It is painful to see the total disrespect being shown for this overwhelmingly-chosen president. What happened to youngsters aspiring to the level of President, hearing early on the message that many parents are also giving them that it takes hard work to be successful, that in order to have job doors open one must be educated?
What kind of tempest in a teapot are these 'birther-teabaggers' stirring with seeming immunity? Everyone is entitled to feel rage, disappointment, anxiety and lots of other emotions but the are not entitled to act on them in a manner that works by playing on the negative emotions of others and ultimately hurting the possible role model that a President can be to children.
As it should, the White House is defending the President's speech to students. We, as citizens, should also be raising our voices against those who deny a democratic process to progress. Obama was elected by a majority. There should be no doubt that he is legally the President except in the minds of fools who allow themselves to either be brainwashed or are evil enough to look for any excuse to make this President fail with no thought to the damage it does to US citizens and country as a whole.
Without the threat that none of us, who don't believe them, will get into Heaven (to make us all tow the line as sheep), the few who are without ability to see consequences beyond their single minded course to destroy Obama are actually planning the overthrow of the country and, last I heard, that is called treason and should not be dealt with lightly. Why is no action being taken against those who dare endanger the life of the President by bringing loaded guns with them to town Hall meetings where he is present. If someone were to overpower one of them and take a weapon to harm the President, who will be held responsible for not having taken action on the threat?
What is happening to our country? Why does the media focus on the deviants and present them as sane and reasonable individuals?
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Friday, September 4, 2009
MY ! WHAT HYPOCRITES WE ARE BEFORE THE WORLD
Having killed millions in a war started on falsehoods and hidden agendas, torturing prisoners against our Geneva Convention agreement, trying to proselytize Democracy in the Middle East, we are now adding insult to injury by withholding (U.S. Suspends $30 Million To Honduras)foreign aid under the guise of promoting democracy. Written by GINGER THOMPSON Published: September 3, 2009
Maybe if foreign countries were giving us money and withheld it in the year 2000 or 2004, history would be looking much more positive today about those eight years instead of the shameful reading about those years our descendants will be subjected to in their history books. I guess anything is history if it happened when you were too young to remember it. For me that could be yesterday, these days.
As long as our country can continue to use credit cards to give away taxpayer money, it follows that: "In addition, the United States will continue providing tens of millions of dollars in development and humanitarian aid." The US will continue on its denial course, under the illusion that the world appreciates, rather than taking for granted, that American taxpayer money is as hard-earned here as anywhere. Maybe they should match up contributors with how the money is used as they do with needy children you can 'sponsor', financially, for just a few pennies a day. You could get a picture and frequent report on how your 'country' is doing with the help you send. We surely don't see much of where our money is being used now. Actually, it isn't even our money because it just comes from other sources and gets tacked onto our National Debt.
In fact, there must be a list somewhere to indicate where all that foreign aid goes and, if we are lucky, even a truthful 'why of it'. It makes me wonder if the politicians who put so much pork in bills trying to be passed have their porky fingers in bills being passed for aid to other countries. I never could reconcile why GW Bush refused contraception information to Africa but they were given financial aid for all the starving and dying children, many of AIDS, whose brief lives on this earth could not be supported.
It is interesting to note that In 2008 we gave Egypt 74 million for their health care while many US taxpayers suffer from their own lack of health care and medicines.
To see what is covered by our laws, click here. As long as the media plays to sponsor interests rather than taxpayers concerns, we will collectively be kept in the dark unless we are willing to do some digging around for ourselves.
Maybe if foreign countries were giving us money and withheld it in the year 2000 or 2004, history would be looking much more positive today about those eight years instead of the shameful reading about those years our descendants will be subjected to in their history books. I guess anything is history if it happened when you were too young to remember it. For me that could be yesterday, these days.
As long as our country can continue to use credit cards to give away taxpayer money, it follows that: "In addition, the United States will continue providing tens of millions of dollars in development and humanitarian aid." The US will continue on its denial course, under the illusion that the world appreciates, rather than taking for granted, that American taxpayer money is as hard-earned here as anywhere. Maybe they should match up contributors with how the money is used as they do with needy children you can 'sponsor', financially, for just a few pennies a day. You could get a picture and frequent report on how your 'country' is doing with the help you send. We surely don't see much of where our money is being used now. Actually, it isn't even our money because it just comes from other sources and gets tacked onto our National Debt.
In fact, there must be a list somewhere to indicate where all that foreign aid goes and, if we are lucky, even a truthful 'why of it'. It makes me wonder if the politicians who put so much pork in bills trying to be passed have their porky fingers in bills being passed for aid to other countries. I never could reconcile why GW Bush refused contraception information to Africa but they were given financial aid for all the starving and dying children, many of AIDS, whose brief lives on this earth could not be supported.
