Monday, November 1, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
PERSPECTIVE BY DRUM
Coddling the Rich
— By Kevin Drum
| Fri Oct. 29, 2010 3:00 AM PDT
A couple of weeks ago I sort of vaguely intended to write a bit about the extreme sensitivity of the American business community. I had just read someone (I forget who) saying that he had been out in the world chatting with business folks and had fully expected their anger with Barack Obama to rate about an 8 out of 10. But no! It was 10 out of 10. They were in an absolute frenzy of combined rage (over what he was doing to them) and fear (over what he might say about them if they dared to criticize him publicly).
Needless to say, this seemed crazy to me. On a substantive front, after he took office Obama continued George Bush's rescue of the banking system, boosted the economy by passing a stimulus bill, and saved untold thousands of businesses by rescuing GM and Chrysler. His healthcare reform bill was so business friendly it's a wonder the industry didn't keel over in hypoglycemic shock after it was passed. On the rhetorical front, he's taken a few modest shots at the financial industry, but not much more. So what were they all so apoplectic about?
But then I stopped and decided there was no point. If I asked, business folks would say they were afraid to invest because of Obama's blizzard of new regulations. They'd say they were afraid he was going to raise their taxes. They'd say he had somehow screwed up the banking sector so that they could no longer get loans the way they used to. They'd say they were afraid of cap-and-trade and card check, which Obama supported even though they both went nowhere. Looking at the big picture, they'd claim the administration is squeezing them on all sides because its actions have resulted in slow hiring, higher taxes, impaired lending, and further limits to individuals' ability to deploy capital in business ventures (whether their own or other people's).
Or, as Jake Gapper put it earlier this week, quoting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Obama has "vilified industries while embarking on an ill-advised course of government expansion, major tax increases, massive deficits and job-destroying regulations." Gapper himself says there's some truth to this: "Mr Obama has failed to understand or communicate the role big business plays in remoulding the economy and creating highly skilled and highly-paid jobs. Unlike Bill Clinton, the previous Democratic president, he sounds as if he thinks multinationals do little but suck work out of the US."
And Gapper's evidence? As Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias point out, precisely one thing: Obama's criticism of large companies for using tax breaks to ship jobs overseas. That's it. Something that's virtually a staple of American politics. Obama is following in the footsteps of thousands when he complains about this, including plenty of Republicans when they're in a tight election campaign.
What's remarkable about all this is that Obama is, patently, not anti-business. All of the corporate complaints above, when you dig an inch below the surface, amount to lashing out at phantasms. However, although Obama isn't anti-business, it is fair to say that he's not especially business friendly. And after decades of almost literally getting their every heart's desire from Republican presidents and congresses, this has come as something as a shock to the corporate community. When Obama puts a tax break in the stimulus bill, it's aimed mainly at the middle class, not the rich. When he hires a labor secretary, it's someone who actually thinks labor laws should be enforced. When he says he wants to pass a healthcare reform bill, he actually does it. (Its impact on big business is close to zero, but no matter.) There's no evidence at all that Obama wants to punish big business, but at the same time it's quite plain that he cares much more about the middle class than he does about the rich.
And that's pretty hard for them to take. So they're apoplectic. On a scale of 1 to 10, he's a ten. Merely refusing to coddle the business community endlessly is all it takes these days.
— By Kevin Drum
| Fri Oct. 29, 2010 3:00 AM PDT
A couple of weeks ago I sort of vaguely intended to write a bit about the extreme sensitivity of the American business community. I had just read someone (I forget who) saying that he had been out in the world chatting with business folks and had fully expected their anger with Barack Obama to rate about an 8 out of 10. But no! It was 10 out of 10. They were in an absolute frenzy of combined rage (over what he was doing to them) and fear (over what he might say about them if they dared to criticize him publicly).
Needless to say, this seemed crazy to me. On a substantive front, after he took office Obama continued George Bush's rescue of the banking system, boosted the economy by passing a stimulus bill, and saved untold thousands of businesses by rescuing GM and Chrysler. His healthcare reform bill was so business friendly it's a wonder the industry didn't keel over in hypoglycemic shock after it was passed. On the rhetorical front, he's taken a few modest shots at the financial industry, but not much more. So what were they all so apoplectic about?
But then I stopped and decided there was no point. If I asked, business folks would say they were afraid to invest because of Obama's blizzard of new regulations. They'd say they were afraid he was going to raise their taxes. They'd say he had somehow screwed up the banking sector so that they could no longer get loans the way they used to. They'd say they were afraid of cap-and-trade and card check, which Obama supported even though they both went nowhere. Looking at the big picture, they'd claim the administration is squeezing them on all sides because its actions have resulted in slow hiring, higher taxes, impaired lending, and further limits to individuals' ability to deploy capital in business ventures (whether their own or other people's).
Or, as Jake Gapper put it earlier this week, quoting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Obama has "vilified industries while embarking on an ill-advised course of government expansion, major tax increases, massive deficits and job-destroying regulations." Gapper himself says there's some truth to this: "Mr Obama has failed to understand or communicate the role big business plays in remoulding the economy and creating highly skilled and highly-paid jobs. Unlike Bill Clinton, the previous Democratic president, he sounds as if he thinks multinationals do little but suck work out of the US."
And Gapper's evidence? As Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias point out, precisely one thing: Obama's criticism of large companies for using tax breaks to ship jobs overseas. That's it. Something that's virtually a staple of American politics. Obama is following in the footsteps of thousands when he complains about this, including plenty of Republicans when they're in a tight election campaign.
What's remarkable about all this is that Obama is, patently, not anti-business. All of the corporate complaints above, when you dig an inch below the surface, amount to lashing out at phantasms. However, although Obama isn't anti-business, it is fair to say that he's not especially business friendly. And after decades of almost literally getting their every heart's desire from Republican presidents and congresses, this has come as something as a shock to the corporate community. When Obama puts a tax break in the stimulus bill, it's aimed mainly at the middle class, not the rich. When he hires a labor secretary, it's someone who actually thinks labor laws should be enforced. When he says he wants to pass a healthcare reform bill, he actually does it. (Its impact on big business is close to zero, but no matter.) There's no evidence at all that Obama wants to punish big business, but at the same time it's quite plain that he cares much more about the middle class than he does about the rich.
And that's pretty hard for them to take. So they're apoplectic. On a scale of 1 to 10, he's a ten. Merely refusing to coddle the business community endlessly is all it takes these days.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Bullying
Bullying in America: Time to Confront National Crisis Experts Say
Caroline Cassels
October 27, 2010 — The shocking rash of 4 recent suicides involving young, allegedly gay, males where bullying was cited as a major factor in their deaths has refocused attention on what experts say is a national public health crisis that must be confronted.
The New York Times reports 15-year-old Billy Lucas hanged himself September 9 after reportedly being told by students at his high school to commit suicide. Asher Brown and Seth Welsh, both 13 years old, also took their lives in September after being bullied for being gay.
Vigil for Tyler Clementi. Reena Rose Sibayan/AP
In the same month Rutgers University freshman Tyler Clementi jumped from the George Washington Bridge after 2 of his fellow students allegedly videotaped a sexual encounter of Clementi and another man then posted it online.
A recent national survey, also released in September, and conducted by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), shows 90% of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth experience harassment at school.
"It is so clear that anti-LGBT actions and behaviors and language are really the weapon of choice in a lot of American schools," Joseph Kosciw, PhD, GLSEN senior director of research and strategic initiatives, told Medscape Medical News.
Jack Drescher, MD, a distinguished fellow of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and a past chair of the APA's committee on GLB issues, says based on his clinical experience working with LGBT patients, he is not surprised by the GLSEN findings.
One perennial idea that needs to be challenged is that being bullied toughens kids up...as we have seen in the reports of recent months, in some cases children do not toughen up but break down.
"I have treated many gay patients who, as adults, tell of stories of being publicly bullied and harassed, not only by other kids but by family members. The kids who are most at risk are those who are unable to hide gender atypical behavior — they are considered either too effeminate as boys or too masculine as girls," Dr. Drescher told Medscape Medical News.
"Not only do they experience verbal harassment, threats of violence, and actual violence, the way these kids are treated serves as a warning to other kids who may be LGBT but not so easily spotted," Dr. Drescher added.
Dr. Drescher went on to note that while much has been done in recent years to get schools and parents to take greater control of environments that permit bullying, more needs to be done.
"One perennial idea that needs to be challenged, for example, is that being bullied toughens kids up. However, this often serves as a pretext or rationalization for not exerting adult control over the antisocial behavior of some children. And as we have seen in the reports of recent months, in some cases children do not toughen up but break down," he said.
The Problem Persists
It is so clear that anti-LGBT actions and behaviors and language are really the weapon of choice in a lot of American schools.
Dr. Kosciw noted that although there is a growing awareness of the damaging effects of LGBT bullying, and bullying in general, the problem persists.
"We have been monitoring the experience of school students — LGBT as well as students in the general population — for the past 10 years, and sadly we haven't seen enormous changes in school climates for LGBT students.
"There has been some reduction in homophobic remarks and some changes since 2007 in victimization, but when you look at the whole picture there haven't been too many increases in school safety, particularly for this population, and there's much more work to be done," he said.
The survey also revealed that 61.1% of LGBT students felt unsafe in school because of their sexual orientation and 39.9% felt unsafe because of their gender expression.
National statistics show that in the United States approximately 30% of youth engage in bullying either as victims or perpetrators or both.
At the University of Houston, researcher Allison Dempsey, PhD, assistant professor, educational psychology, agreed and said that although subgroups such as LGBT youth have higher victimization rates, in the general population estimates of bullying among middle and high school students are also unacceptably high and run at about 30%.
"National statistics show in the United States approximately 30% of youth engage in bullying either as victims or perpetrators or both," she told Medscape Medical News. In fact, she added, the United States has a higher rate of youth bullying than many countries.
International rates of student victimization range from a low of 4.1% in Sweden to a staggering 41% in Lithuania, said Dr. Dempsey.
Cyberbullying
What constitutes bullying? "There is overt bullying which includes physical assaults, such as kicking and punching, as well as verbal assaults, such as name-calling.
"Then there is relational bullying, which can involve excluding people, spreading rumors about them, so essentially attacking their social status, and more recently we've seen the emergence of cyberbullying, where children are harassed via the Internet," said Dr. Dempsey.
Although cyberbullying accounts for about 10% of youth victimization, Dr. Dempsey added, it has the potential to be even more pernicious than "traditional" bullying settings.
"The most disturbing aspect of cyberbullying is that kids can't get away from it by leaving the school grounds or leaving the social situation. Nowadays kids have their phones with them almost all the time and have their computers in their bedrooms, so no matter where they are the bullies can get to them," she said.
"Cyberbullying is also a less noticeable form of bullying, so there is even less opportunity for bystanders to intervene. We know that only 1 in 10 kids that are bullied online actually tell somebody about it," she added.
Weighing in on this issue, APA President Carol Bernstein, MD, agreed there is an "ease" to cyberbullying that is unsettling. "The anonymity of it and the fact that you can taunt someone without having to face them is disturbing. It makes bullying easier," she said.
On the other hand, said Dr. Dempsey, it is worth noting that youth who use the Internet to victimize others are often unaware that they are leaving an "electronic trail" that can be used by the victim to prove bullying occurred and in potential legal proceedings.
"We are hearing a lot about cyberbullying, and while it is important, it only accounts for about 10% of [bullying] incidents. We definitely need to pay attention to it, but we should not neglect the issue of bullying in traditional settings because these account for the majority [of incidents]," she added.
The Damage
There's no doubt, say the experts, that bullying can have serious negative consequences — in the short term and over time.
Bullying has been associated with increased school dropout rates, as well as higher rates of depression, social anxiety, suicidal ideation, aggression, and academic problems.
However, Dr. Dempsey noted, that longitudinal research also suggests that beyond an association, there is a causal effect, and victims can experience serious, long-term negative outcomes.
A study...showed young children who are severely or continually bullied have a 4-fold increased risk of developing psychotic symptoms in early adolescence.
A study published in May 2009 in Archives of General Psychiatry and reported by Medscape Medical News at that time showed young children who are severely or continually bullied have a 4-fold increased risk of developing psychotic symptoms in early adolescence.
Dr. Dempsey noted that recent work by her group, which is currently under review, shows a positive correlation between bullying and suicidal ideation and suicide attempts over time.
In addition to LGBT youth, there are other subgroups of young people who experience higher than average rates of victimization, including those with psychiatric and chronic medical conditions.
According to Dr. Dempsey, up to one-third of children with diabetes experience "disease-related" bullying, which can have a negative impact on their physical, as well as psychological, health.
"If kids are called 'junkies' for taking insulin shots, they may reduce the amount of insulin they inject. We also know that kids with asthma experience increased rates of victimization," she said.
In May, research published in the journal Pediatrics and also reported by Medscape Medical News showed obese and overweight children had up to a 2-fold increased risk of being bullied than their peers who were not obese.
"Kids who are overweight and obese are more often bullied, causing increased stress, which then leads to binge eating and ultimately increases their weight," said Dr. Dempsey.
Antibullying Legislation
So how can youth bullying be curbed if not eliminated? GLSEN's research shows schools with so-called Gay-Straight Alliances, clubs that offer an opportunity to address issues relevant to LGBT students, result in a more positive school experience.
Dr. Kosciw added that the presence of supportive staff and firm antibullying policies in schools contribute to more positive outcomes for all kids. This is a key priority for GLSEN, which, among other initiatives, recently relaunched its Safe Space Kit designed to help educators create a safe space for LGBT youth in schools.
If passed, federal antibullying legislation would require schools and districts that receive federal funding to adopt anti-bullying policies and codes of conduct.
GLSEN research also shows students who live in states with enumerated antibullying legislation —that is, laws that specifically list factors such as sexual orientation, gender identity, race, and religion — report more positive school climates and experiences compared with their counterparts who live in states without such laws.
At the national level, Dr. Kosciw notes that, GLSEN is a staunch supporter of the Safe Schools Improvement Act, which was introduced in the US Senate earlier this year.
If passed, this federal antibullying legislation would require schools and districts that receive federal funding to adopt antibullying policies and codes of conduct that prohibit bullying or harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, and perceived or gender identity.
