Bill O'Reilly, Sexist and Proud of It Posted by ZP Heller, Brave New Films at 3:00 PM on May 7, 2009. It will always puzzle me how so many people are unable to see through the lies and nastiness that people like Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, among others, get rich on while poor people stay poor and misinformed by listening to them. Limbaugh can enjoy his 24,000 sq foot house while he makes the common man's life more of a problem, having done so much to support the terrible choices the past Administration made in the last eight years.
Another One Bites the Dust: Joe the Plumber Is Quitting the GOP Posted by Staff, Huffington Post at 11:12 AM on May 7, 2009. Time Magazine is reporting - burying rather - the news that Joe the Plumber, also known as Samuel Wurzelbacher, is quitting the GOP.
The Secret Right-Wing Strategy on Health Care—Exposed! Posted by Bernie Horn at 10:13 AM on May 7, 2009. If conservatives make the debate about what is good and bad in the Obama plan - they will win.
While Cheney goes around bragging that we have not had a terrorist attack since he and Bush used torture and kept us all safe. Well, I for onr, do not consider us safe at all. We may have not been attacked from the outside, but the dangers within the country still persist. When a sports announcer talks about about shooting Nancy Pelosi twice and strangling Harry Reid and Osama ben Laden, Olbermann's term 'abuse of free speech' says it all for me.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
WHO DECIDED VIRGINITY WAS IMPORTANT?
Virginity Fetish: How Our Obsession With "Sexual Purity" Hurts Women. The term sounds like a name for a young woman in a Victorian novel. It is, in fact, an article:
By Jessica Valenti, Seal Press. Posted May 4, 2009. Her main thesis is Boys are taught that the things that make them good are universally accepted ethical ideals; women are told our worth lies between our legs.
As a marital therapist, some of the greatest tragedies, years ago I saw all too often, were those marriages in which there had been no pre-marital sex and after the ceremony the couple discovered there was absolutely no sexual compatibility. Apparently the pheromones repelled rather than attracted. Those who chose to tough it out in long marriages felt something missing but also felt trapped. Some guiltily had affairs and found out what was missing, others did not ever learn what might have been. Others, like a hit of the lottery, lucked out and had a long and passionate union.
Before all the hormones were introduced into our food supply causing girls to become fertile much earlier, as well as marrying in their mid-teens, young people didn't have the opportunities they have today for the privacy and opportunity to succumb to their instinctive drive to engage in sexual relationships and procreate. Those who assume abstinence will be practiced by all young men and women are ignoring Nature and history's statistics.
As the standard that has been double for so long is slowly superimposing closer to a single standard in so much of America and the world, both men and women are becoming more adjusted to the fact that good sex is a mutual happening. Consideration for the enjoyment in your partner became a new concept when Masters and Johnson made the biology of sexual pleasure and climaxing more vivid for all to understand. The importance of foreplay to ready the male erection and the females secretions for lubrication and receptiveness was not previously really understood.
One author claims that Sex was More Fun in the 1970s. Katherine Forsythe, National Sexuality Resource Center. Posted April 27, 2009.
"The original "Joy of Sex" emphasized pleasure. The new version of the book seems like one more manual on how to perform and impress." The article illuminates what the liberation of being able to be in control of whether they got pregnant or not made all the difference to young women. Ignorance of STDs (Sexually Transmitted Diseases)beyond syphilis and gonorrhea were not really understood or feared. HIV began to terrify, however, when it showed up on the sexual doorstep.
China is close to finding an injected form of male contraceptive from testosterone. It is currently being tested to see its efficacy for humans. "The contraceptive is a combination of testosterone in tea seed oil. Chinese researchers conducted a study of 1,045 Chinese men between the ages of 20 and 45, in which each man had fathered at least one child. Each of the men had sexual partners between the ages of 18 and 38 years old.
The men were injected monthly with the formula for 30 months. At the end of the study, only one out of 100 men impregnated their partners. There were no serious side effects reported and reproductive function returned to normal levels in all but two participants, according to an Endocrine Society press release."