It is interesting to note that In 2008 we gave Egypt 74 million for their health care while many US taxpayers suffer from their own lack of health care and medicines.
To see what is covered by our laws, click here. As long as the media plays to sponsor interests rather than taxpayers concerns, we will collectively be kept in the dark unless we are willing to do some digging around for ourselves.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
WHOSE SKIN DO THEY LIVE IN?
Boehner thinks he knows the mainstream and what the 'American Public' (as though they are all as rubber stamped as the Republicans have been for the last 9 years) thinks. Doesn't the fact that the Democrats became a majority last November give some indication about what the American Public thinks? Or does he truly believe that the lies he supports have actually swayed the majority of the voting public instead of those few fringe wackos that seem to be speaking for the Republicans these days.
The House minority leader, Eric Cantor, claimed yesterday that a public option did not represent America's "mainstream." Read Steve Benen's article (Washington Monthly) on this.Unfortunately, in my early years I was too busy working for a living and raising children to have the luxury of following all the mean things politicians do to one another and the public. Now that I have a bit more luxury of time for it, I watch
and read a lot of about politics and what our Administrative and Legislative branches of government do to one another. With media lacking honesty and integrity, millions can see the lies that put most non-politician con men to shame.
The Wing-Nut Code: What Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin Are Really Saying to Their Followers By Adele M. Stan
"You thought they were just unhinged. But here's what they're really saying to the armed and dangerous.
When Glenn Beck offers an odd-looking icon for his 9-12 Project, or Sarah Palin says something about her native state that sounds a bit to off-kilter to the ears of those in the lower 48, it's tempting to think, well, they're just nuts.Perhaps they are, but that's beside the point. The point is that when Beck throws up a graphic of a segmented snake as his project's mascot, or Palin speaks of her native land as the "sovereign" state of Alaska, they're blowing a kind of dog-whistle for the armed and paranoid who make up the right-wing, neo-militia "Patriot" movement and the broader "Tea Party" coalition." For the full article click here.
Do any of these self-serving people REALLY believe they speak for the majority or even people they believe think as they do?
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH!
Writing on the blog AS TIME GOES BY, Saul Friedman quotes: "In 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt called these reporters “muckrakers,” but while he criticized them he also said, “I hail as a benefactor...every writer or speaker, every man who, on the platform or in book, magazine or newspaper, with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in turn remembers that that attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful.”"
In 1906 the world was not full of people in your face on a TV screen who were known to be untruthful yet permitted to go on daily to spew their falsehoods and vicious attacks as though their opinions and lies deserve merit.
The Society of Professional Journalists has a Code of Ethics. To read it in entirety, click here.
Surprising only to some of the professional journalists who seem not to know it exists or choose not to follow it. Ignoring it seems to have few, if any, negative consequences though it has existed since 1909. Some of the major points (and you will recognize those that have been forgotten by those who run the TV news media today, especially) are: 1. Seek truth and report it. 2. Minimize harm. 3. Act independently. 4. Be accountable.
Since Fox News, CNN, MSNBC. seem to be the major network news channels, it is no wonder that most of us who watch them wonder where Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, and so many others occasionally less flagrant in their abuse of the the code, can face the camera and say the things they say. Understanding that Beck, Limbaugh (though he insists that he is only an entertainer though he is not entertaining but self-propelled in his vitriol spewing) were admires of and mentored by Bob Grant.
Perhaps viewers will weigh some of the faces on news TV against those four points in the code of ethics. If you convince yourself that the person you are watching does not adhere to the code, will you continue support by watching? Glenn Beck took it a bit over the top with his inaccurate and insensitive remarks so that as viewership began to fall and sponsors began to leave, his future on the network began to weaken.
After all, the power is in the viewer ratings and what advertising they can pull in. However, as long as viewers like (or don't realize they are) being lied to, brainwashed, and consciously fed misinformation...those personalities will continue to shine.
In 1906 the world was not full of people in your face on a TV screen who were known to be untruthful yet permitted to go on daily to spew their falsehoods and vicious attacks as though their opinions and lies deserve merit.
The Society of Professional Journalists has a Code of Ethics. To read it in entirety, click here.
Surprising only to some of the professional journalists who seem not to know it exists or choose not to follow it. Ignoring it seems to have few, if any, negative consequences though it has existed since 1909. Some of the major points (and you will recognize those that have been forgotten by those who run the TV news media today, especially) are: 1. Seek truth and report it. 2. Minimize harm. 3. Act independently. 4. Be accountable.