Warning Signs
At the individual level, Dr. Dempsey said, it is important that educators, parents, and clinicians screen for bullying and directly ask children and youth about the issue.
It is also important that family physicians, pediatricians, and psychiatrists, who may have patients with chronic physical or mental illnesses, be aware that these patients are at increased risk for victimization and screen for it.
She noted that children who are bullied often experience changes in behavior, such as aggression, loss of appetite, insomnia, or a reluctance to go to school, among others, and that these should be treated as warning signs that bullying may be occurring.
"We need to educate people to look for this and understand all the different behaviors that are parts of bullying. It is not just hitting or punching, but it is also spreading rumors about somebody or trying to cause embarrassment to that person, and so people need to recognize and take it very seriously when they see it happening," said Dr. Dempsey.
"I personally wonder that if there's something about the culture [in the United States] that makes bullying more acceptable than in other countries. There are a lot of people out there that have the attitude that bullying is a part of growing up, and until we shift those attitudes we're not going to see change," she added.
Caroline Cassels
October 27, 2010 — The shocking rash of 4 recent suicides involving young, allegedly gay, males where bullying was cited as a major factor in their deaths has refocused attention on what experts say is a national public health crisis that must be confronted.
The New York Times reports 15-year-old Billy Lucas hanged himself September 9 after reportedly being told by students at his high school to commit suicide. Asher Brown and Seth Welsh, both 13 years old, also took their lives in September after being bullied for being gay.
Vigil for Tyler Clementi. Reena Rose Sibayan/AP
In the same month Rutgers University freshman Tyler Clementi jumped from the George Washington Bridge after 2 of his fellow students allegedly videotaped a sexual encounter of Clementi and another man then posted it online.
A recent national survey, also released in September, and conducted by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), shows 90% of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth experience harassment at school.
"It is so clear that anti-LGBT actions and behaviors and language are really the weapon of choice in a lot of American schools," Joseph Kosciw, PhD, GLSEN senior director of research and strategic initiatives, told Medscape Medical News.
Jack Drescher, MD, a distinguished fellow of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and a past chair of the APA's committee on GLB issues, says based on his clinical experience working with LGBT patients, he is not surprised by the GLSEN findings.
One perennial idea that needs to be challenged is that being bullied toughens kids up...as we have seen in the reports of recent months, in some cases children do not toughen up but break down.
"I have treated many gay patients who, as adults, tell of stories of being publicly bullied and harassed, not only by other kids but by family members. The kids who are most at risk are those who are unable to hide gender atypical behavior — they are considered either too effeminate as boys or too masculine as girls," Dr. Drescher told Medscape Medical News.
"Not only do they experience verbal harassment, threats of violence, and actual violence, the way these kids are treated serves as a warning to other kids who may be LGBT but not so easily spotted," Dr. Drescher added.
Dr. Drescher went on to note that while much has been done in recent years to get schools and parents to take greater control of environments that permit bullying, more needs to be done.
"One perennial idea that needs to be challenged, for example, is that being bullied toughens kids up. However, this often serves as a pretext or rationalization for not exerting adult control over the antisocial behavior of some children. And as we have seen in the reports of recent months, in some cases children do not toughen up but break down," he said.
The Problem Persists
It is so clear that anti-LGBT actions and behaviors and language are really the weapon of choice in a lot of American schools.
Dr. Kosciw noted that although there is a growing awareness of the damaging effects of LGBT bullying, and bullying in general, the problem persists.
"We have been monitoring the experience of school students — LGBT as well as students in the general population — for the past 10 years, and sadly we haven't seen enormous changes in school climates for LGBT students.
"There has been some reduction in homophobic remarks and some changes since 2007 in victimization, but when you look at the whole picture there haven't been too many increases in school safety, particularly for this population, and there's much more work to be done," he said.
The survey also revealed that 61.1% of LGBT students felt unsafe in school because of their sexual orientation and 39.9% felt unsafe because of their gender expression.
National statistics show that in the United States approximately 30% of youth engage in bullying either as victims or perpetrators or both.
At the University of Houston, researcher Allison Dempsey, PhD, assistant professor, educational psychology, agreed and said that although subgroups such as LGBT youth have higher victimization rates, in the general population estimates of bullying among middle and high school students are also unacceptably high and run at about 30%.
"National statistics show in the United States approximately 30% of youth engage in bullying either as victims or perpetrators or both," she told Medscape Medical News. In fact, she added, the United States has a higher rate of youth bullying than many countries.
International rates of student victimization range from a low of 4.1% in Sweden to a staggering 41% in Lithuania, said Dr. Dempsey.
Cyberbullying
What constitutes bullying? "There is overt bullying which includes physical assaults, such as kicking and punching, as well as verbal assaults, such as name-calling.
"Then there is relational bullying, which can involve excluding people, spreading rumors about them, so essentially attacking their social status, and more recently we've seen the emergence of cyberbullying, where children are harassed via the Internet," said Dr. Dempsey.
Although cyberbullying accounts for about 10% of youth victimization, Dr. Dempsey added, it has the potential to be even more pernicious than "traditional" bullying settings.
"The most disturbing aspect of cyberbullying is that kids can't get away from it by leaving the school grounds or leaving the social situation. Nowadays kids have their phones with them almost all the time and have their computers in their bedrooms, so no matter where they are the bullies can get to them," she said.
"Cyberbullying is also a less noticeable form of bullying, so there is even less opportunity for bystanders to intervene. We know that only 1 in 10 kids that are bullied online actually tell somebody about it," she added.
Weighing in on this issue, APA President Carol Bernstein, MD, agreed there is an "ease" to cyberbullying that is unsettling. "The anonymity of it and the fact that you can taunt someone without having to face them is disturbing. It makes bullying easier," she said.
On the other hand, said Dr. Dempsey, it is worth noting that youth who use the Internet to victimize others are often unaware that they are leaving an "electronic trail" that can be used by the victim to prove bullying occurred and in potential legal proceedings.
"We are hearing a lot about cyberbullying, and while it is important, it only accounts for about 10% of [bullying] incidents. We definitely need to pay attention to it, but we should not neglect the issue of bullying in traditional settings because these account for the majority [of incidents]," she added.
The Damage
There's no doubt, say the experts, that bullying can have serious negative consequences — in the short term and over time.
Bullying has been associated with increased school dropout rates, as well as higher rates of depression, social anxiety, suicidal ideation, aggression, and academic problems.
However, Dr. Dempsey noted, that longitudinal research also suggests that beyond an association, there is a causal effect, and victims can experience serious, long-term negative outcomes.
A study...showed young children who are severely or continually bullied have a 4-fold increased risk of developing psychotic symptoms in early adolescence.
A study published in May 2009 in Archives of General Psychiatry and reported by Medscape Medical News at that time showed young children who are severely or continually bullied have a 4-fold increased risk of developing psychotic symptoms in early adolescence.
Dr. Dempsey noted that recent work by her group, which is currently under review, shows a positive correlation between bullying and suicidal ideation and suicide attempts over time.
In addition to LGBT youth, there are other subgroups of young people who experience higher than average rates of victimization, including those with psychiatric and chronic medical conditions.
According to Dr. Dempsey, up to one-third of children with diabetes experience "disease-related" bullying, which can have a negative impact on their physical, as well as psychological, health.
"If kids are called 'junkies' for taking insulin shots, they may reduce the amount of insulin they inject. We also know that kids with asthma experience increased rates of victimization," she said.
In May, research published in the journal Pediatrics and also reported by Medscape Medical News showed obese and overweight children had up to a 2-fold increased risk of being bullied than their peers who were not obese.
"Kids who are overweight and obese are more often bullied, causing increased stress, which then leads to binge eating and ultimately increases their weight," said Dr. Dempsey.
Antibullying Legislation
So how can youth bullying be curbed if not eliminated? GLSEN's research shows schools with so-called Gay-Straight Alliances, clubs that offer an opportunity to address issues relevant to LGBT students, result in a more positive school experience.
Dr. Kosciw added that the presence of supportive staff and firm antibullying policies in schools contribute to more positive outcomes for all kids. This is a key priority for GLSEN, which, among other initiatives, recently relaunched its Safe Space Kit designed to help educators create a safe space for LGBT youth in schools.
If passed, federal antibullying legislation would require schools and districts that receive federal funding to adopt anti-bullying policies and codes of conduct.
GLSEN research also shows students who live in states with enumerated antibullying legislation —that is, laws that specifically list factors such as sexual orientation, gender identity, race, and religion — report more positive school climates and experiences compared with their counterparts who live in states without such laws.
At the national level, Dr. Kosciw notes that, GLSEN is a staunch supporter of the Safe Schools Improvement Act, which was introduced in the US Senate earlier this year.
If passed, this federal antibullying legislation would require schools and districts that receive federal funding to adopt antibullying policies and codes of conduct that prohibit bullying or harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, and perceived or gender identity.
Warning Signs
At the individual level, Dr. Dempsey said, it is important that educators, parents, and clinicians screen for bullying and directly ask children and youth about the issue.
It is also important that family physicians, pediatricians, and psychiatrists, who may have patients with chronic physical or mental illnesses, be aware that these patients are at increased risk for victimization and screen for it.
She noted that children who are bullied often experience changes in behavior, such as aggression, loss of appetite, insomnia, or a reluctance to go to school, among others, and that these should be treated as warning signs that bullying may be occurring.
"We need to educate people to look for this and understand all the different behaviors that are parts of bullying. It is not just hitting or punching, but it is also spreading rumors about somebody or trying to cause embarrassment to that person, and so people need to recognize and take it very seriously when they see it happening," said Dr. Dempsey.
"I personally wonder that if there's something about the culture [in the United States] that makes bullying more acceptable than in other countries. There are a lot of people out there that have the attitude that bullying is a part of growing up, and until we shift those attitudes we're not going to see change," she added.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Does the Way We Eat Affect Our Humanity?
Think about it. Our modern society is rife with ugliness, anger and bitterness. From pundits to stand up comics, everyone seems to have an axe to grind and they do it violently and loudly.
I am not naïve. I grew up as a child of the sixties with a liberal mother and a conservative father. Let's just say there were lively conversations at the dinner table. But in the end, they agreed to disagree. Most of the people I knew behaved in the same manner. Yes, there were riots in the streets, but all with one purpose: to end what was considered an illegal war. The two sides were polar opposites and there was violence and rage, but nothing like we see today, where every little thing sparks outrage and violent reaction.
I have been politically active for most of my life, but I have never seen an uglier climate than in the last eight or nine years. It used to be that conservatives and liberals disagreed on principle, on platform issues, but there was a civility to the way political discourse was handled.
One of the most popular television shows today is "Mad Men." I was talking to my 20-year-old niece and her friends who are wild for this program. When I asked them what was so appealing to them, they said, with surprising enthusiasm, that they loved how the men dressed for dinner and the women were feminine and glamorous. They loved how civil people were to each other and found the time period elegant and refined.
Their naïve natures showed because anyone who lived during those years knows that women were second-class in business (and many other areas of life) and much of the 'civility' they loved was simply repression. But it was, in fact, a time when people behaved differently.
Fox News, CNN and other media loudmouths could not exist in a civil world. In a civil world, the flagrant disregard that exists in that kind of inflammatory and sensationalistic media would be shut down as damaging to the fabric of life as we know it.
And what has this to do with food? Everything.
Before we became a culture of dinner in a bucket, we sat down together and ate meals that were prepared at home from fresh food. My grandmother and mother knew nothing about nutrition, but they knew if the food was fresh and they cooked it right, it would taste great and their families would be well-nourished. And so they squeezed fruit, smelled vegetables, examined the eggs, sniffed the milk and cooked dinner from scratch.
Junk food, drive-through and processed foods have been major factors in the degeneration of our modern society.
Big business has made it a mission to undermine conventional wisdom and replace it with fear and confusion. Confusion about food choices, about our political leaders, global warming ... all designed to create a knee-jerk reaction and spread fear and hatred so that the status quo will stay, well, status quo.
But what allows this to thrive? How can they continually pull the wool over our collective eyes?
We are weak, fat and sick ... and easily frightened and controlled as a result.
On this very website, an article ran about President Clinton changing his diet to be plant-based, nearly vegan. The video showed the former president, looking slender, clear-eyed and healthy talking about why he made the change. It's inspiring. But scroll down to the comments and the ugliness of human nature rears its head. Nasty, personal comments from people who do not personally know Mr. Clinton, but feel they have the right to judge his choice of food -- all of them extolling the virtues of their meat, dairy and junk food. Was it because Mr. Clinton was on a soapbox asking all of America to join him in his newfound lifestyle? Nope. It was because their humanity has been affected by the foods they themselves choose.
In traditional Chinese medicine, the belief is held that the foods we choose affect our reactions to life. You may roll your eyes (or post an ugly comment), but think about it for a minute. In more traditional times, food was chosen based on the needs of the people. Warriors ate more animal food to create aggression. Plant foods were eaten when people needed to feel calm, more centered. Specific foods were chosen for their medicinal effects on health. Children were fed different foods than adults; men ate differently than women. All these traditions were designed to create harmony among people.
Food and eating are sexy. Mother Nature was smart. She made eating fun so we would do it. And boy, do we do it now. But I don't think a seven-pound meat burrito, a bacon-wrapped meat loaf, a two-foot hot dog or a hot beef sundae was what she had in mind for us.
Everything we have done to food in modern times is against the very nature of natural. In the name of business, food has been compromised, bastardized, abused, altered and deconstructed to become something that tastes great, but has far-reaching affects on the collective health of humanity and the planet.
Marketers told us to eat junk food to our hearts' content and we are only too happy to oblige. Trouble is, our hearts aren't content at all. All that sugar, fat and salt in those manufactured foods that are the cornerstone of our diets are wearing out our poor, overworked veins, arteries and hearts.
We hear all the warnings. We even worry a little bit. But man, that stuff is yummy. Our little taste buds are so worked up all the time that we have lost our taste for real food. Who can resist potato chips that taste like cheddar cheese, bacon or pizza? Why eat real food with real flavor when chemistry-made flavors are so much more delightful to the palate? How do apples compete with cream-filled Oreos? How can we expect our children to eat oatmeal when their little bodies are fueled by more than 50 grams of sugar in one breakfast of Lucky Charms? It might be easier to get a crack addict off the pipe.