It was contraception that allowed the sexual revolution to take place in the 70s. It was religion, fear of STDs and HIV and AIDS that slowed it down in the 90s. Naturally that is an oversimplification and does not touch the myriad elements that actually are at play, but a few paragraphs would hardly do justice or pretend to cover the subject. Especially, to pretend the real issue is that a woman's virginity and purity is the most important factor is really ludicrous for most in today's society.
By Jessica Valenti, Seal Press. Posted May 4, 2009. Her main thesis is Boys are taught that the things that make them good are universally accepted ethical ideals; women are told our worth lies between our legs.
As a marital therapist, some of the greatest tragedies, years ago I saw all too often, were those marriages in which there had been no pre-marital sex and after the ceremony the couple discovered there was absolutely no sexual compatibility. Apparently the pheromones repelled rather than attracted. Those who chose to tough it out in long marriages felt something missing but also felt trapped. Some guiltily had affairs and found out what was missing, others did not ever learn what might have been. Others, like a hit of the lottery, lucked out and had a long and passionate union.
Before all the hormones were introduced into our food supply causing girls to become fertile much earlier, as well as marrying in their mid-teens, young people didn't have the opportunities they have today for the privacy and opportunity to succumb to their instinctive drive to engage in sexual relationships and procreate. Those who assume abstinence will be practiced by all young men and women are ignoring Nature and history's statistics.
As the standard that has been double for so long is slowly superimposing closer to a single standard in so much of America and the world, both men and women are becoming more adjusted to the fact that good sex is a mutual happening. Consideration for the enjoyment in your partner became a new concept when Masters and Johnson made the biology of sexual pleasure and climaxing more vivid for all to understand. The importance of foreplay to ready the male erection and the females secretions for lubrication and receptiveness was not previously really understood.
One author claims that Sex was More Fun in the 1970s. Katherine Forsythe, National Sexuality Resource Center. Posted April 27, 2009.
"The original "Joy of Sex" emphasized pleasure. The new version of the book seems like one more manual on how to perform and impress." The article illuminates what the liberation of being able to be in control of whether they got pregnant or not made all the difference to young women. Ignorance of STDs (Sexually Transmitted Diseases)beyond syphilis and gonorrhea were not really understood or feared. HIV began to terrify, however, when it showed up on the sexual doorstep.
China is close to finding an injected form of male contraceptive from testosterone. It is currently being tested to see its efficacy for humans. "The contraceptive is a combination of testosterone in tea seed oil. Chinese researchers conducted a study of 1,045 Chinese men between the ages of 20 and 45, in which each man had fathered at least one child. Each of the men had sexual partners between the ages of 18 and 38 years old.
The men were injected monthly with the formula for 30 months. At the end of the study, only one out of 100 men impregnated their partners. There were no serious side effects reported and reproductive function returned to normal levels in all but two participants, according to an Endocrine Society press release."
It was contraception that allowed the sexual revolution to take place in the 70s. It was religion, fear of STDs and HIV and AIDS that slowed it down in the 90s. Naturally that is an oversimplification and does not touch the myriad elements that actually are at play, but a few paragraphs would hardly do justice or pretend to cover the subject. Especially, to pretend the real issue is that a woman's virginity and purity is the most important factor is really ludicrous for most in today's society.
HOW TO HAVE A VOICE IN POLITICS
Realizing that politics are like beauty...in the eyes of their beholder. First, do lots of introspection to decide to which party you should pledge allegiance. If you are above average intelligence and not running for office, you should have quickly realized that is a trick question. You should pledge allegiance to the flag of America, not to any single party. To be true to yourself, you should figure out what you believe in and follow that trail. However, if you are weak and without substance, fall in line with the radio host of your choice...the one that shouts the loudest,looks strong and lies when he has to make the most people get riled up to whatever his 'cause du jour' may be, Don't question truth. If it is said on television it must be true, right?
As a voter, you can decide which issues are most important to you. If you don't like to march alone, pick the candidate who promises the most things that appeal to you and never question what it will take for that person to deliver them. 'Campaign promises' is a meaningless phrase made up to belittle someone who might offer you, a stranger, the Brooklyn Bridge, cheap, out of the goodness of his heart just because he likes you on sight. You can't knock that sort of kindness. Because he makes good eye contact and has a pleasant voice and a kind face, you immediately know you can trust him.