Since Fox News, CNN, MSNBC. seem to be the major network news channels, it is no wonder that most of us who watch them wonder where Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, and so many others occasionally less flagrant in their abuse of the the code, can face the camera and say the things they say. Understanding that Beck, Limbaugh (though he insists that he is only an entertainer though he is not entertaining but self-propelled in his vitriol spewing) were admires of and mentored by Bob Grant.
Perhaps viewers will weigh some of the faces on news TV against those four points in the code of ethics. If you convince yourself that the person you are watching does not adhere to the code, will you continue support by watching? Glenn Beck took it a bit over the top with his inaccurate and insensitive remarks so that as viewership began to fall and sponsors began to leave, his future on the network began to weaken.
After all, the power is in the viewer ratings and what advertising they can pull in. However, as long as viewers like (or don't realize they are) being lied to, brainwashed, and consciously fed misinformation...those personalities will continue to shine.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
PLASTIC DOESN'T STAY UNDER THE OCEAN'S FIGURATIVE 'RUG'
Voyage confirms plastic pollution
By Judith Burns
Science and environment reporter, BBC News
"Scientists have confirmed that there are millions of tonnes of plastic floating in an area of ocean known as the North Pacific Gyre. The North Pacific Gyre is a slow-moving clockwise vortex where four major ocean currents meet. Little lives there besides phytoplankton. However the currents have carried millions of tonnes of rubbish into the centre of the gyre, which now covers an area estimated to be larger than the US state of Texas."
My mother used to say, "You can't see me; I'm hiding behind my finger." It was her way of pointing out denial, though she would never have understood that as a psychological concept. She was, however, a realist and faced life squarely (except for her fear of what the neighbors might say!)
Humankind has been in denial for years, matching the waste of youth; thinking there is plenty of life ahead so if a bit is wasted here or there, so be it. Space is viewed as a vacuum, therefore, as Nature abhors a vacuum, space is quickly taken over when someone spots it.
The rain forest, the ocean, deep below the ground are all seen as potential waste dump sites. I'd like to have a poster drawn to full scale as 1"=1". I would put up the sign that moved me when I first spotted in the admitting area of a hospital. It said: "Please pick up after yourself. your mother doesn't work here." If people picked up after themselves they would waste far less time keeping their own nests clean, let alone those of the world. There would be no littering. People would take recycling more seriously. We would understand that, even if you can't see it, it doesn't mean it isn't there.
By Judith Burns
Science and environment reporter, BBC News
"Scientists have confirmed that there are millions of tonnes of plastic floating in an area of ocean known as the North Pacific Gyre. The North Pacific Gyre is a slow-moving clockwise vortex where four major ocean currents meet. Little lives there besides phytoplankton. However the currents have carried millions of tonnes of rubbish into the centre of the gyre, which now covers an area estimated to be larger than the US state of Texas."
My mother used to say, "You can't see me; I'm hiding behind my finger." It was her way of pointing out denial, though she would never have understood that as a psychological concept. She was, however, a realist and faced life squarely (except for her fear of what the neighbors might say!)
Humankind has been in denial for years, matching the waste of youth; thinking there is plenty of life ahead so if a bit is wasted here or there, so be it. Space is viewed as a vacuum, therefore, as Nature abhors a vacuum, space is quickly taken over when someone spots it.
The rain forest, the ocean, deep below the ground are all seen as potential waste dump sites. I'd like to have a poster drawn to full scale as 1"=1". I would put up the sign that moved me when I first spotted in the admitting area of a hospital. It said: "Please pick up after yourself. your mother doesn't work here." If people picked up after themselves they would waste far less time keeping their own nests clean, let alone those of the world. There would be no littering. People would take recycling more seriously. We would understand that, even if you can't see it, it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Monday, August 31, 2009
WHY DO WOMEN HAVE ORGASMS
By David P. Barash and Dr. Judith Eve Lipton, National Sexuality Resource Center. Posted August 22, 2009. "Scientists are still mystified about the evolutionary advantages of many aspects of women's sexuality." This is a very lolng article but also interesting. To read the several page article, click here.
From the Times Online 6/20/2005: "The first brain scans of men and women having sex and reaching orgasm have revealed striking differences in the way each experiences sexual pleasure. While male brains focus heavily on the physical stimulation involved in sexual contact, this is just one part of a much more complex picture for women, scientists in the Netherlands have found.
The key to female arousal seems rather to be deep relaxation and a lack of anxiety, with direct sensory input from the genitals playing a less critical role.
The scans show that during sexual activity, the parts of the female brain responsible for processing fear, anxiety and emotion start to relax and reduce in activity. This reaches a peak at orgasm, when the female brain’s emotion centres are effectively closed down to produce an almost trance-like state." Fir more of this article, go to this site.