But we're American, descendants of chest-thumping cowboys. We're made of cheeseburgers and steaks! We need our meat! We need it more than Neolithic hunters, more than lions and tigers. If we can't have meat, well, what will happen to civilization as we know it? Would we all become vegan hippie peace-loving terrorists?
The result is that we have become ill and weak; our judgment clouded by saturated fat, sugar and chemicals. We hang on to our childish behaviors long after we know the fact: the way we eat is killing us. We hang on and lash out at those around us who threaten change, who want to shake things up and make life on this planet a better place.
In our clouded view of the world, we take pot shots at people about whom we know nothing, except what the media tells us. We post ugly comments about celebrities on websites so we feel better about our lives. We yell and scream and demand our country back ... from who, we are not sure, but someone scared us and told us we should be angry. Trapped in the fog of junk food, we feel enraged and helpless.
But we don't have to be.
We can change. We can begin to eat food that is fit for human consumption, real food, grown and produced by nature, not manufactured by some multinational corporation. We can grow strong and clearheaded. We can see the truth if we look for it and have the strength to face it.
At the dinner table, eating fresh food, we experience and discover so many truths, from social justice to communication to sharing and community ... the very essence of human life.
Times are changing. People other than the usual experts have been coaxing real food out of the closet, so to speak. People have been making movies, writing books, speaking out, telling the truth about our food. Learning to cook is becoming popular again. People are learning how to respect food, how to treat it, how to use it to create health and make a lighter footprint.
Life is precious. Humanity is wonderful. And in the end, whether we are healthy or sick, fat or fit, we will all die. The question we must ask is: do we want to create misery in the process of living? I say we value the gift of life we have been given and enjoy the ride in a healthy body on a healthy planet. Life is a gift, not to be squandered.
A healthy population can make a difference. A healthy population has a firm hold on their humanity and in that, hatred, cruelty and violence can not thrive. It's worth a try. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Written by
Christina Pirello
I am not naïve. I grew up as a child of the sixties with a liberal mother and a conservative father. Let's just say there were lively conversations at the dinner table. But in the end, they agreed to disagree. Most of the people I knew behaved in the same manner. Yes, there were riots in the streets, but all with one purpose: to end what was considered an illegal war. The two sides were polar opposites and there was violence and rage, but nothing like we see today, where every little thing sparks outrage and violent reaction.
I have been politically active for most of my life, but I have never seen an uglier climate than in the last eight or nine years. It used to be that conservatives and liberals disagreed on principle, on platform issues, but there was a civility to the way political discourse was handled.
One of the most popular television shows today is "Mad Men." I was talking to my 20-year-old niece and her friends who are wild for this program. When I asked them what was so appealing to them, they said, with surprising enthusiasm, that they loved how the men dressed for dinner and the women were feminine and glamorous. They loved how civil people were to each other and found the time period elegant and refined.
Their naïve natures showed because anyone who lived during those years knows that women were second-class in business (and many other areas of life) and much of the 'civility' they loved was simply repression. But it was, in fact, a time when people behaved differently.
Fox News, CNN and other media loudmouths could not exist in a civil world. In a civil world, the flagrant disregard that exists in that kind of inflammatory and sensationalistic media would be shut down as damaging to the fabric of life as we know it.
And what has this to do with food? Everything.
Before we became a culture of dinner in a bucket, we sat down together and ate meals that were prepared at home from fresh food. My grandmother and mother knew nothing about nutrition, but they knew if the food was fresh and they cooked it right, it would taste great and their families would be well-nourished. And so they squeezed fruit, smelled vegetables, examined the eggs, sniffed the milk and cooked dinner from scratch.
Junk food, drive-through and processed foods have been major factors in the degeneration of our modern society.
Big business has made it a mission to undermine conventional wisdom and replace it with fear and confusion. Confusion about food choices, about our political leaders, global warming ... all designed to create a knee-jerk reaction and spread fear and hatred so that the status quo will stay, well, status quo.
But what allows this to thrive? How can they continually pull the wool over our collective eyes?
We are weak, fat and sick ... and easily frightened and controlled as a result.
On this very website, an article ran about President Clinton changing his diet to be plant-based, nearly vegan. The video showed the former president, looking slender, clear-eyed and healthy talking about why he made the change. It's inspiring. But scroll down to the comments and the ugliness of human nature rears its head. Nasty, personal comments from people who do not personally know Mr. Clinton, but feel they have the right to judge his choice of food -- all of them extolling the virtues of their meat, dairy and junk food. Was it because Mr. Clinton was on a soapbox asking all of America to join him in his newfound lifestyle? Nope. It was because their humanity has been affected by the foods they themselves choose.
In traditional Chinese medicine, the belief is held that the foods we choose affect our reactions to life. You may roll your eyes (or post an ugly comment), but think about it for a minute. In more traditional times, food was chosen based on the needs of the people. Warriors ate more animal food to create aggression. Plant foods were eaten when people needed to feel calm, more centered. Specific foods were chosen for their medicinal effects on health. Children were fed different foods than adults; men ate differently than women. All these traditions were designed to create harmony among people.
Food and eating are sexy. Mother Nature was smart. She made eating fun so we would do it. And boy, do we do it now. But I don't think a seven-pound meat burrito, a bacon-wrapped meat loaf, a two-foot hot dog or a hot beef sundae was what she had in mind for us.
Everything we have done to food in modern times is against the very nature of natural. In the name of business, food has been compromised, bastardized, abused, altered and deconstructed to become something that tastes great, but has far-reaching affects on the collective health of humanity and the planet.
Marketers told us to eat junk food to our hearts' content and we are only too happy to oblige. Trouble is, our hearts aren't content at all. All that sugar, fat and salt in those manufactured foods that are the cornerstone of our diets are wearing out our poor, overworked veins, arteries and hearts.
We hear all the warnings. We even worry a little bit. But man, that stuff is yummy. Our little taste buds are so worked up all the time that we have lost our taste for real food. Who can resist potato chips that taste like cheddar cheese, bacon or pizza? Why eat real food with real flavor when chemistry-made flavors are so much more delightful to the palate? How do apples compete with cream-filled Oreos? How can we expect our children to eat oatmeal when their little bodies are fueled by more than 50 grams of sugar in one breakfast of Lucky Charms? It might be easier to get a crack addict off the pipe.
But we're American, descendants of chest-thumping cowboys. We're made of cheeseburgers and steaks! We need our meat! We need it more than Neolithic hunters, more than lions and tigers. If we can't have meat, well, what will happen to civilization as we know it? Would we all become vegan hippie peace-loving terrorists?
The result is that we have become ill and weak; our judgment clouded by saturated fat, sugar and chemicals. We hang on to our childish behaviors long after we know the fact: the way we eat is killing us. We hang on and lash out at those around us who threaten change, who want to shake things up and make life on this planet a better place.
In our clouded view of the world, we take pot shots at people about whom we know nothing, except what the media tells us. We post ugly comments about celebrities on websites so we feel better about our lives. We yell and scream and demand our country back ... from who, we are not sure, but someone scared us and told us we should be angry. Trapped in the fog of junk food, we feel enraged and helpless.
But we don't have to be.
We can change. We can begin to eat food that is fit for human consumption, real food, grown and produced by nature, not manufactured by some multinational corporation. We can grow strong and clearheaded. We can see the truth if we look for it and have the strength to face it.
At the dinner table, eating fresh food, we experience and discover so many truths, from social justice to communication to sharing and community ... the very essence of human life.
Times are changing. People other than the usual experts have been coaxing real food out of the closet, so to speak. People have been making movies, writing books, speaking out, telling the truth about our food. Learning to cook is becoming popular again. People are learning how to respect food, how to treat it, how to use it to create health and make a lighter footprint.
Life is precious. Humanity is wonderful. And in the end, whether we are healthy or sick, fat or fit, we will all die. The question we must ask is: do we want to create misery in the process of living? I say we value the gift of life we have been given and enjoy the ride in a healthy body on a healthy planet. Life is a gift, not to be squandered.
A healthy population can make a difference. A healthy population has a firm hold on their humanity and in that, hatred, cruelty and violence can not thrive. It's worth a try. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Written by
Christina Pirello
CONFRONTING NEGATIVE BIAS
By Dr. Rick Hanson
My previous post used the example of Stephen Colbert's satirical "March to Keep Fear Alive" as a timely illustration of a larger point: humans evolved to be fearful -- since that helped keep our ancestors alive -- so we are very vulnerable to being frightened and even intimidated by threats, both real ones and "paper tigers." With this march, Colbert is obviously mocking those who play on fear, since we certainly don't need any new reminders to keep fear alive.
Some Background
This vulnerability to feeling threatened has effects at many levels, ranging from individuals, couples, and families, to schoolyards, organizations and nations. Whether it's an individual who worries about the consequences of speaking up at work or in a close relationship, a family cowed by a scary parent, a business fixated on threats instead of opportunities, or a country that's routinely told it's under "Threat Level Orange," it's the same human brain that reacts in all cases.
Therefore, understanding how your brain became so vigilant and wary, and so easily hijacked by alarm, is the first step toward gaining more control over that ancient circuitry. Then, by bringing mindful awareness to how your brain reacts to feeling threatened, you can stimulate and therefore build up the neural substrates of a mind that has more calm, wisdom and sense of inner strength. A mind that sees real threats more clearly, acts more effectively in dealing with them, and is less rattled or distracted by exaggerated, manageable, or false alarms.
Let's start with the brain's negativity bias. In this post, I'll focus on why it evolved and how it has been built up in your brain. The next post will explore its consequences. The post after that will zero in on one key consequence: threat reactivity, which has many bad effects, including "paper tiger paranoia." And then following posts will emphasize solutions to these problems, from activating the soothing and recharging parasympathetic nervous system to mobilizing more of your inner resources to address the real challenges our planet faces.
An Evolving Negativity Bias
The nervous system has been evolving for 600 million years, from ancient jellyfish to modern humans. Our ancestors had to make a critical decision many times a day: approach a reward or avoid a hazard -- pursue a carrot or duck a stick.
Both are important. Imagine being a hominid in Africa a million years ago, living in a small band. To pass on your genes, you've got to find food, have sex, and cooperate with others to help the band's children (particularly yours) to have children of their own: these are big carrots in the Serengeti. Additionally, you've got to hide from predators, steer clear of Alpha males and females looking for trouble, and not let other hunter-gatherer bands kill you: these are significant sticks.
But here's the key difference between carrots and sticks. If you miss out on a carrot today, you'll have a chance at more carrots tomorrow. But if you fail to avoid a stick today - WHAP! - no more carrots forever. Compared to carrots, sticks usually have more urgency and impact.
Body and Brain Going Negative
Consequently, your body generally reacts more intensely to negative stimuli than to equally strong positive ones. For example, intense pain can be produced all over the body, but intense pleasure comes only (for most people) from stimulating a few specific regions.
In your brain, there are separate (though interacting) systems for negative and positive stimuli. At a larger scale, the left hemisphere is somewhat specialized for positive experiences while the right hemisphere is more focused on negative ones (this makes sense since the right hemisphere is specialized for gestalt, visual-spatial processing, so it's advantaged for tracking threats coming from the surrounding environment).
Negative stimuli produce more neural activity than do equally intense (e.g., loud, bright) positive ones. They are also perceived more easily and quickly. For example, people in studies can identify angry faces faster than happy ones; even if they are shown these images so quickly (just a tenth of a second or so) that they cannot have any conscious recognition of them, the ancient fight-or-flight limbic system of the brain will still get activated by the angry faces.
The alarm bell of your brain -- the amygdala (you've got two of these little almond-shaped regions, one on either side of your head) -- uses about two-thirds of its neurons to look for bad news: it's primed to go negative. Once it sounds the alarm, negative events and experiences get quickly stored in memory -- in contrast to positive events and experiences, which usually need to be held in awareness for a dozen or more seconds to transfer from short-term memory buffers to long-term storage.
In effect, as I wrote in my last post, the brain is like Velcro for negative experiences but Teflon for positive ones. That's why researchers have found that animals, including humans, generally learn faster from pain (alas) than pleasure. (For more on the neuropsychology of the negativity bias, and references, see the slide sets at my website.)
That learning from your childhood and adulthood - both what you experienced yourself and saw others experiencing around you - is locked and loaded in your head today, ready for immediate activation, whether by a frown across a dinner table or by TV images of a car-bombing 10,000 miles away.
What to Do?
To keep our ancestors alive, Mother Nature evolved a brain that routinely tricked them into making three mistakes: overestimating threats, underestimating opportunities, and underestimating resources (for dealing with threats and fulfilling opportunities). This is a great way to pass on gene copies, but a lousy way to promote quality of life.
So for starters, be mindful of the degree to which your brain is wired to make you afraid, wired so that you walk around with an ongoing trickle of anxiety (a flood for some) to keep you on alert. And wired to zero in on any apparent bad news in a larger stream of information (e.g., fixing on a casual aside from a family member or co-worker), to tune out or de-emphasize reassuring good news, and to keep thinking about the one thing that was negative in a day in which a hundred small things happened, ninety-nine of which were neutral or positive. (And, to be sure, also be mindful of any tendency you might have toward rose-colored glasses or putting that ostrich head in the sand.)
Additionally, be mindful of the forces around you that beat the drum of alarm -- whether it's a family member who threatens emotional punishment, or in the well-known example, a National Security Advisor (Condoleezza Rice) who warned in 2002 that the smoking gun of evidence for WMDs in Iraq could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. Consider for yourself whether their alarms are valid -- or whether they are exaggerated or empty, while downplaying or missing the larger context of opportunities and resources. Ask yourself what these forces could be getting out of beating that scary drum.
This mindfulness of both the inner workings of your brain and the outer mechanisms of fear-promotion can by itself make you less prone to needless fear.
Then you won't be so vulnerable to intimidation by apparent "tigers" that are in fact manageable, blown out of proportion, or made of paper-mache.
My previous post used the example of Stephen Colbert's satirical "March to Keep Fear Alive" as a timely illustration of a larger point: humans evolved to be fearful -- since that helped keep our ancestors alive -- so we are very vulnerable to being frightened and even intimidated by threats, both real ones and "paper tigers." With this march, Colbert is obviously mocking those who play on fear, since we certainly don't need any new reminders to keep fear alive.