When you hear today's Republicans say they are the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, do not hurt their feelings and remind them that both those great presidents have died and the party's objectives are now to provide a better place for all, providing they all become Fundamental Christians, re-elect the candidate saying this, and remain silent as the country crumbles around them.
If you feel inclined to vote as a Democrat, be prepared to be defined as a liberal, even if you are not. You may have to put up with party leaders who will follow the Constitution even when you don't want them to do so, rather than deviate from it when it allows them to call their own misinformed shots, according to the other party. Be prepared to hear why decisions are being made and thus take on the worries of the Administration as if they were your own. Transparency is a ploy to keep you involved and caring about what is going on in Washington, to mislead you into thinking you can influence your own future.
Once you have picked your side, remember that in this game you can change partners any time you want to dance to a different tune. That is why they are called political parties. You can join the sore losers or the party elected by the majority of the population who are looking for change. In the spirit of 'fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong', keep your eye on the changes for which they are hoping. The current President has already been in office 100 days and not yet met all his campaign promises, so beware. Any gains in those 100 days might just have been beginner's luck and those betting on his now being a loser, might yet win, even if it means the collapse of the country. After all, winning is the goal, isn't it...even if winning means the country loses? After all, top political minds like Rush Limbaugh are counting on it.
Lastly, in order to avoid becoming hopelessly confused, listen to only one party. That way you can assure yourself the truth at all times. After all, since all parties think differently, pick one and just go with it...it will all average out in the end (which might be nearer than you imagine, depending on which one you pick).
As a voter, you can decide which issues are most important to you. If you don't like to march alone, pick the candidate who promises the most things that appeal to you and never question what it will take for that person to deliver them. 'Campaign promises' is a meaningless phrase made up to belittle someone who might offer you, a stranger, the Brooklyn Bridge, cheap, out of the goodness of his heart just because he likes you on sight. You can't knock that sort of kindness. Because he makes good eye contact and has a pleasant voice and a kind face, you immediately know you can trust him.
When you hear today's Republicans say they are the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, do not hurt their feelings and remind them that both those great presidents have died and the party's objectives are now to provide a better place for all, providing they all become Fundamental Christians, re-elect the candidate saying this, and remain silent as the country crumbles around them.
If you feel inclined to vote as a Democrat, be prepared to be defined as a liberal, even if you are not. You may have to put up with party leaders who will follow the Constitution even when you don't want them to do so, rather than deviate from it when it allows them to call their own misinformed shots, according to the other party. Be prepared to hear why decisions are being made and thus take on the worries of the Administration as if they were your own. Transparency is a ploy to keep you involved and caring about what is going on in Washington, to mislead you into thinking you can influence your own future.
Once you have picked your side, remember that in this game you can change partners any time you want to dance to a different tune. That is why they are called political parties. You can join the sore losers or the party elected by the majority of the population who are looking for change. In the spirit of 'fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong', keep your eye on the changes for which they are hoping. The current President has already been in office 100 days and not yet met all his campaign promises, so beware. Any gains in those 100 days might just have been beginner's luck and those betting on his now being a loser, might yet win, even if it means the collapse of the country. After all, winning is the goal, isn't it...even if winning means the country loses? After all, top political minds like Rush Limbaugh are counting on it.
Lastly, in order to avoid becoming hopelessly confused, listen to only one party. That way you can assure yourself the truth at all times. After all, since all parties think differently, pick one and just go with it...it will all average out in the end (which might be nearer than you imagine, depending on which one you pick).
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
NY TIMES ARTICLE ON BAILOUT JUSTICE
John Ashcroft wrote and Op-Ed article for the NY Times titled 'Bailout Justice'. I consider to be one of the most educative articles I have read on the subject by his eminently readable style. He writes: "I CAN imagine the Treasury secretary’s face turning pale as he is told by the attorney general that one of the financial institutions on government life support has been indicted by a grand jury. Worse, I can imagine the attorney general facing not too subtle pressure from the president’s economic team to go easy on such companies.