My sense in reading both of these articles is that scientists are going too far back and crediting evolution (the command to procreate) too highly. Modern women have discovered the pleasure of orgasms and, since the 70s, more women have substituted masturbation rather than the non-gratifying sex demanded by men who do not understand the need for foreplay to ready a woman for sex by lubricating her and distending the vaginal wall to 'make room', so to speak. The upsurge in sex toys, vibrators attached to a 'realistic' feeling phallus, has heightened the pleasure of the orgasm while eliminating the need for the insensitive male who cannot wait for her to orgasm. It seems to me there is 'evolution' currently going on in that process which no animals can replicate either because they don't have orgasms or lack the tool making abilities to invent them.
From the Times Online 6/20/2005: "The first brain scans of men and women having sex and reaching orgasm have revealed striking differences in the way each experiences sexual pleasure. While male brains focus heavily on the physical stimulation involved in sexual contact, this is just one part of a much more complex picture for women, scientists in the Netherlands have found.
The key to female arousal seems rather to be deep relaxation and a lack of anxiety, with direct sensory input from the genitals playing a less critical role.
The scans show that during sexual activity, the parts of the female brain responsible for processing fear, anxiety and emotion start to relax and reduce in activity. This reaches a peak at orgasm, when the female brain’s emotion centres are effectively closed down to produce an almost trance-like state." Fir more of this article, go to this site.
My sense in reading both of these articles is that scientists are going too far back and crediting evolution (the command to procreate) too highly. Modern women have discovered the pleasure of orgasms and, since the 70s, more women have substituted masturbation rather than the non-gratifying sex demanded by men who do not understand the need for foreplay to ready a woman for sex by lubricating her and distending the vaginal wall to 'make room', so to speak. The upsurge in sex toys, vibrators attached to a 'realistic' feeling phallus, has heightened the pleasure of the orgasm while eliminating the need for the insensitive male who cannot wait for her to orgasm. It seems to me there is 'evolution' currently going on in that process which no animals can replicate either because they don't have orgasms or lack the tool making abilities to invent them.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
READING FACIAL EXPRESSIONS
More arguments against those who think in the one-size-fits-all mentality. Facial expressions differ as to what they mean and how they are read throughout cultures. Western people tend to look at the whole face, while Eastern cultures tend to look at only the eyes.
Recently a study concluded that to show or hide our facial expressions is hard-wired into our genes. One clue is that blind athletes made the same expressions as the sighted when they won or lost. The researchers believe they may be remnants of evolutionary history.
Research further suggests: "You can alter your attraction to the opposite sex simply by looking straight at them and smiling. A study of hundreds of volunteers at Stirling and Aberdeen Universities found averting the eyes even a fraction can make you appear less attractive."
Another study shows the mob mentality. Women find men more attractive if other women are looking at them. "Previous research indicated that facial attractiveness was based on personal taste and types of person. But Aberdeen University's Face Research Laboratory found facial expressions of others could influence attractiveness.
In the study, women were shown photographs of pairs of men who were roughly matched looks-wise and asked which they preferred. Dr Ben Jones, who led the project, said: "We found that a woman smiling at a guy increased another woman's preference for him, even if she had no preference for either at first.
"It is really the first time that a phenomenon called social learning - where we learn by what other people think or do - has been shown to influence attractiveness.
"You tend to think about attractiveness being a decision of personal taste but this shows that people are influenced to a great extent by what others think of individuals as opposed to what they think about them themselves."
The research is published in the Royal Society's Biological Sciences journal. "
Recently a study concluded that to show or hide our facial expressions is hard-wired into our genes. One clue is that blind athletes made the same expressions as the sighted when they won or lost. The researchers believe they may be remnants of evolutionary history.
Research further suggests: "You can alter your attraction to the opposite sex simply by looking straight at them and smiling. A study of hundreds of volunteers at Stirling and Aberdeen Universities found averting the eyes even a fraction can make you appear less attractive."
Another study shows the mob mentality. Women find men more attractive if other women are looking at them. "Previous research indicated that facial attractiveness was based on personal taste and types of person. But Aberdeen University's Face Research Laboratory found facial expressions of others could influence attractiveness.
In the study, women were shown photographs of pairs of men who were roughly matched looks-wise and asked which they preferred. Dr Ben Jones, who led the project, said: "We found that a woman smiling at a guy increased another woman's preference for him, even if she had no preference for either at first.
"It is really the first time that a phenomenon called social learning - where we learn by what other people think or do - has been shown to influence attractiveness.
"You tend to think about attractiveness being a decision of personal taste but this shows that people are influenced to a great extent by what others think of individuals as opposed to what they think about them themselves."
The research is published in the Royal Society's Biological Sciences journal. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)