Some Background
This vulnerability to feeling threatened has effects at many levels, ranging from individuals, couples, and families, to schoolyards, organizations and nations. Whether it's an individual who worries about the consequences of speaking up at work or in a close relationship, a family cowed by a scary parent, a business fixated on threats instead of opportunities, or a country that's routinely told it's under "Threat Level Orange," it's the same human brain that reacts in all cases.
Therefore, understanding how your brain became so vigilant and wary, and so easily hijacked by alarm, is the first step toward gaining more control over that ancient circuitry. Then, by bringing mindful awareness to how your brain reacts to feeling threatened, you can stimulate and therefore build up the neural substrates of a mind that has more calm, wisdom and sense of inner strength. A mind that sees real threats more clearly, acts more effectively in dealing with them, and is less rattled or distracted by exaggerated, manageable, or false alarms.
Let's start with the brain's negativity bias. In this post, I'll focus on why it evolved and how it has been built up in your brain. The next post will explore its consequences. The post after that will zero in on one key consequence: threat reactivity, which has many bad effects, including "paper tiger paranoia." And then following posts will emphasize solutions to these problems, from activating the soothing and recharging parasympathetic nervous system to mobilizing more of your inner resources to address the real challenges our planet faces.
An Evolving Negativity Bias
The nervous system has been evolving for 600 million years, from ancient jellyfish to modern humans. Our ancestors had to make a critical decision many times a day: approach a reward or avoid a hazard -- pursue a carrot or duck a stick.
Both are important. Imagine being a hominid in Africa a million years ago, living in a small band. To pass on your genes, you've got to find food, have sex, and cooperate with others to help the band's children (particularly yours) to have children of their own: these are big carrots in the Serengeti. Additionally, you've got to hide from predators, steer clear of Alpha males and females looking for trouble, and not let other hunter-gatherer bands kill you: these are significant sticks.
But here's the key difference between carrots and sticks. If you miss out on a carrot today, you'll have a chance at more carrots tomorrow. But if you fail to avoid a stick today - WHAP! - no more carrots forever. Compared to carrots, sticks usually have more urgency and impact.
Body and Brain Going Negative
Consequently, your body generally reacts more intensely to negative stimuli than to equally strong positive ones. For example, intense pain can be produced all over the body, but intense pleasure comes only (for most people) from stimulating a few specific regions.
In your brain, there are separate (though interacting) systems for negative and positive stimuli. At a larger scale, the left hemisphere is somewhat specialized for positive experiences while the right hemisphere is more focused on negative ones (this makes sense since the right hemisphere is specialized for gestalt, visual-spatial processing, so it's advantaged for tracking threats coming from the surrounding environment).
Negative stimuli produce more neural activity than do equally intense (e.g., loud, bright) positive ones. They are also perceived more easily and quickly. For example, people in studies can identify angry faces faster than happy ones; even if they are shown these images so quickly (just a tenth of a second or so) that they cannot have any conscious recognition of them, the ancient fight-or-flight limbic system of the brain will still get activated by the angry faces.
The alarm bell of your brain -- the amygdala (you've got two of these little almond-shaped regions, one on either side of your head) -- uses about two-thirds of its neurons to look for bad news: it's primed to go negative. Once it sounds the alarm, negative events and experiences get quickly stored in memory -- in contrast to positive events and experiences, which usually need to be held in awareness for a dozen or more seconds to transfer from short-term memory buffers to long-term storage.
In effect, as I wrote in my last post, the brain is like Velcro for negative experiences but Teflon for positive ones. That's why researchers have found that animals, including humans, generally learn faster from pain (alas) than pleasure. (For more on the neuropsychology of the negativity bias, and references, see the slide sets at my website.)
That learning from your childhood and adulthood - both what you experienced yourself and saw others experiencing around you - is locked and loaded in your head today, ready for immediate activation, whether by a frown across a dinner table or by TV images of a car-bombing 10,000 miles away.
What to Do?
To keep our ancestors alive, Mother Nature evolved a brain that routinely tricked them into making three mistakes: overestimating threats, underestimating opportunities, and underestimating resources (for dealing with threats and fulfilling opportunities). This is a great way to pass on gene copies, but a lousy way to promote quality of life.
So for starters, be mindful of the degree to which your brain is wired to make you afraid, wired so that you walk around with an ongoing trickle of anxiety (a flood for some) to keep you on alert. And wired to zero in on any apparent bad news in a larger stream of information (e.g., fixing on a casual aside from a family member or co-worker), to tune out or de-emphasize reassuring good news, and to keep thinking about the one thing that was negative in a day in which a hundred small things happened, ninety-nine of which were neutral or positive. (And, to be sure, also be mindful of any tendency you might have toward rose-colored glasses or putting that ostrich head in the sand.)
Additionally, be mindful of the forces around you that beat the drum of alarm -- whether it's a family member who threatens emotional punishment, or in the well-known example, a National Security Advisor (Condoleezza Rice) who warned in 2002 that the smoking gun of evidence for WMDs in Iraq could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. Consider for yourself whether their alarms are valid -- or whether they are exaggerated or empty, while downplaying or missing the larger context of opportunities and resources. Ask yourself what these forces could be getting out of beating that scary drum.
This mindfulness of both the inner workings of your brain and the outer mechanisms of fear-promotion can by itself make you less prone to needless fear.
Then you won't be so vulnerable to intimidation by apparent "tigers" that are in fact manageable, blown out of proportion, or made of paper-mache.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Shocking New Statistics On Poverty In America
Shocking New Statistics On Poverty In America
D. Mixner
Poverty As the nation was rivited to the looney bird pastor down in Florida who was going to burn the Koran, a report by the Census Bureau was released on poverty in America. By all rights, this story should have been the lead story around the country. One of the great shames of our country is that we refuse to even acknowledge the poor let alone ease their burden. America is this little white cottage on a street that is beautiful in the front and crammed with our poor in the backyard.
The statistics are simply shocking in scope and are based on the 2009 census figures. Here are some of them:
-In one year the poverty rate in America went from 13.2% to 15%. -that means more than 1 in 7 Americans are now living in poverty and represents nearly 45 million Americans!
-It is the highest single year increase since the records started to be collected in 1959.
-a disgusting 20% of our children live in poverty. That is one of every five children in America are not getting enough food, care and resources.
-This "Great Recession" that we are in will push the 'working age American' poverty rate to the highest level in 50 years. T
The report said it defined the poverty level as:
"In 2008, the poverty level stood at $22,025 for a family of four, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income before tax deductions. It excludes capital gains or accumulated wealth. It does not factor in noncash government aid such as tax credits or food stamps, which have surged to record levels in recent years under the federal stimulus program."
For my readers of this blog, I challenge you to sit down and write out a monthly budget on $1,012 for a family of four before any deductions from pay checks. Really, take a minute and do it. I attempted it and was so depressed as a single person attempting to live on that much a month.
Finally, the report says it is only going to get worse:
"Beginning next year, the government plans to publish new, supplemental poverty figures that are expected to show even higher numbers of people in poverty than previously known. The figures will take into account rising costs of medical care, transportation and child care, a change analysts believe will add to the ranks of both seniors and working-age people in poverty."
D. Mixner
Poverty As the nation was rivited to the looney bird pastor down in Florida who was going to burn the Koran, a report by the Census Bureau was released on poverty in America. By all rights, this story should have been the lead story around the country. One of the great shames of our country is that we refuse to even acknowledge the poor let alone ease their burden. America is this little white cottage on a street that is beautiful in the front and crammed with our poor in the backyard.
The statistics are simply shocking in scope and are based on the 2009 census figures. Here are some of them:
-In one year the poverty rate in America went from 13.2% to 15%. -that means more than 1 in 7 Americans are now living in poverty and represents nearly 45 million Americans!
-It is the highest single year increase since the records started to be collected in 1959.
-a disgusting 20% of our children live in poverty. That is one of every five children in America are not getting enough food, care and resources.
-This "Great Recession" that we are in will push the 'working age American' poverty rate to the highest level in 50 years. T
The report said it defined the poverty level as:
"In 2008, the poverty level stood at $22,025 for a family of four, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income before tax deductions. It excludes capital gains or accumulated wealth. It does not factor in noncash government aid such as tax credits or food stamps, which have surged to record levels in recent years under the federal stimulus program."
For my readers of this blog, I challenge you to sit down and write out a monthly budget on $1,012 for a family of four before any deductions from pay checks. Really, take a minute and do it. I attempted it and was so depressed as a single person attempting to live on that much a month.
Finally, the report says it is only going to get worse:
"Beginning next year, the government plans to publish new, supplemental poverty figures that are expected to show even higher numbers of people in poverty than previously known. The figures will take into account rising costs of medical care, transportation and child care, a change analysts believe will add to the ranks of both seniors and working-age people in poverty."
Monday, August 30, 2010
ON THE ABSENT MOTHER
Dr.ART JANOV- Author
There is an article today about stressed out babies who get anxious even when mother is absent for two minutes.(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1305892/Six-month-old-babies-stressed-ignored-minutes-mothers.html Their effects last until the next day. Levels of stress hormones soar. Conclusion: babies need their mothers. Oh wait! Maybe it is more than that. Yes, we need mother and father love but what happens when the absenteeism goes on and on?
There is just so much stress we can take and then what happens? Primal Pain. That is, the system has reached its asymptote and shuts down. Repression begins its life. So what? We now have a secret life; that is, there are pains and all of their concomitants, stress hormones, less or more thyroid, less natural killer cells; go on agitating and aggravating the physical system. And when pain gets compounded time after time, neglect, abandonment, violence, the underground life begins to wear the system down, attacking the most vulnerable organs. It is not one pain but pain piled on top of more pain, the daily threats, ignoring, left alone, and you can add your own life here. What is bad is that we do not often know we are in pain but the body knows. It speaks volumes, screaming through higher brain amplitude, faster brain frequency, higher cortisol, and so on. That is why we not only take the word of patients but measure them every day before and after sessions. The patient does not necessarily lie but she is often contradicted by her measurements.
I never knew that my frenetic and constant movements as a kid, the going and going, was the result of pain; I never felt it. I acted it out. But if one had looked at cortisol levels we would have understood. I doubt in my day we could have even measured cortisol. I just got my high-school records for my biography. Note after note says about me, “nervous.”
Isn’t it wonderful that the human system has a governor that shuts down many functions so we can survive? We become unconscious to survive. That is the miracle. So we have a hyperactive brain; is that so terrible.? Only if you don’t mind dying of Alzheimers or a stroke. That hyperactive brain is not normal. It is a reaction, a survival tactic to keep us unconscious so we can navigate in the world. It is super active due to repression. How do we know? There are major changes in the brain when patients have done this therapy. We have done four different brain studies (UCLA, Copenhagen, Rutgers, and in-house). The results are consistent. Moreover, we see great changes just after a session when the body temp, blood pressure and brain activity diminish. The body and brain are all of a piece. They are related, so when we measure just one aspect, say, blood pressure, we are missing out on the relationships to other aspects.
What is important about the above is that we mistake the deviations occasioned by the imprinted pain as bad and unhealthy. So then we have the biofeedbackers trying to correct the person’s brainwaves when they should be what they are. Or we do other measures to break down blood pressure, or we do EMDR to change anxiety states without once asking why are they deviated? Why is that heart racing? It is trying to survive against the onslaught of pain. It should race.
I was being slight facetious about dying of a brain disease but not entirely. When you see, as I have, month after month, year after year, patients reliving enormous early pains, you realize how the brain has to cave in eventually. No organ can withstand that pressure forever. Reliving and feeling is life saving.
There is an article today about stressed out babies who get anxious even when mother is absent for two minutes.(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1305892/Six-month-old-babies-stressed-ignored-minutes-mothers.html Their effects last until the next day. Levels of stress hormones soar. Conclusion: babies need their mothers. Oh wait! Maybe it is more than that. Yes, we need mother and father love but what happens when the absenteeism goes on and on?
There is just so much stress we can take and then what happens? Primal Pain. That is, the system has reached its asymptote and shuts down. Repression begins its life. So what? We now have a secret life; that is, there are pains and all of their concomitants, stress hormones, less or more thyroid, less natural killer cells; go on agitating and aggravating the physical system. And when pain gets compounded time after time, neglect, abandonment, violence, the underground life begins to wear the system down, attacking the most vulnerable organs. It is not one pain but pain piled on top of more pain, the daily threats, ignoring, left alone, and you can add your own life here. What is bad is that we do not often know we are in pain but the body knows. It speaks volumes, screaming through higher brain amplitude, faster brain frequency, higher cortisol, and so on. That is why we not only take the word of patients but measure them every day before and after sessions. The patient does not necessarily lie but she is often contradicted by her measurements.
I never knew that my frenetic and constant movements as a kid, the going and going, was the result of pain; I never felt it. I acted it out. But if one had looked at cortisol levels we would have understood. I doubt in my day we could have even measured cortisol. I just got my high-school records for my biography. Note after note says about me, “nervous.”
Isn’t it wonderful that the human system has a governor that shuts down many functions so we can survive? We become unconscious to survive. That is the miracle. So we have a hyperactive brain; is that so terrible.? Only if you don’t mind dying of Alzheimers or a stroke. That hyperactive brain is not normal. It is a reaction, a survival tactic to keep us unconscious so we can navigate in the world. It is super active due to repression. How do we know? There are major changes in the brain when patients have done this therapy. We have done four different brain studies (UCLA, Copenhagen, Rutgers, and in-house). The results are consistent. Moreover, we see great changes just after a session when the body temp, blood pressure and brain activity diminish. The body and brain are all of a piece. They are related, so when we measure just one aspect, say, blood pressure, we are missing out on the relationships to other aspects.
What is important about the above is that we mistake the deviations occasioned by the imprinted pain as bad and unhealthy. So then we have the biofeedbackers trying to correct the person’s brainwaves when they should be what they are. Or we do other measures to break down blood pressure, or we do EMDR to change anxiety states without once asking why are they deviated? Why is that heart racing? It is trying to survive against the onslaught of pain. It should race.
I was being slight facetious about dying of a brain disease but not entirely. When you see, as I have, month after month, year after year, patients reliving enormous early pains, you realize how the brain has to cave in eventually. No organ can withstand that pressure forever. Reliving and feeling is life saving.