This situation is hypothetical, of course, but in March, the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller, warned Congress that “the unprecedented level of financial resources committed by the federal government to combat the economic downturn will lead to an inevitable increase in economic crime and public corruption cases.” Yet no one has discussed the inherent conflict of interest that the government created when it infused large sums of money into these companies.
The government now has an extraordinarily high fiduciary duty to safeguard the stability and health of companies that received hundreds of billions of bailout money. At the same time, the Justice Department has the duty to indict a corporation if the evidence dictates such severe action — and an indictment is often a death sentence for a corporation. The quandary is obvious. How, then, does the Justice Department bring charges against a corporation that is now owned by the government?
The tsunami of corporate scandals that shook our economy in 2001 — Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia and others — provides us with an instructive example. The Justice Department moved swiftly to bring corporate wrongdoers to justice. But we also learned that when dealing with major companies or industries, we had to carefully consider the collateral consequences of our prosecutions.
Would there be unintended human carnage in the form of thousands of lost jobs? Would shareholders, some of whom had already suffered a great deal, lose more of their investment? What impact would our actions have on the economy? We realized that we had an obligation to minimize the harm to innocent citizens.
Among the options we pursued were deferred prosecution agreements. These court-authorized agreements were not new but under certain circumstances offered more appropriate methods of providing justice in the best interests of the public as well as a company’s employees and shareholders. They avoid the destructiveness of indictments and allow companies to remain in business while operating under the increased scrutiny of federally appointed monitors.
In September 2007, for instance, the Justice Department and the nation’s five largest manufacturers of prosthetic hips and knees reached agreements over allegations that they gave kickbacks to orthopedic surgeons who used a particular company’s artificial hip and knee reconstruction replacement products. The allegations meant that the companies faced indictment, prosecution and a potential end to their businesses.
Think of the effect on the community if these companies had been shuttered: employees would have lost their jobs, shareholders and pensioners would have lost their savings and countless people in need of hip and knee replacement would have been out of luck, as these five companies accounted for 95 percent of the market. The Justice Department could have wiped out an entire industry that has a vital role in American health care.
Instead, the companies paid settlements to the government totaling $311 million. They agreed to be monitored by private sector individuals and firms with reputations for integrity and public service, with the necessary legal and business expertise and the institutional capacity to do the job. The monitoring costs were borne exclusively by the companies, saving taxpayers tens of millions of dollars that could be then used for other investigations and law-enforcement priorities. (I was a paid monitor for one of these companies, Zimmer Holdings.) In these types of circumstances, a deferred prosecution agreement is clearly better for everyone.
The government must hold accountable any individuals who acted illegally in this financial meltdown, while preserving the viability of the companies that received bailout funds or stimulus money. Certainly, we should demand justice. But we must all remember that justice is a value, the adherence to which includes seeking the best outcome for the American people. In some cases it will be the punishing of bad actors. In other cases it may involve heavy corporate fines or operating under a carefully tailored agreement.
In 2001, we did not know the extent of the corporate fraud scandals. Every day seemed to bring news of another betrayal of trust by top executives of another company. But we learned that there was often a better solution than closing those companies. I believe that if we apply to this current crisis the lessons learned a few short years ago, we can achieve the restoration of trust in the financial system and the long-term vitality of the American economy."
John Ashcroft was the United States attorney general from 2001 to 2005.
The simple lessons he repeats is that decisions to bring justice may have 'collateral' damage that he explains with the prosthetic hips and knees. Each of the saved giants presented this problem but the media never made it clear to the public. Rather, they allowed them to focus on a distraction such as the bonuses...for whom it was the entire years salary and far from the millions of dollars being bandied out, at least for the majority of employees.
The loudest people are often the ones who have thought about and understood the least of the whole situation. They are the impulsive ones who look for someone to blame and think that punishment will solve all problems. Why are these so often the folk chosen to represent the common man by the media? They are far from the majority.
It really seems time to let the man we elected as President to have the opportunity to run the country. Transparency is just that, it does not mean I will ask your opinion before I make any decisions. It also does not mean we will run this country by a committee of all citizens.
