most accurate -- or offer up a theory of your own -- in the comments.

Facebook has become an octopus: And by "octopus" we mean it's got too many tentacles to manage. This theory is put forward by the blog the Next Web, which says Facebook is buying too many new companies -- Instagram, Glancee -- and trying too many new things. (This is a critique more commonly lobbed at Google, especially when it was launching one product after the next that flopped: Google Wave, Google Buzz, etc., etc.) "When you start packing in more features while you're removing none of them, feature creep will happen and users will start to ask the question 'Why can't they just make it easy for me to talk to my friends?' " Drew Olanoff wrote. "After all, that's why people started leaving MySpace to go to Facebook in the first place, because it simply tried to do too much." Writing for Forbes, Kashmir Hill puts it this way: "Facebook would love to be the all-inclusive resort of the Web, replete with complementary digital daiquiris (that you're forced to chug) upon entry."

Facebook is a technocracy, and we want a democracy: As Alexis Madrigal writes for the Atlantic, Facebook has evolved into a "technocracy": a government of sorts that's run by engineers who value efficiency above all else. When you complain to the real-world government, you can expect a response -- or you can use your voting power (or run for office) to push for change. At Facebook, 2 million complaints per week are handled largely by computers and a staff of a few hundred people. Their aim is to process as many issues per day as possible, to help people connect and, as Madrigal puts it, to stop people from leaving the site "by minimizing their negative experiences." "Facebook's desire for efficiency means democracy is out and technocratic, developer-king rule is in," he writes. Even when the site does give its users a chance to weigh in on policy, Madrigal says, users don't take up the offer. In a vote about a recent privacy policy change, 0.038% of users participated.

Facebook is a monopoly-There's no competition: Hope and pray all you want, but there's no other online social network with 900 million people. Chances are, most of your friends are on Facebook, so even if you try to go to a competing network like Google+, it might be as fun as talking to your cat. Here's a list of alternatives from our What's Next blog, but none of them seems like actual competition in terms of numbers. Facebook cares more about investors than users. Facebook went public this year, leading to criticisms that the site's motives have changed. Is it focused on cash instead of users?

While that complaint may be premature -- CEO Mark Zuckerberg maintains a majority stake in the company, so he doesn't have to listen to investors and his board all that much -- the company's IPO, and the billionaires and millionaires who resulted from it, doubtlessly cloud how people see Facebook's motives. And it doesn't help to know that, in mid-May, you were worth only $1.21 to Facebook. "How much does Facebook value its users? In strictly monetary terms, about as much as a bag of chips," David Goldman wrote for our sister site CNNMoney.com. Or, as Slate put it, Facebook is "conducting an experiment in corporate dictatorship nearly without precedent for such a large and high-profile company."

Facebook is no fun (anymore ...): I put the question of what's really wrong with Facebook out on my Google Plus feed, in part because that network is a hotbed for Facebook defectors. Several followers brought up interesting points, the simplest of which is that Facebook, as it grew, became un-fun. "Facebook started as a social network that was 'fun' to update your friends and classmates (since it started for-college students only) and grew into something that can affect your career, reputation and invade your privacy," one user, identified as Julie Hancher, wrote.

Here's another thought, from a person identified as Robert Sons: "Bombardment with stories you don't care about from people you barely care about. Depression that you're jealously stalking other's lives instead of living your own. Shallowness of content. The more content you absorb, the less valuable your own posts seem."

And I'll give the final word to Carlos Ochoa, who wrote, simply: "Everyone uses Facebook but nobody likes it."

New Diet Pill Approved by FDA after 13 Years

My Co-workers during my FDA Years

The following article titled "First new diet pill in 13 years approved by FDA" was published the other day by Catholic Online (NEWS CONSORTIUM)(www.catholic.org). Having worked for FDA, this news has personal significance, reminding me of my career as an FDA Chemistry Team Leader for 12 years prior to my retirement in 2002.

"Called Belviq, the first new prescription diet pill in 13 years has won approval from the Food and Drug Administration. While the medication is intended to help roughly one-third of American adults who are considered obese, Belviq enters a pharmaceutical market where so-called "diet pills" have only enjoyed limited success. Diet pills in the U.S. have faced a long and troubled history. There have been myriad safety problems and product withdrawals, which has made the F.D.A. reluctant to approve new drugs.

Diet pills in the U.S. have faced a long and troubled history. There have been myriad safety problems and product withdrawals, which has made the F.D.A. reluctant to approve new drugs.

Chief among the many challenges facing Belviq is the fact that many diet drugs do not sell that well as insurers often do not cover them.

Will people will use Belviq? In spite of an increasingly obese U.S. population, diet drugs have not sold well in the past partially because people tend to use them for only a short time.

Developed by Arena Pharmaceuticals of San Diego, Belviq has been known as lorcaserin. The drug will be sold under the name Belviq by Eisai Inc., the American branch of the Japanese pharmaceutical company. Only one anti-obesity medicine had been approved for long-term use before Belviq's recent approval. Roche's Xenical, which reached the market in 1999 is rarely due to modest weight loss and unpleasant effects on the digestive system.

Diet pills in the U.S. have faced a long and troubled history. There have been myriad safety problems and product withdrawals, which has made the F.D.A. reluctant to approve new drugs. Belviq itself was turned down by the agency in 2010, but Arena came back with new data that assuaged the agency's safety concerns.

Doctors who treat obesity say there is a need for new medicines to help to plug a "treatment gap" between diet and exercise, which do not work for many people, and the more radical option of bariatric surgery. Obesity is a serious health condition that causes other health problems like diabetes and heart disease.

The F.D.A. is sympathetic to these concerns. "Obesity threatens the overall well being of patients and is a major public health concern," Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the drug evaluation center at the F.D.A., said in a statement.

Arena said it was not clear yet when the drug would be available to patients or how much it would cost. Because the F.D.A. deemed that there was some potential for the drug to be abused, the Drug Enforcement Administration must now decide what controls to place on prescribers, a process that Arena said could take four to six months.