Friday, July 9, 2010
I WILL BE HAPPY WHEN
MY FRIDAY STORY
I WILL BE HAPPY WHEN ... revisited
by Jared Yellin
Over the past couple of weeks, our already dismal economy has become far worse than any of the "experts" could have ever predicted. We are in the process of witnessing the "Pearl Harbor" of the financial world, as articulated by Warren Buffet.
Although this has been devastating for all Americans, it has also been a very humbling experience for our nation, one that has made us realize that we are not invincible when it comes to the fundamental problems in our country. It has been a wake up call and a lesson learned, but my fear is that many of us are processing this adverse occurrence in the totally wrong light.
We have seen our bank accounts, retirement funds, financial portfolios and any other type of investment drop significantly, but what I ask you to consider is that although our NET WORTH has been on the decline, does this have any lasting effect to your SELF WORTH? What is your identity and why have we become a nation of people whose identity is purely aligned with their finances?
I think the key to coping with these unfortunate circumstances is to really think about your definition of "success." In the past, this term has been associated with wealth, possessions, and luxuries. People gawk at the ultra wealthy and yearn to live just one day in their lives.
Although the old adage that "money does not buy happiness," is a commonplace expression to almost every single person in the world, these words have become a commodity whose value has been diminished. The new national anthem for our country unfortunately has become, "I will be happy when I make a million dollars, purchase a Mercedes, buy a mansion, own a new pair of designers jeans, take a vacation, etc."
We are constantly basing our fulfillment on the external, when we have all of the tools within our soul to appreciate who we are. When will we realize that it is not what we do not have that makes us unhappy, but rather what we have already achieved that should bring joy to our lives? The point that I am trying to make is that no one has escaped this financial debacle, but when we actually take the time to evaluate our self-inventory, we realize that the only change occurred within our bank accounts. Hopefully, we still have our health, our family, and most importantly ourselves.
Wealth can be lost within a fleeting moment as seen by our lack of control in the current economic decline, but we are the directors of our own self worth and well-being and we can create an incredible life if we so choose. This outcome, unlike a fluctuating economy, is within our control.
Rather than focusing on when we will hit the bottom of the stock market, I challenge all of you to focus your energies on ways to reach the pinnacle of your personal apex. Everything depends on the view of the beholder and whether you allow your circumstances to create your identity or if you allow your identity to create your circumstances.
I have my own personal definition of success, but prior to unveiling this for all of you to read, I think that it is important for you to realize I am driven to achieve a certain monetary status to enable me to spread my message throughout the world, but this drive for money will never consume my soul nor taint my identity. I will always focus on the who I am as opposed to the who I am not and in turn my definition looks like this; Success is measured by pursuing your unique mission in this world with a burning desire to make a difference and leave a legacy in order to be proud of the who I am and the what I stand for.
Charles F. Bunning, says it best: "If all the gold in the world were melted down into a solid cube, it would be about the size of an eight room house. If a man got possession of all that gold -- billions of dollars worth -- he could not buy a friend, character, peace of mind, clear conscience or a sense of eternity."
So I understand that this message may not be well received since most of the audience will have experienced incredibly adverse effects as a result of the deteriorating economy, but I do believe that this message possesses a substantial amount of value if read and re-read in order to make it your own. I also realize that some of my audience may not feel the aftermath of the current conditions because they are young, wealthy or a variety of other reasons, but what I do know is that you probably have experienced our new national anthem, "I will be happy when.," therefore, regardless of the way that you interpret this message, I want you to realize that everything that you ever need in life stares back at you from the mirror every single day.
All of the riches in the world will never truly provide you with the ability to sustain unconditional happiness because that comes from within. My challenge to all of my readers and anyone else who has the opportunity to digest this message is to take some time each day and remind yourself that the world around you may be falling apart, but the world within you is just beginning to take form.
I WILL BE HAPPY WHEN ... revisited
by Jared Yellin
Over the past couple of weeks, our already dismal economy has become far worse than any of the "experts" could have ever predicted. We are in the process of witnessing the "Pearl Harbor" of the financial world, as articulated by Warren Buffet.
Although this has been devastating for all Americans, it has also been a very humbling experience for our nation, one that has made us realize that we are not invincible when it comes to the fundamental problems in our country. It has been a wake up call and a lesson learned, but my fear is that many of us are processing this adverse occurrence in the totally wrong light.
We have seen our bank accounts, retirement funds, financial portfolios and any other type of investment drop significantly, but what I ask you to consider is that although our NET WORTH has been on the decline, does this have any lasting effect to your SELF WORTH? What is your identity and why have we become a nation of people whose identity is purely aligned with their finances?
I think the key to coping with these unfortunate circumstances is to really think about your definition of "success." In the past, this term has been associated with wealth, possessions, and luxuries. People gawk at the ultra wealthy and yearn to live just one day in their lives.
Although the old adage that "money does not buy happiness," is a commonplace expression to almost every single person in the world, these words have become a commodity whose value has been diminished. The new national anthem for our country unfortunately has become, "I will be happy when I make a million dollars, purchase a Mercedes, buy a mansion, own a new pair of designers jeans, take a vacation, etc."
We are constantly basing our fulfillment on the external, when we have all of the tools within our soul to appreciate who we are. When will we realize that it is not what we do not have that makes us unhappy, but rather what we have already achieved that should bring joy to our lives? The point that I am trying to make is that no one has escaped this financial debacle, but when we actually take the time to evaluate our self-inventory, we realize that the only change occurred within our bank accounts. Hopefully, we still have our health, our family, and most importantly ourselves.
Wealth can be lost within a fleeting moment as seen by our lack of control in the current economic decline, but we are the directors of our own self worth and well-being and we can create an incredible life if we so choose. This outcome, unlike a fluctuating economy, is within our control.
Rather than focusing on when we will hit the bottom of the stock market, I challenge all of you to focus your energies on ways to reach the pinnacle of your personal apex. Everything depends on the view of the beholder and whether you allow your circumstances to create your identity or if you allow your identity to create your circumstances.
I have my own personal definition of success, but prior to unveiling this for all of you to read, I think that it is important for you to realize I am driven to achieve a certain monetary status to enable me to spread my message throughout the world, but this drive for money will never consume my soul nor taint my identity. I will always focus on the who I am as opposed to the who I am not and in turn my definition looks like this; Success is measured by pursuing your unique mission in this world with a burning desire to make a difference and leave a legacy in order to be proud of the who I am and the what I stand for.
Charles F. Bunning, says it best: "If all the gold in the world were melted down into a solid cube, it would be about the size of an eight room house. If a man got possession of all that gold -- billions of dollars worth -- he could not buy a friend, character, peace of mind, clear conscience or a sense of eternity."
So I understand that this message may not be well received since most of the audience will have experienced incredibly adverse effects as a result of the deteriorating economy, but I do believe that this message possesses a substantial amount of value if read and re-read in order to make it your own. I also realize that some of my audience may not feel the aftermath of the current conditions because they are young, wealthy or a variety of other reasons, but what I do know is that you probably have experienced our new national anthem, "I will be happy when.," therefore, regardless of the way that you interpret this message, I want you to realize that everything that you ever need in life stares back at you from the mirror every single day.
All of the riches in the world will never truly provide you with the ability to sustain unconditional happiness because that comes from within. My challenge to all of my readers and anyone else who has the opportunity to digest this message is to take some time each day and remind yourself that the world around you may be falling apart, but the world within you is just beginning to take form.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Beating Children Is Still Legal In Twenty U.S. States
Beating Children Is Still Legal In Twenty U.S. States
In 20 states of the United States, it is still legal for teachers to paddle their students. That is a shocking statistic. Even when in prison, criminals are protected by law from being physically abused by those in a position of authority over them. But for our children, no such protection is available.
We are one of the few countries to allow such treatment. 102 countries, including Canada, Australia, the countries of Western Europe and the U.K., have outlawed corporal punishment in schools. Within the United States, plenty of organizations oppose corporal punishment, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Consider a couple of examples: a high school coach in Georgia knocked a student's eyeball out of its socket to punish the student for fighting with another student. In Texas, a 14-year-old autistic special education student was smothered to death by his teacher's "restraint." The kid was placed face down on the floor and when he struggled, his teacher sat on his shoulders to keep him still. He sufficated to death.
Because of these and many other instances of child abuse at the hands of teachers, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D - NY) will introduce a bill in the House this week to deny federal funding to schools that use corporal punishment. For the first time in over 18 years, Congress held hearings in April, 2010, on the use of corporal punishment in schools, and this bill was the result of those hearings.
Here's what was revealed: every twenty seconds of the school day, a child is beaten by an educator. Every four minutes, an educator beats a child so badly that she seeks medical attention. The U.S. Department of Education reported that in the 2006 - 07 school year, 223,190 students were the victims of such school violence, and over 20,000 of these young people had to seek medical attention.
These are outrageous statistics, and we applaud Rep. McCarthy for introducing her bill. It is time for the United States to join the rest of the developed world and implement a federal ban on corporal punishment. Corporal punishment is wrong. The American Psychological Association says corporal punishment may do far more than inflict physical pain; it may also lower self-esteem, instill hostility and teach children that physical violence is an acceptable problem-solving tool. And it doesn't work.
Isn't it time that we outlawed this barbaric practice in the United States?
Judy Molland
In 20 states of the United States, it is still legal for teachers to paddle their students. That is a shocking statistic. Even when in prison, criminals are protected by law from being physically abused by those in a position of authority over them. But for our children, no such protection is available.
We are one of the few countries to allow such treatment. 102 countries, including Canada, Australia, the countries of Western Europe and the U.K., have outlawed corporal punishment in schools. Within the United States, plenty of organizations oppose corporal punishment, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Consider a couple of examples: a high school coach in Georgia knocked a student's eyeball out of its socket to punish the student for fighting with another student. In Texas, a 14-year-old autistic special education student was smothered to death by his teacher's "restraint." The kid was placed face down on the floor and when he struggled, his teacher sat on his shoulders to keep him still. He sufficated to death.
Because of these and many other instances of child abuse at the hands of teachers, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D - NY) will introduce a bill in the House this week to deny federal funding to schools that use corporal punishment. For the first time in over 18 years, Congress held hearings in April, 2010, on the use of corporal punishment in schools, and this bill was the result of those hearings.
Here's what was revealed: every twenty seconds of the school day, a child is beaten by an educator. Every four minutes, an educator beats a child so badly that she seeks medical attention. The U.S. Department of Education reported that in the 2006 - 07 school year, 223,190 students were the victims of such school violence, and over 20,000 of these young people had to seek medical attention.
These are outrageous statistics, and we applaud Rep. McCarthy for introducing her bill. It is time for the United States to join the rest of the developed world and implement a federal ban on corporal punishment. Corporal punishment is wrong. The American Psychological Association says corporal punishment may do far more than inflict physical pain; it may also lower self-esteem, instill hostility and teach children that physical violence is an acceptable problem-solving tool. And it doesn't work.
Isn't it time that we outlawed this barbaric practice in the United States?
Judy Molland
Friday, June 4, 2010
DEATH AT SIXTEEN.
Sixteen-year-old Christian Taylor was found hanged in his bedroom on Monday, May 31: Memorial Day, a school holiday, which for most kids means the start of summer.
Taylor was a freshman at Grafton High School in Yorktown, VA. What's especially tragic about this suicide is that the teenager had complained to school and law enforcement officials about being bullied, but nothing was done to stop his tormentor. According to York-Poquosen Sheriff Sgt. Dennis Ivey, authorities had also looked into complaints by Taylor's mother, Alise Williams, weeks ago, but turned the matter over to his school after finding no crime had been committed. No action was taken, and Taylor's tormentor remained at school.
Because of Taylor's death, Ivey said, authorities are now re-examining the case to see if any laws were broken.
How many lost teenage lives are we going to have to witness before school authorities take this issue seriously? In Massachusetts, less than six months ago, 15-year-old Phoebe Prince hanged herself after being assaulted and bullied by classmates. Currently six teenagers face charges in that case.
And now here's another one. Teenagers can be both mean and cruel, as well as scared and extremely vulnerable. Above all, they need guidance from adults, even when (maybe especially when) they act as if they hate all authority. Every school has a legal responsibility to deal with bullying that occurs on school property and, in many cases, between school and home.
What happened in Taylor's case? According to his mom, "Chris was a good kid…. He had the usual teenage problems, the awkwardness and all, but he had a girlfriend and friends and they're devastated." She described her son's bullying as "just a lot of taunting and saying mean stuff" but added that in one instance, his tormentor, a classmate, told her son to "go ahead and commit suicide and get it over with."
Meanwhile, the bully "is still in school," said Williams. "They have not suspended him. He has not been expelled. And he doesn't just target my son, he's targeted quite a few others."
As someone who has been teaching teenagers for over twenty years, I know that someone, if not several people, at that high school had to know what was going on, but chose not to see. It's easy to do, since teachers are all so overworked and pressured these days. But that's no excuse. Teenagers can be a tough bunch, but it's also pretty easy to read them.
Bullying is a serious social problem. According to the National School Safety Center, one in seven children becomes a victim of bullying at school. Wake up, schools! Getting good test scores is nice; saving lives is crucial.
Taylor was a freshman at Grafton High School in Yorktown, VA. What's especially tragic about this suicide is that the teenager had complained to school and law enforcement officials about being bullied, but nothing was done to stop his tormentor. According to York-Poquosen Sheriff Sgt. Dennis Ivey, authorities had also looked into complaints by Taylor's mother, Alise Williams, weeks ago, but turned the matter over to his school after finding no crime had been committed. No action was taken, and Taylor's tormentor remained at school.
Because of Taylor's death, Ivey said, authorities are now re-examining the case to see if any laws were broken.
How many lost teenage lives are we going to have to witness before school authorities take this issue seriously? In Massachusetts, less than six months ago, 15-year-old Phoebe Prince hanged herself after being assaulted and bullied by classmates. Currently six teenagers face charges in that case.
And now here's another one. Teenagers can be both mean and cruel, as well as scared and extremely vulnerable. Above all, they need guidance from adults, even when (maybe especially when) they act as if they hate all authority. Every school has a legal responsibility to deal with bullying that occurs on school property and, in many cases, between school and home.