This situation is hypothetical, of course, but in March, the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller, warned Congress that “the unprecedented level of financial resources committed by the federal government to combat the economic downturn will lead to an inevitable increase in economic crime and public corruption cases.” Yet no one has discussed the inherent conflict of interest that the government created when it infused large sums of money into these companies.
The government now has an extraordinarily high fiduciary duty to safeguard the stability and health of companies that received hundreds of billions of bailout money. At the same time, the Justice Department has the duty to indict a corporation if the evidence dictates such severe action — and an indictment is often a death sentence for a corporation. The quandary is obvious. How, then, does the Justice Department bring charges against a corporation that is now owned by the government?
The tsunami of corporate scandals that shook our economy in 2001 — Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia and others — provides us with an instructive example. The Justice Department moved swiftly to bring corporate wrongdoers to justice. But we also learned that when dealing with major companies or industries, we had to carefully consider the collateral consequences of our prosecutions.
Would there be unintended human carnage in the form of thousands of lost jobs? Would shareholders, some of whom had already suffered a great deal, lose more of their investment? What impact would our actions have on the economy? We realized that we had an obligation to minimize the harm to innocent citizens.
Among the options we pursued were deferred prosecution agreements. These court-authorized agreements were not new but under certain circumstances offered more appropriate methods of providing justice in the best interests of the public as well as a company’s employees and shareholders. They avoid the destructiveness of indictments and allow companies to remain in business while operating under the increased scrutiny of federally appointed monitors.
In September 2007, for instance, the Justice Department and the nation’s five largest manufacturers of prosthetic hips and knees reached agreements over allegations that they gave kickbacks to orthopedic surgeons who used a particular company’s artificial hip and knee reconstruction replacement products. The allegations meant that the companies faced indictment, prosecution and a potential end to their businesses.
Think of the effect on the community if these companies had been shuttered: employees would have lost their jobs, shareholders and pensioners would have lost their savings and countless people in need of hip and knee replacement would have been out of luck, as these five companies accounted for 95 percent of the market. The Justice Department could have wiped out an entire industry that has a vital role in American health care.
Instead, the companies paid settlements to the government totaling $311 million. They agreed to be monitored by private sector individuals and firms with reputations for integrity and public service, with the necessary legal and business expertise and the institutional capacity to do the job. The monitoring costs were borne exclusively by the companies, saving taxpayers tens of millions of dollars that could be then used for other investigations and law-enforcement priorities. (I was a paid monitor for one of these companies, Zimmer Holdings.) In these types of circumstances, a deferred prosecution agreement is clearly better for everyone.
The government must hold accountable any individuals who acted illegally in this financial meltdown, while preserving the viability of the companies that received bailout funds or stimulus money. Certainly, we should demand justice. But we must all remember that justice is a value, the adherence to which includes seeking the best outcome for the American people. In some cases it will be the punishing of bad actors. In other cases it may involve heavy corporate fines or operating under a carefully tailored agreement.
In 2001, we did not know the extent of the corporate fraud scandals. Every day seemed to bring news of another betrayal of trust by top executives of another company. But we learned that there was often a better solution than closing those companies. I believe that if we apply to this current crisis the lessons learned a few short years ago, we can achieve the restoration of trust in the financial system and the long-term vitality of the American economy."
John Ashcroft was the United States attorney general from 2001 to 2005.
The simple lessons he repeats is that decisions to bring justice may have 'collateral' damage that he explains with the prosthetic hips and knees. Each of the saved giants presented this problem but the media never made it clear to the public. Rather, they allowed them to focus on a distraction such as the bonuses...for whom it was the entire years salary and far from the millions of dollars being bandied out, at least for the majority of employees.
The loudest people are often the ones who have thought about and understood the least of the whole situation. They are the impulsive ones who look for someone to blame and think that punishment will solve all problems. Why are these so often the folk chosen to represent the common man by the media? They are far from the majority.
It really seems time to let the man we elected as President to have the opportunity to run the country. Transparency is just that, it does not mean I will ask your opinion before I make any decisions. It also does not mean we will run this country by a committee of all citizens.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
THE TWO FACES OF FREE SPEECH
Free speech is important in our democracy yet there are boundaries to everything. We have already adopted the rule (law?) that you may no longer falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. I know little of laws that aren't beaten into us daily, like not going through a red light, not cheating on income taxes, not breaking and entering, stealing and all those obvious to us through daily living. However, it is less clear to me what we do with radical media who are inciting revolution, death to Obama, overthrow of the government they believe is fearful to their beliefs, even plan revolution.
Max Blumenthal wrote for the Daily Beast on 5/1/09 "Armed Revolt in the Obama Era? Right-Wing Gun Nuts Share Their Paranoid Worldview. Read his highlighted report and you will see immediately the 'slippery slope' thinking that is being fostered by a few hateful media gurus making money off spreading lies and fear.
Is it not time that the FCC, or some agency which can legally monitor these public broadcasts, do something about the actual lies being spread? MoveOn.org is calling for impeachment of Judge Bybee. His crime is interpreting too freely the use of torture. One has to ask the question 'where does misinterpretation of laws and outright lying begin and end?'.
Sean Hannity on radio:: "On the March 18 broadcast of his radio show, Sean Hannity blamed congressional Democrats for the AIG bonuses, falsely asserting that they voted for the bonuses when they voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Hannity stated, "Now, if you're upset about this, you need to understand something, that there's a reason this happened. Every single Senate Democrat voted for those bonuses. Every -- almost every Democrat in the House voted for those, because they voted for the stimulus bill. And by the way, Republicans did not." In fact, as Media Matters for America has documented, the economic recovery act did not require that AIG pay bonuses. Rather, the relevant provision in the act, which was based on an amendment by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), restricted the ability of companies receiving money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to award bonuses in the future."
The American Politics Journal reports on Rush Limbaugh's 20 years of lies and hate. I see that there is a strong line to be drawn between the right to freely express an opinion and calling disciples to illegal action. At the height of the war against abortion, there was a call to kill doctors performing them. The doctors houses were picketed and families and children suffered greatly. Something is wrong with that picture. The group even killed some doctors in the name of saving lives!! It goes beyond the ability to express, verbally, an opinion when innocent people are killed.
We have heard for a long time that there are armed militia ready to revolt. Is this what we wish to develop, American citizen terrorists killing our own people?
Max Blumenthal wrote for the Daily Beast on 5/1/09 "Armed Revolt in the Obama Era? Right-Wing Gun Nuts Share Their Paranoid Worldview. Read his highlighted report and you will see immediately the 'slippery slope' thinking that is being fostered by a few hateful media gurus making money off spreading lies and fear.
Is it not time that the FCC, or some agency which can legally monitor these public broadcasts, do something about the actual lies being spread? MoveOn.org is calling for impeachment of Judge Bybee. His crime is interpreting too freely the use of torture. One has to ask the question 'where does misinterpretation of laws and outright lying begin and end?'.
Sean Hannity on radio:: "On the March 18 broadcast of his radio show, Sean Hannity blamed congressional Democrats for the AIG bonuses, falsely asserting that they voted for the bonuses when they voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Hannity stated, "Now, if you're upset about this, you need to understand something, that there's a reason this happened. Every single Senate Democrat voted for those bonuses. Every -- almost every Democrat in the House voted for those, because they voted for the stimulus bill. And by the way, Republicans did not." In fact, as Media Matters for America has documented, the economic recovery act did not require that AIG pay bonuses. Rather, the relevant provision in the act, which was based on an amendment by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), restricted the ability of companies receiving money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to award bonuses in the future."
The American Politics Journal reports on Rush Limbaugh's 20 years of lies and hate. I see that there is a strong line to be drawn between the right to freely express an opinion and calling disciples to illegal action. At the height of the war against abortion, there was a call to kill doctors performing them. The doctors houses were picketed and families and children suffered greatly. Something is wrong with that picture. The group even killed some doctors in the name of saving lives!! It goes beyond the ability to express, verbally, an opinion when innocent people are killed.
We have heard for a long time that there are armed militia ready to revolt. Is this what we wish to develop, American citizen terrorists killing our own people?