What happened in Taylor's case? According to his mom, "Chris was a good kid…. He had the usual teenage problems, the awkwardness and all, but he had a girlfriend and friends and they're devastated." She described her son's bullying as "just a lot of taunting and saying mean stuff" but added that in one instance, his tormentor, a classmate, told her son to "go ahead and commit suicide and get it over with."
Meanwhile, the bully "is still in school," said Williams. "They have not suspended him. He has not been expelled. And he doesn't just target my son, he's targeted quite a few others."
As someone who has been teaching teenagers for over twenty years, I know that someone, if not several people, at that high school had to know what was going on, but chose not to see. It's easy to do, since teachers are all so overworked and pressured these days. But that's no excuse. Teenagers can be a tough bunch, but it's also pretty easy to read them.
Bullying is a serious social problem. According to the National School Safety Center, one in seven children becomes a victim of bullying at school. Wake up, schools! Getting good test scores is nice; saving lives is crucial.
THOUGHTS FROM A CANADIAN NEIGHBOR
MY FRIDAY STORY
EXCESS AND EXCUSES
By Miles Patrick Yohnke © 2010
It hurts me to write this story. But I must write it. I live in Canada, which is seen as a rich country. The country to the south of us, the United States, also falls into this category. As a writer I've been blessed that my work has touched so many lives in so many corners of the world.
I receive many letters. An enormous amount of them come from places where it isn't as good as we have it here. Yet these letters are filled with hope and optimism. Terror and fear are daily occurrences in countries like Africa, India and Papua New Guinea [PNG] just to name a few. Yet when I read the letters from people living in these and many more places, their passion is overwhelming. You also have a great respect for their rich, individual heritages.
You look at Papua New Guinea and discover it has over 800 languages. Each province has more than 20 different languages. Not all of them have the same dialect. The only language that they all can speak and understand is called "Pidgin English." 800 languages means that they also have this number of different customs and traditions. All just loaded with culture and character.
North America is the richest of nations, yet, for the most part, our culture is one of excess and excuses.
Excess: We eat too much. We drink too much. We spend far too much.
Excuses: We point fingers. We blame others. We dwell in dysfunction.
We are rich with excess and excuses. For so many we have a hard time speaking one language. We have bigger houses and bigger broken homes. Divorce is the norm. We have multiplied our possessions but reduced our values. We've learned how to make a living but not a life. It's time that we stop our spoiled, self-centered ways.
Time we look in the mirror at our fat selves. Weak with character, high with cholesterol. Time we wake up. Time we learn that life isn't about 'things'. Time that we use our rich resources for positive change. Time we give back. Help others. Time our lives are filled with purpose. In that we will have a real reason to live.
EXCESS AND EXCUSES
By Miles Patrick Yohnke © 2010
It hurts me to write this story. But I must write it. I live in Canada, which is seen as a rich country. The country to the south of us, the United States, also falls into this category. As a writer I've been blessed that my work has touched so many lives in so many corners of the world.
I receive many letters. An enormous amount of them come from places where it isn't as good as we have it here. Yet these letters are filled with hope and optimism. Terror and fear are daily occurrences in countries like Africa, India and Papua New Guinea [PNG] just to name a few. Yet when I read the letters from people living in these and many more places, their passion is overwhelming. You also have a great respect for their rich, individual heritages.
You look at Papua New Guinea and discover it has over 800 languages. Each province has more than 20 different languages. Not all of them have the same dialect. The only language that they all can speak and understand is called "Pidgin English." 800 languages means that they also have this number of different customs and traditions. All just loaded with culture and character.
North America is the richest of nations, yet, for the most part, our culture is one of excess and excuses.
Excess: We eat too much. We drink too much. We spend far too much.
Excuses: We point fingers. We blame others. We dwell in dysfunction.
We are rich with excess and excuses. For so many we have a hard time speaking one language. We have bigger houses and bigger broken homes. Divorce is the norm. We have multiplied our possessions but reduced our values. We've learned how to make a living but not a life. It's time that we stop our spoiled, self-centered ways.
Time we look in the mirror at our fat selves. Weak with character, high with cholesterol. Time we wake up. Time we learn that life isn't about 'things'. Time that we use our rich resources for positive change. Time we give back. Help others. Time our lives are filled with purpose. In that we will have a real reason to live.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Mental Illness in Older Adults 'Very Common'--and Underdiagnosed posted by: Kristina Chew
May is Mental Health Month which is, according to Mental Health America, meant to 'promote health and wellness in homes, communities, schools, and inform those who don't believe it's attainable.' Depression has been called a 'silent killer'; anxiety disorders and other psychiatric disorders have been called 'invisible as someone suffering from them may well have no obvious physical symptoms, even though that person may be experiencing deep pain within. Undiagnosed mental illness is said to be 'highly prevalent' and, too, a cause of 'needless morbidity.'
Further, even while rates of mood and anxiety disorders may seem to decline with age, a report in the May Archives of General Psychiatry has found that these conditions actually remain 'very common' in older adults, especially women. Researchers studied 2575 participants 55 years and older who were part of theNational Comorbidity Survey Replication NCS-R (43%, 55-64 years; 32%, 65-74 years; 20%, 75-84 years; 5%, 85 years). All were 'noninstitutionalized' and resided in households within the community. The study concluded that:
Prevalence rates of DSM-IV mood and anxiety disorders in late life tend to decline with age, but remain very common, especially in women. These results highlight the need for intervention and prevention strategies.
I've had the under-diagnosis of mental illness in older adults---and the lack of adequate treatment, with potentially tragic results---on my mind much of late.
My mother-in-law, Grace, died this past Mother's Day. She was 81 years old and had long been in very poor health, physically (she struggled to walk and had had both knees replaced in 2006) and mentally, for many years. She suffered from depression and anxiety and had been hospitalized for these throughout her life. During her last years, she rarely left her house deep in the New Jersey suburbs; I can't count how many times my husband Jimcoaxed and cajoled her to come walk with him around the block---'I'll be right beside you, Mom, holding your hand!"---or, when that seemed too daunting, up and down her long driveway. She was smart and curious and, when I first met her in 1994, loved to read five newspapers a day and send Jim a manila folder of clippings. Jim is a historian and his most recent book, On the Irish Waterfront: The Crusader, the Movie, and the Soul of the Port of New York, is rooted in Grace's love of movies and stories, and her roots in Hudson County, in New Jersey.
On the Irish Waterfront was published in August of 2009 but Grace was not able to read it. Her eyesight was gone as the result of a stroke. But even more, what Jim refers to as the 'depths of her emotional unease'---sporadically treated and not talked about---had had their toll. Lying pale on her bed in the nursing home with the TV set droning on overhead, she did not respond when Jim read the chapter in the acknowledgments about his mother reading excerpts from Jimmy Breslin's columns in the New York Herald Tribune out loud to her friends over the phone.
And I'll always wonder, how might Grace have smiled with that little pleased laugh to hear such stories of herself, had her mental illness been treated consistently and understood for what it is, rather than being explained away as this or that physical ailment, or as a personality trait, or just because 'she was old and it must be Alzheimer's'?
As the study concludes:
'The study of nationally representative samples provides evidence for research and policy planning that helps to define community-based priorities for future psychiatric research. The findings of this study emphasize the importance of individual and co-existing mood and anxiety disorders when studying older adults, even the oldest cohorts. Further study of risk factors, course and severity is needed to target intervention, prevention and health care needs.'
Yes, further study is needed.
'Even among the oldest cohorts.'
Further, even while rates of mood and anxiety disorders may seem to decline with age, a report in the May Archives of General Psychiatry has found that these conditions actually remain 'very common' in older adults, especially women. Researchers studied 2575 participants 55 years and older who were part of theNational Comorbidity Survey Replication NCS-R (43%, 55-64 years; 32%, 65-74 years; 20%, 75-84 years; 5%, 85 years). All were 'noninstitutionalized' and resided in households within the community. The study concluded that:
Prevalence rates of DSM-IV mood and anxiety disorders in late life tend to decline with age, but remain very common, especially in women. These results highlight the need for intervention and prevention strategies.
I've had the under-diagnosis of mental illness in older adults---and the lack of adequate treatment, with potentially tragic results---on my mind much of late.
My mother-in-law, Grace, died this past Mother's Day. She was 81 years old and had long been in very poor health, physically (she struggled to walk and had had both knees replaced in 2006) and mentally, for many years. She suffered from depression and anxiety and had been hospitalized for these throughout her life. During her last years, she rarely left her house deep in the New Jersey suburbs; I can't count how many times my husband Jimcoaxed and cajoled her to come walk with him around the block---'I'll be right beside you, Mom, holding your hand!"---or, when that seemed too daunting, up and down her long driveway. She was smart and curious and, when I first met her in 1994, loved to read five newspapers a day and send Jim a manila folder of clippings. Jim is a historian and his most recent book, On the Irish Waterfront: The Crusader, the Movie, and the Soul of the Port of New York, is rooted in Grace's love of movies and stories, and her roots in Hudson County, in New Jersey.
On the Irish Waterfront was published in August of 2009 but Grace was not able to read it. Her eyesight was gone as the result of a stroke. But even more, what Jim refers to as the 'depths of her emotional unease'---sporadically treated and not talked about---had had their toll. Lying pale on her bed in the nursing home with the TV set droning on overhead, she did not respond when Jim read the chapter in the acknowledgments about his mother reading excerpts from Jimmy Breslin's columns in the New York Herald Tribune out loud to her friends over the phone.
And I'll always wonder, how might Grace have smiled with that little pleased laugh to hear such stories of herself, had her mental illness been treated consistently and understood for what it is, rather than being explained away as this or that physical ailment, or as a personality trait, or just because 'she was old and it must be Alzheimer's'?
As the study concludes:
'The study of nationally representative samples provides evidence for research and policy planning that helps to define community-based priorities for future psychiatric research. The findings of this study emphasize the importance of individual and co-existing mood and anxiety disorders when studying older adults, even the oldest cohorts. Further study of risk factors, course and severity is needed to target intervention, prevention and health care needs.'
Yes, further study is needed.
'Even among the oldest cohorts.'
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
SEX AND THE OIL SPILL
Political Irony
Sex and the Gulf Oil Spill
Posted: 10 May 2010 08:39 PM PDT
Reagan famously stated that government was not the solution, government was the problem (while simultaneously growing government at unprecedented rates). But I’ve always thought that the reason Republicans believe government is always the problem is because they don’t know how to govern. Of course, there is an alternative theory that they want to prove that government is incompetent by purposely making it as incompetent as they can.
Regardless of which of these theories you might subscribe to, you couldn’t pick a better example of it than the recent oil spill in the gulf. After all, it was just two years ago that a major scandal was uncovered in the very group charged with overseeing safety in oil drilling, the Minerals Management Service. As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. points out, the Bush administration (especially Dick Cheney) seems to have purposely tried to destroy the MMS by filling it with the shadiest characters one can imagine. Personnel in the MMS were dealing cocaine and other drugs, had sex with (including orgies) and accepted lavish gifts from people in the companies they were supposed to be regulating, and steered government contracts to companies they owned on the side.
At the same time, the MMS gutted safety regulations, including removing requirements for safety equipment that more than likely would have prevented the huge gulf oil spill.
Sex and the Gulf Oil Spill
Posted: 10 May 2010 08:39 PM PDT
Reagan famously stated that government was not the solution, government was the problem (while simultaneously growing government at unprecedented rates). But I’ve always thought that the reason Republicans believe government is always the problem is because they don’t know how to govern. Of course, there is an alternative theory that they want to prove that government is incompetent by purposely making it as incompetent as they can.
Regardless of which of these theories you might subscribe to, you couldn’t pick a better example of it than the recent oil spill in the gulf. After all, it was just two years ago that a major scandal was uncovered in the very group charged with overseeing safety in oil drilling, the Minerals Management Service. As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. points out, the Bush administration (especially Dick Cheney) seems to have purposely tried to destroy the MMS by filling it with the shadiest characters one can imagine. Personnel in the MMS were dealing cocaine and other drugs, had sex with (including orgies) and accepted lavish gifts from people in the companies they were supposed to be regulating, and steered government contracts to companies they owned on the side.
At the same time, the MMS gutted safety regulations, including removing requirements for safety equipment that more than likely would have prevented the huge gulf oil spill.
Friday, May 7, 2010
80,000 CHEMICALS
U.S. facing 'grievous harm' from chemicals in air, food, water, panel says
By Lyndsey Layton
Friday, May 7, 2010; A03
An expert panel that advises the president on cancer said Thursday that Americans are facing "grievous harm" from chemicals in the air, food and water that have largely gone unregulated and ignored.
The President's Cancer Panel called for a new national strategy that focuses on such threats in the environment and workplaces.
Epidemiologists have long maintained that tobacco use, diet and other factors are responsible for most cancers, and that chemicals and pollutants cause only a small portion -- perhaps 5 percent.
The presidential panel said that figure has been "grossly underestimated" but it did not provide a new estimate.
"With the growing body of evidence linking environmental exposures to cancer, the public is becoming increasingly aware of the unacceptable burden of cancer resulting from environmental and occupational exposures that could have been prevented through appropriate national action," the panel wrote in a report released Thursday.
Federal chemical laws are weak, funding for research and enforcement is inadequate, and regulatory responsibilities are split among too many agencies, the panel found.
Children are particularly vulnerable because they are smaller and are developing faster than adults, the panel found. The report noted unexplained rising rates of some cancers in children, and it referred to recent studies that have found industrial chemicals in umbilical-cord blood, which supplies nutrients to fetuses. "To a disturbing extent, babies are born 'pre-polluted,' " the panel wrote.
Health officials lack critical knowledge about the health impact of chemicals on fetuses and children, the report said.
In addition, the government's standards for safe chemical exposure in workplaces are outdated, it said.
In 2009, about 1.5 million American men, women and children had cancer diagnosed, and 562,000 people died from the disease.
"There are far too many known and suspected cancer-causing chemicals in products people, young and old, use every day of their lives," said Kenneth A. Cook, president and co-founder of Environmental Working Group, an environmental advocacy group. "Many of these chemicals are believed to be time bombs, altering the genetic-level switching mechanisms that lead to cancerous cellular growth in later life."
The panel said the country needs to overhaul existing chemical laws, a conclusion that has been supported by public health groups, environmental advocates, the Obama administration and even the chemical industry.