Monday, May 4, 2009
STOP WHINING, OLD PEOPLE
Irritation attacks me when I hear old people whine about how it is Hell to get old. I'm old and it is just another change in life to get used to, as so many other changes. I've done all the things I wanted to do when I was young...well maybe not everything I might have done if I could have fitted it in...but I have lived a VERY full life. All memories worth retaining are stored in my brain; pictures, videos, and many in the minds of others who keep telling me about 'the good old days' and who constantly remind me of details I might have forgotten.
Indeed, my body is not as strong as it used to be, but do I need it to be? I no longer need to sling a wiggly child on my hip while holding a baby in my arms while trying to secure the hand of a 6 year old. Then is when I needed strength, while I was young. I didn't need a gym...I exercised carrying kids, groceries, mountains of laundry, while bending to pick up toys that always had a million parts always to be found by my bare feet, before computer games came in and rescued parents. My body doesn't need to grow a baby to term only to find out at the end of nine months and three weeks I have given birth to an 8# 14 oz., overcooked infant who plotted to walk out of my womb feet first(aka footling breach).
Arthritic pain has become a companion to rival all the figurative pains in the neck and butt I've managed to endure over the work years while I was young. Actually, the arthritis is easier to bear and my livelihood does not depend on my sucking in my opinions when I knew the bosses were wrong.
It is easy to laugh at old people who claim to be bored while I am wishing to be doing any of the ten things I could be happily doing at the moment, all at the tips of my fingers, so to speak. It annoys me to hear old people say they are lonely. They either have been around the wrong people all their lives or are bored because they are boring themselves. In this day of chats, senior centers, computers and the Internet, volunteer work, hobbies, and everything else that is available, my mind is boggled as to how someone can be bored. Then again, I can be bored when I am forced to sit waiting or listening to boring people; or when someone is trying to tell me how to live my life and how I should feel. Sermons of any sort bore me with rare exception.
My answer to people who tell me I do not act my age is, "My birth manual was missing the later life chapters". I don't mind listening to the physical ailments of my friends as long as the information is new both from and about them. When it is all they have to talk about, I stop listening and turn them off by discussing religion and politics until they are driven to suddenly remember a doctor's appointment. Above all, I have learned to avoid suffering fools. In fact, I avoid suffering anything about which I have a choice.
So, if you have to whine, whine about illness...(that's your bad luck) less than great genes, or not taking good care of your body. Some illnesses in old age could have been prevented and maybe you didn't try. If it is something you could not have prevented then accept the inevitable, try to get the best medical care within your reach, and accept the reality...ill health is not necessarily part of old age. Babies can even be born ill, and illness can come at any point in life.
And, before I forget, belly laughs kick in your endorphins...get lots of them!
Indeed, my body is not as strong as it used to be, but do I need it to be? I no longer need to sling a wiggly child on my hip while holding a baby in my arms while trying to secure the hand of a 6 year old. Then is when I needed strength, while I was young. I didn't need a gym...I exercised carrying kids, groceries, mountains of laundry, while bending to pick up toys that always had a million parts always to be found by my bare feet, before computer games came in and rescued parents. My body doesn't need to grow a baby to term only to find out at the end of nine months and three weeks I have given birth to an 8# 14 oz., overcooked infant who plotted to walk out of my womb feet first(aka footling breach).
Arthritic pain has become a companion to rival all the figurative pains in the neck and butt I've managed to endure over the work years while I was young. Actually, the arthritis is easier to bear and my livelihood does not depend on my sucking in my opinions when I knew the bosses were wrong.
It is easy to laugh at old people who claim to be bored while I am wishing to be doing any of the ten things I could be happily doing at the moment, all at the tips of my fingers, so to speak. It annoys me to hear old people say they are lonely. They either have been around the wrong people all their lives or are bored because they are boring themselves. In this day of chats, senior centers, computers and the Internet, volunteer work, hobbies, and everything else that is available, my mind is boggled as to how someone can be bored. Then again, I can be bored when I am forced to sit waiting or listening to boring people; or when someone is trying to tell me how to live my life and how I should feel. Sermons of any sort bore me with rare exception.