The current system places the burden on the government to prove that a chemical is unsafe before it can removed from the market. The standards are so high, the government has been unable to ban chemicals such as asbestos, a widely recognized carcinogen that is prohibited in many other countries.
About 80,000 chemicals are in commercial use in the United States, but federal regulators have assessed only about 200 for safety.
By Lyndsey Layton
Friday, May 7, 2010; A03
An expert panel that advises the president on cancer said Thursday that Americans are facing "grievous harm" from chemicals in the air, food and water that have largely gone unregulated and ignored.
The President's Cancer Panel called for a new national strategy that focuses on such threats in the environment and workplaces.
Epidemiologists have long maintained that tobacco use, diet and other factors are responsible for most cancers, and that chemicals and pollutants cause only a small portion -- perhaps 5 percent.
The presidential panel said that figure has been "grossly underestimated" but it did not provide a new estimate.
"With the growing body of evidence linking environmental exposures to cancer, the public is becoming increasingly aware of the unacceptable burden of cancer resulting from environmental and occupational exposures that could have been prevented through appropriate national action," the panel wrote in a report released Thursday.
Federal chemical laws are weak, funding for research and enforcement is inadequate, and regulatory responsibilities are split among too many agencies, the panel found.
Children are particularly vulnerable because they are smaller and are developing faster than adults, the panel found. The report noted unexplained rising rates of some cancers in children, and it referred to recent studies that have found industrial chemicals in umbilical-cord blood, which supplies nutrients to fetuses. "To a disturbing extent, babies are born 'pre-polluted,' " the panel wrote.
Health officials lack critical knowledge about the health impact of chemicals on fetuses and children, the report said.
In addition, the government's standards for safe chemical exposure in workplaces are outdated, it said.
In 2009, about 1.5 million American men, women and children had cancer diagnosed, and 562,000 people died from the disease.
"There are far too many known and suspected cancer-causing chemicals in products people, young and old, use every day of their lives," said Kenneth A. Cook, president and co-founder of Environmental Working Group, an environmental advocacy group. "Many of these chemicals are believed to be time bombs, altering the genetic-level switching mechanisms that lead to cancerous cellular growth in later life."
The panel said the country needs to overhaul existing chemical laws, a conclusion that has been supported by public health groups, environmental advocates, the Obama administration and even the chemical industry.
The current system places the burden on the government to prove that a chemical is unsafe before it can removed from the market. The standards are so high, the government has been unable to ban chemicals such as asbestos, a widely recognized carcinogen that is prohibited in many other countries.
About 80,000 chemicals are in commercial use in the United States, but federal regulators have assessed only about 200 for safety.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
JAILING WOMEN FOR HAVING A SUNTAN?
You'd think I was making this stuff up, but sadly I'm not.
In an effort to enforce the highly conservative values of Iranian law – like women being covered from head to toe – religious and now police officials are cracking down on women's behavior.
Tehran police chief, Brig Hossien Sajedinia, has expressed concern over "suntanned women and young girls who look like walking mannequins."
"The public expects us to act firmly and swiftly if we see any social misbehavior by women, and men, who defy our Islamic values," he said."We are not going to tolerate this situation and will first warn those found in this manner and then arrest and imprison them."
National law requires women to wear headscarves and shape shrouding cloaks, but Islamic leadership argue that many women, particularly those in the capital, are defying the law and apparently in doing so they are not only getting tans, but causing earthquakes.
Islam leaders often intensify their scrutiny over women's dress in the summers when women are found breaking dress codes to escape the oppressive heat. With the sun beating down all day and temperatures in the mid-90s, being covered from head to toe at all times is incredibly uncomfortable.
Do women deserve arrest and imprisonment for simply trying to escape the heat? Should women be sequestered indoors because of the strict dress codes inflicted on them?
I certainly think not. Ximena Ramirez
In an effort to enforce the highly conservative values of Iranian law – like women being covered from head to toe – religious and now police officials are cracking down on women's behavior.
Tehran police chief, Brig Hossien Sajedinia, has expressed concern over "suntanned women and young girls who look like walking mannequins."
"The public expects us to act firmly and swiftly if we see any social misbehavior by women, and men, who defy our Islamic values," he said."We are not going to tolerate this situation and will first warn those found in this manner and then arrest and imprison them."
National law requires women to wear headscarves and shape shrouding cloaks, but Islamic leadership argue that many women, particularly those in the capital, are defying the law and apparently in doing so they are not only getting tans, but causing earthquakes.
Islam leaders often intensify their scrutiny over women's dress in the summers when women are found breaking dress codes to escape the oppressive heat. With the sun beating down all day and temperatures in the mid-90s, being covered from head to toe at all times is incredibly uncomfortable.
Do women deserve arrest and imprisonment for simply trying to escape the heat? Should women be sequestered indoors because of the strict dress codes inflicted on them?
I certainly think not. Ximena Ramirez
Sunday, May 2, 2010
WE ARE SO MUCH ALIKE.....
One more piece of evidence that chimpanzees are far more like humans than we tend to, and probably want to, admit: BBC News reports scientists in Scotland and others from Oxford University have documented behavior which suggests chimpanzees emotionally feel death much like humans do.
In the first case, the behavior of chimps after the death of a terminally ill 50-year-old female chimp at a Scottish safari park was documented with video cameras. Her friends and family became lethargic leading up to the death and stayed with her, grooming her in the final moments. After she died, her daughter stayed near the body, even though she had never slept nearby before.
In the second, also documented on video, mothers of dead chimps carried around and defended the bodies of their dead, and later naturally mummified, offspring for over two months.
Boundaries Between Humans and Animals Not As Clearly Defined
James Anderson, who led the first study:
Several phenomena have at one time or another been considered as setting humans apart from other species: Reasoning ability, language ability, tool use, cultural variation, and self-awareness, for example. But science has provided strong evidence that the boundaries between us and other species are nowhere near to being as clearly defined as people used to think.
It’s Time for Extending Human Rights…
The natural extension of this is, if chimps are better than 99 percent the same as humans biologically, have greater cognitive ability than previously thought, and now also have emotionally-similar grieving to humans, how can we justify testing products on them without consent? How can we keep them in conditions that are less comfortable than we ourselves would stay in? Really, shouldn’t we be talking about extending what we now call human rights to at least some non-human animals?
In the first case, the behavior of chimps after the death of a terminally ill 50-year-old female chimp at a Scottish safari park was documented with video cameras. Her friends and family became lethargic leading up to the death and stayed with her, grooming her in the final moments. After she died, her daughter stayed near the body, even though she had never slept nearby before.
In the second, also documented on video, mothers of dead chimps carried around and defended the bodies of their dead, and later naturally mummified, offspring for over two months.
Boundaries Between Humans and Animals Not As Clearly Defined
James Anderson, who led the first study:
Several phenomena have at one time or another been considered as setting humans apart from other species: Reasoning ability, language ability, tool use, cultural variation, and self-awareness, for example. But science has provided strong evidence that the boundaries between us and other species are nowhere near to being as clearly defined as people used to think.
It’s Time for Extending Human Rights…
The natural extension of this is, if chimps are better than 99 percent the same as humans biologically, have greater cognitive ability than previously thought, and now also have emotionally-similar grieving to humans, how can we justify testing products on them without consent? How can we keep them in conditions that are less comfortable than we ourselves would stay in? Really, shouldn’t we be talking about extending what we now call human rights to at least some non-human animals?
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
TEA BAGGERS
Posted: 27 Apr 2010 10:04 AM PDT
The University of Washington has just published a multi-state study that offers convincing evidence that members of the Tea Party are far more likely to be racist than average Americans. Their results agree with a recent NY Times / CBS News survey that found similar racist attitudes. But Tea Partiers know they should not use overtly racist language, “so they use coded language”. Like about “taking our country back” … but from whom?
If you doubt this, here’s a simple exercise you can do. Imagine the Tea Party doing and saying the same things it does now, but its members are black (or Arabic, or Latino), and the president is white.
Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired.
Because Tea Partiers did that.
Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters — the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government.
White gun enthusiasts and Tea Partiers did that.
Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.”
Yup, Rush Limbaugh said all that.
Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?”
Michael Savage said those things, and Texas Congressman John Culberson praised him for it.
Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.”
Rocker Ted Nugent said that about President Obama.
Tim Wise sums it up nicely:
This, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.
The University of Washington has just published a multi-state study that offers convincing evidence that members of the Tea Party are far more likely to be racist than average Americans. Their results agree with a recent NY Times / CBS News survey that found similar racist attitudes. But Tea Partiers know they should not use overtly racist language, “so they use coded language”. Like about “taking our country back” … but from whom?
If you doubt this, here’s a simple exercise you can do. Imagine the Tea Party doing and saying the same things it does now, but its members are black (or Arabic, or Latino), and the president is white.
Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired.
Because Tea Partiers did that.
Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters — the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government.
White gun enthusiasts and Tea Partiers did that.
Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.”
Yup, Rush Limbaugh said all that.
Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?”
Michael Savage said those things, and Texas Congressman John Culberson praised him for it.
Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.”
Rocker Ted Nugent said that about President Obama.
Tim Wise sums it up nicely:
This, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.
Friday, April 16, 2010
NOW THEY ARE MAD??? GIVE ME A BREAK!!
We are told by the Tea-Party that they are “mad and can’t take it anymore”
and that the rest of us should be too!
Folks, we had eight years of Bush and Cheney, but NOW they are getting
mad??? REALLY?!!!! NO, REALLY? !!!!
They didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.
They didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.
They didn’t get mad about gas prices when Bush and Cheney friends at the oil companies raised a gallon of gas price to more than $5 and posted highest profits
in the history of U.S for 8 years straight (Bush presidency).
They didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative identity was revealed.
They didn't get mad when the Patriot Act, which allows torture and disregards personal rights for Americans, got passed.
They didn't get mad when Bush and Cheney illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us, Iraq .
They didn't get mad when Bush and Cheney spent over 600 billion (and counting) on said illegal war, Iraq .
They didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq .
They didn't get mad when they found out about torturing people.
They didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.
They didn't get mad that Bin Laden was not caught when Bush had a chance to do so.
They didn't get mad when they saw the horrible veterans conditions at Walter Reed.
They didn't get mad when Bush let a major US city drown like a 3rd world country.
They didn't get mad when Bush gave a 900 billion tax break to the rich.
They didn't get mad when, using reconciliation; a trillion dollars of our tax dollars was redirected to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage, which cost over 20 percent more for basically the same services that Medicare provides.
They didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark (when during Clinton presidency we had almost a Trillion dollars surplus), and our debt hit the thirteen trillion dollar mark.
They finally got mad when a government decided that people in America deserved the right to get treatment if they are sick and can not afford to do so.
Yes, an illegal war, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all okay with the Tea party. They are partying not with tea, but with sucking the blood of the ordinary Americans.
Sure! NOW, THEY ARE MAD!!! Helping the ordinary Americans...
”Oh Hell No! They have got mad!!!”
Get Real!!!
Please forward to as many people as you know.
and that the rest of us should be too!
Folks, we had eight years of Bush and Cheney, but NOW they are getting
mad??? REALLY?!!!! NO, REALLY? !!!!
They didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.
They didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.
They didn’t get mad about gas prices when Bush and Cheney friends at the oil companies raised a gallon of gas price to more than $5 and posted highest profits
in the history of U.S for 8 years straight (Bush presidency).
They didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative identity was revealed.
They didn't get mad when the Patriot Act, which allows torture and disregards personal rights for Americans, got passed.
They didn't get mad when Bush and Cheney illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us, Iraq .
They didn't get mad when Bush and Cheney spent over 600 billion (and counting) on said illegal war, Iraq .
They didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq .
They didn't get mad when they found out about torturing people.
They didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.
They didn't get mad that Bin Laden was not caught when Bush had a chance to do so.
They didn't get mad when they saw the horrible veterans conditions at Walter Reed.
They didn't get mad when Bush let a major US city drown like a 3rd world country.
They didn't get mad when Bush gave a 900 billion tax break to the rich.
They didn't get mad when, using reconciliation; a trillion dollars of our tax dollars was redirected to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage, which cost over 20 percent more for basically the same services that Medicare provides.
They didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark (when during Clinton presidency we had almost a Trillion dollars surplus), and our debt hit the thirteen trillion dollar mark.
They finally got mad when a government decided that people in America deserved the right to get treatment if they are sick and can not afford to do so.
Yes, an illegal war, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all okay with the Tea party. They are partying not with tea, but with sucking the blood of the ordinary Americans.
Sure! NOW, THEY ARE MAD!!! Helping the ordinary Americans...
”Oh Hell No! They have got mad!!!”
Get Real!!!
Please forward to as many people as you know.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
MAKE ME A WITNESS-
Make Me a Witness
By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News
12 April 2010
All morning October 2002 phone rings, I answer, woman's voice begins in earnest: "Hello is this Truthout?" "Yes," I reply, "this is Truthout." Woman's voice: "Paul Wellstone has been killed in a plane crash... are you there... did you hear what I said?" "Yes," I replied finally, "I heard you." Woman's voice: "His small plane crashed this morning. His wife and daughter were killed with him. His plane crashed the same way Mel Carnahan's did... it was the same thing... do you understand? You must say it was the same thing." "Yes," I replied, "I understand." I don't remember her saying anything else, I don't remember her hanging up.
It was the same thing.
People talk from time to time about the Bush years and what they meant. They meant the death of American integrity.
It was a pivotal turning point for all things that mattered. From law to militarism, to civil and human rights; from things foreign and domestic, to education and the environment. Ruthlessness triumphed over the good of mankind from start to finish.
The process could not have had a more ominous start. The Supreme Court of the United States of America interceded in the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. Voting without legal or historical precedent, along partisan political lines, to insert corporate America's too-good-to-be-true candidate come true, George W. Bush as commander in chief.
For a graphic understanding of what it all meant, watch the WikiLeaks video of an American Apache helicopter crew gunning down people in the streets of Baghdad. Listen to their voices, they'll tell you what time it is.
And it's on to Afghanistan, and let's win there.
100 Mai Lais, the destruction of Babylon, a trillion dollars of US taxpayer money to the Iraq war, so far, and a trillion more handed to the Wall Street bankers as they foreclose on American home after home.