My answer to people who tell me I do not act my age is, "My birth manual was missing the later life chapters". I don't mind listening to the physical ailments of my friends as long as the information is new both from and about them. When it is all they have to talk about, I stop listening and turn them off by discussing religion and politics until they are driven to suddenly remember a doctor's appointment. Above all, I have learned to avoid suffering fools. In fact, I avoid suffering anything about which I have a choice.
So, if you have to whine, whine about illness...(that's your bad luck) less than great genes, or not taking good care of your body. Some illnesses in old age could have been prevented and maybe you didn't try. If it is something you could not have prevented then accept the inevitable, try to get the best medical care within your reach, and accept the reality...ill health is not necessarily part of old age. Babies can even be born ill, and illness can come at any point in life.
And, before I forget, belly laughs kick in your endorphins...get lots of them!
Sunday, May 3, 2009
THE ELUSIVE 'IT'
Bill Maher, Los Angeles Times. Posted April 25, 2009 wrote: " The conservative base is absolutely apoplectic because, because ... well, nobody knows. They're mad as hell, and they're not going to take it anymore. Even though they're not quite sure what "it" is. But they know they're fed up with "it," and that "it" has got to stop."
Tom Jacobs, Miller-McCune.com. Posted April 25, 2009 explains the 'it'. Jonathan Haidt explains it. "He views the demonization that has marred American political debate in recent decades as a massive failure in moral imagination. We assume everyone's ethical compass points in the same direction and label those whose views don't align with our sense of right and wrong as either misguided or evil. In fact, he argues, there are multiple due norths.
"I think of liberals as colorblind," he says in a hushed tone that conveys the quiet intensity of a low-key crusader. "We have finely tuned sensors for harm and injustice but are blind to other moral dimensions. Look at the way the word 'wall' is used in liberal discourse. It's almost always related to the idea that we have to knock them down."
Since Jonathan Haidt is a psychologist, he misses that minds are not equal, nor are brains. There is evidence that some brains find it harder to accept change, thus cling to that with which they are familiar. It would appear that more people, given the teabagger protests, fall in this category. While the majority of the country voted for hope and change with great expectation and enthusiasm, some voters want to keep everything as it was, forgetting that seeing 'it' unchanged, would mean the destruction of the country, financially and otherwise, in a few years if not sooner.
To be convinced that the brain controls the amount of change a person can tolerate, it would be helpful to know someone on the autistic scale. It is likely that there is much yet to be learned about the brain that would help us understand why people on polar ends of an issue can be so convinced that they are right and others must, therefore, be wrong. They leave no room for more than one 'right', whereas many of us realize that there are many 'rights' for many solutions to problems and value systems.
Tom Jacobs, Miller-McCune.com. Posted April 25, 2009 explains the 'it'. Jonathan Haidt explains it. "He views the demonization that has marred American political debate in recent decades as a massive failure in moral imagination. We assume everyone's ethical compass points in the same direction and label those whose views don't align with our sense of right and wrong as either misguided or evil. In fact, he argues, there are multiple due norths.
"I think of liberals as colorblind," he says in a hushed tone that conveys the quiet intensity of a low-key crusader. "We have finely tuned sensors for harm and injustice but are blind to other moral dimensions. Look at the way the word 'wall' is used in liberal discourse. It's almost always related to the idea that we have to knock them down."
Since Jonathan Haidt is a psychologist, he misses that minds are not equal, nor are brains. There is evidence that some brains find it harder to accept change, thus cling to that with which they are familiar. It would appear that more people, given the teabagger protests, fall in this category. While the majority of the country voted for hope and change with great expectation and enthusiasm, some voters want to keep everything as it was, forgetting that seeing 'it' unchanged, would mean the destruction of the country, financially and otherwise, in a few years if not sooner.
To be convinced that the brain controls the amount of change a person can tolerate, it would be helpful to know someone on the autistic scale. It is likely that there is much yet to be learned about the brain that would help us understand why people on polar ends of an issue can be so convinced that they are right and others must, therefore, be wrong. They leave no room for more than one 'right', whereas many of us realize that there are many 'rights' for many solutions to problems and value systems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)