We do torture. We have always tortured. The difference is that now we rationalize it, discuss it in mainstream print, radio and television broadcasts. We live with it, we turn a blind eye to it, and because we cannot face it down we are endlessly tortured by it.
The issue is justice, in all things. The willingness to do the right thing, and the wisdom to understand that it is not harder or more costly, but easier, more natural and more fulfilling to be fair than it is to deny fairness. These are things we knew, really things we know now, but choose to forget.
Which is the better national security strategy, peace through strength or strength through peace? Choose one, you can't have both. Ever heard the adage, "The cold war was a race between the US and the Soviet Union to see who would go bankrupt first"? But that was when the Soviet Army was bogged down in Afghanistan. Now the American military is.
Get a job. Can't get a job working for a corporation anymore? Get a job fighting a war for corporations at one-third the pay. Main street look like a ghost town? Might be a perfect time to go independent.
Make me a witness. Make you a witness too.
By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News
12 April 2010
All morning October 2002 phone rings, I answer, woman's voice begins in earnest: "Hello is this Truthout?" "Yes," I reply, "this is Truthout." Woman's voice: "Paul Wellstone has been killed in a plane crash... are you there... did you hear what I said?" "Yes," I replied finally, "I heard you." Woman's voice: "His small plane crashed this morning. His wife and daughter were killed with him. His plane crashed the same way Mel Carnahan's did... it was the same thing... do you understand? You must say it was the same thing." "Yes," I replied, "I understand." I don't remember her saying anything else, I don't remember her hanging up.
It was the same thing.
People talk from time to time about the Bush years and what they meant. They meant the death of American integrity.
It was a pivotal turning point for all things that mattered. From law to militarism, to civil and human rights; from things foreign and domestic, to education and the environment. Ruthlessness triumphed over the good of mankind from start to finish.
The process could not have had a more ominous start. The Supreme Court of the United States of America interceded in the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. Voting without legal or historical precedent, along partisan political lines, to insert corporate America's too-good-to-be-true candidate come true, George W. Bush as commander in chief.
For a graphic understanding of what it all meant, watch the WikiLeaks video of an American Apache helicopter crew gunning down people in the streets of Baghdad. Listen to their voices, they'll tell you what time it is.
And it's on to Afghanistan, and let's win there.
100 Mai Lais, the destruction of Babylon, a trillion dollars of US taxpayer money to the Iraq war, so far, and a trillion more handed to the Wall Street bankers as they foreclose on American home after home.
We do torture. We have always tortured. The difference is that now we rationalize it, discuss it in mainstream print, radio and television broadcasts. We live with it, we turn a blind eye to it, and because we cannot face it down we are endlessly tortured by it.
The issue is justice, in all things. The willingness to do the right thing, and the wisdom to understand that it is not harder or more costly, but easier, more natural and more fulfilling to be fair than it is to deny fairness. These are things we knew, really things we know now, but choose to forget.
Which is the better national security strategy, peace through strength or strength through peace? Choose one, you can't have both. Ever heard the adage, "The cold war was a race between the US and the Soviet Union to see who would go bankrupt first"? But that was when the Soviet Army was bogged down in Afghanistan. Now the American military is.
Get a job. Can't get a job working for a corporation anymore? Get a job fighting a war for corporations at one-third the pay. Main street look like a ghost town? Might be a perfect time to go independent.
Make me a witness. Make you a witness too.
RADICAL PRESIDENTS- JOHN AVALON
New York (CNN) -- Newt Gingrich called President Obama "the most radical president in American history" at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference last week.
The leader of the 1994 Republican Revolution is a smart man and a historian, so he must know better. But he's also exploring a run for president, an action that frequently suspends good judgment in pursuit of sound bites. Perspective is the first thing abandoned in hyper-partisan attacks.
So here is a look at five presidents who, it could be argued, exceed Obama in the "radical" sweepstakes.
• Franklin D. Roosevelt: How about this for radical: a president who overturned the two-term precedent set by George Washington and ultimately won four terms in an era when dictators were in vogue worldwide. He also proposed expanding the Supreme Court to pack it with his own appointees, attempting to fundamentally alter the separation of powers. And his New Deal created the basis for the modern welfare state in the U.S., whose apex under self-styled inheritor Lyndon Johnson provoked a backlash that ushered in a generation of conservative resurgence.
• John Adams: The nation's second president has been getting a well-deserved reappraisal, thanks to David McCullough's magisterial biography. But Adams' signing of the Alien and Sedition acts during the threat of war -- effectively outlawing anti-government dissent and curtailing freedom of speech and freedom of the press -- was a radically anti-democratic action and a black mark on this Founding Father's otherwise honorable service to our nation.
• Andrew Jackson: The man on the $20 bill was the original populist president, a general who fought Washington elites, British soldiers and native American tribes alike. Old Hickory's wars with the Second National Bank, Congress and the Supreme Court were legendary. His native American removal policies rescinded previously agreed-upon treaties and brought about the infamous "Trail of Tears" that led to the deaths of thousands.
• Abraham Lincoln: Abolitionists accused Lincoln of being insufficiently radical because he pledged only to preserve the union at all costs. But his political opponents accused him of being radical because he wanted to stop the spread of slavery, and they spurred secession from the union soon after hearing of his election. It's a reminder that exaggerated fear of change can lead to the rise of violent factions. During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. He has become controversial again to some activists; one panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference asked, "Lincoln on Liberty: Friend or Foe?"
• George W. Bush: The Bush Doctrine reversed decades of American foreign policy by allowing pre-emptive invasions of foreign nations. In Iraq's case, this was complicated by the fact that the dictator in question did not, in fact, have the weapons of mass destruction as advertised. Add to that Bush's reluctance to actually pay for his wars directly, which resulted in his turning a hard-won surplus into a deficit, and you've got what can be considered a radical affront to small-government conservative principles from a Republican president.
Each of these presidents has his passionate defenders, and many are routinely listed among America's greatest chief executives.
Of course, plenty of other presidents could be added to this list: from Woodrow Wilson, who institutionalized segregation in the federal government, to Richard Nixon, whose "Saturday Night Massacre" firing of his attorney general, Justice Department first deputy and independent special prosecutor created a constitutional crisis in the wake of Watergate.
But you get the idea. None of the presidents are really radical in any global sense. Any all-good or all-bad analysis of American history always misses the big picture. And politics is history in the present tense.
Yes, the past 16 months have seen unprecedented levels of government spending, intended to alleviate the economic crisis that was occurring when Obama took office. And although skyrocketing debts and deficits are dangerous if not addressed decisively in the near-term, Obama's general approach to the office has been decidedly more center-left than radical left.
Think Afghanistan, for example, where he has committed more troops to the war. Or his economic team, led by Clinton administration alumni and Wall Street veterans. Though many conservatives have called him a socialist, some liberals (and libertarian Republican Ron Paul) consider him a "corporatist." You can't be both a socialist and a corporatist at the same time.
The larger issue is politics, plain and simple. Gingrich is trying to run for president. And red meat lines like "the most radical president in American history" help keep him relevant in GOP circles.
The real issue is less what Obama has done as president than who he is.
Gingrich and most baby boomer conservatives have spent their professional lives running against the liberal excesses of the 1960s. It is engrained in their political DNA. And Obama looks like a child of the Great Society, an embodiment of the social changes of the 1960s.
The more centrist his rhetoric, the more some conservatives are convinced that it's all part of activist Saul Alinsky's playbook: to sound reasonable but act radical. The problem is that this suspicion of Obama's motives dooms any concept of common ground and poisons the well for bipartisan progress. You can't negotiate reasonably with a president when you've convinced supporters that he is a threat to our constitutional republic.
More broadly, we've grown almost accustomed to these overheated attacks on the presidency. Obama Derangement Syndrome on the right -- of which Gingrich's claim was a mild example -- was preceded by Bush Derangement Syndrome on the left, with protestors comparing W. to a Nazi and a terrorist.
As a country, we have become accustomed to using fear and hate in the service of hyper-partisanship. We need to wake up to the fact that demonizing people we disagree with, and indulging in attempts to delegitimize a duly elected president from Day One, hurts us all as a nation. We can do better -- and we deserve better, especially from people who want to lead the nation themselves.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John P. Avlon.
The leader of the 1994 Republican Revolution is a smart man and a historian, so he must know better. But he's also exploring a run for president, an action that frequently suspends good judgment in pursuit of sound bites. Perspective is the first thing abandoned in hyper-partisan attacks.
So here is a look at five presidents who, it could be argued, exceed Obama in the "radical" sweepstakes.
• Franklin D. Roosevelt: How about this for radical: a president who overturned the two-term precedent set by George Washington and ultimately won four terms in an era when dictators were in vogue worldwide. He also proposed expanding the Supreme Court to pack it with his own appointees, attempting to fundamentally alter the separation of powers. And his New Deal created the basis for the modern welfare state in the U.S., whose apex under self-styled inheritor Lyndon Johnson provoked a backlash that ushered in a generation of conservative resurgence.
• John Adams: The nation's second president has been getting a well-deserved reappraisal, thanks to David McCullough's magisterial biography. But Adams' signing of the Alien and Sedition acts during the threat of war -- effectively outlawing anti-government dissent and curtailing freedom of speech and freedom of the press -- was a radically anti-democratic action and a black mark on this Founding Father's otherwise honorable service to our nation.
• Andrew Jackson: The man on the $20 bill was the original populist president, a general who fought Washington elites, British soldiers and native American tribes alike. Old Hickory's wars with the Second National Bank, Congress and the Supreme Court were legendary. His native American removal policies rescinded previously agreed-upon treaties and brought about the infamous "Trail of Tears" that led to the deaths of thousands.
• Abraham Lincoln: Abolitionists accused Lincoln of being insufficiently radical because he pledged only to preserve the union at all costs. But his political opponents accused him of being radical because he wanted to stop the spread of slavery, and they spurred secession from the union soon after hearing of his election. It's a reminder that exaggerated fear of change can lead to the rise of violent factions. During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. He has become controversial again to some activists; one panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference asked, "Lincoln on Liberty: Friend or Foe?"
• George W. Bush: The Bush Doctrine reversed decades of American foreign policy by allowing pre-emptive invasions of foreign nations. In Iraq's case, this was complicated by the fact that the dictator in question did not, in fact, have the weapons of mass destruction as advertised. Add to that Bush's reluctance to actually pay for his wars directly, which resulted in his turning a hard-won surplus into a deficit, and you've got what can be considered a radical affront to small-government conservative principles from a Republican president.
Each of these presidents has his passionate defenders, and many are routinely listed among America's greatest chief executives.
Of course, plenty of other presidents could be added to this list: from Woodrow Wilson, who institutionalized segregation in the federal government, to Richard Nixon, whose "Saturday Night Massacre" firing of his attorney general, Justice Department first deputy and independent special prosecutor created a constitutional crisis in the wake of Watergate.
But you get the idea. None of the presidents are really radical in any global sense. Any all-good or all-bad analysis of American history always misses the big picture. And politics is history in the present tense.
Yes, the past 16 months have seen unprecedented levels of government spending, intended to alleviate the economic crisis that was occurring when Obama took office. And although skyrocketing debts and deficits are dangerous if not addressed decisively in the near-term, Obama's general approach to the office has been decidedly more center-left than radical left.
Think Afghanistan, for example, where he has committed more troops to the war. Or his economic team, led by Clinton administration alumni and Wall Street veterans. Though many conservatives have called him a socialist, some liberals (and libertarian Republican Ron Paul) consider him a "corporatist." You can't be both a socialist and a corporatist at the same time.
The larger issue is politics, plain and simple. Gingrich is trying to run for president. And red meat lines like "the most radical president in American history" help keep him relevant in GOP circles.
The real issue is less what Obama has done as president than who he is.
Gingrich and most baby boomer conservatives have spent their professional lives running against the liberal excesses of the 1960s. It is engrained in their political DNA. And Obama looks like a child of the Great Society, an embodiment of the social changes of the 1960s.
The more centrist his rhetoric, the more some conservatives are convinced that it's all part of activist Saul Alinsky's playbook: to sound reasonable but act radical. The problem is that this suspicion of Obama's motives dooms any concept of common ground and poisons the well for bipartisan progress. You can't negotiate reasonably with a president when you've convinced supporters that he is a threat to our constitutional republic.
More broadly, we've grown almost accustomed to these overheated attacks on the presidency. Obama Derangement Syndrome on the right -- of which Gingrich's claim was a mild example -- was preceded by Bush Derangement Syndrome on the left, with protestors comparing W. to a Nazi and a terrorist.
As a country, we have become accustomed to using fear and hate in the service of hyper-partisanship. We need to wake up to the fact that demonizing people we disagree with, and indulging in attempts to delegitimize a duly elected president from Day One, hurts us all as a nation. We can do better -- and we deserve better, especially from people who want to lead the nation themselves.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John P. Avlon.
DOES REASON KNOW WHAT IT IS MISSING? STANLEY FISH
The German philosopher Jürgen Habermas has long been recognized as the most persistent and influential defender of an Enlightenment rationality that has been attacked both by postmodernism, which derides formal reason’s claims of internal coherence and neutrality, and by various fundamentalisms, which subordinate reason to religious imperatives that sweep everything before them, often not stopping at violence.
In his earlier work, Habermas believed, as many did, that the ambition of religion to provide a foundation of social cohesion and normative guidance could now, in the Modern Age, be fulfilled by the full development of human rational capacities harnessed to a “discourse ethics” that admitted into the conversation only propositions vying for the status of “better reasons,” with “better” being determined by a free and open process rather than by presupposed ideological or religious commitments: “…the authority of the holy,” he once declared, “is gradually replaced by the authority of an achieved consensus.”
In recent years, however, Habermas’s stance toward religion has changed. First, he now believes that religion is not going away and that it will continue to play a large and indispensable part in many societies and social movements. And second, he believes that in a post-secular age — an age that recognizes the inability of the secular to go it alone — some form of interaction with religion is necessary: “Among the modern societies, only those that are able to introduce into the secular domain the essential contents of their religious traditions which point beyond the merely human realm will also be able to rescue the substance of the human.”
The question of course is what does Habermas mean by “introduce”? How exactly is the cooperation between secular reason and faith to be managed? Habermas attempted to answer that question in the course of a dialogue with four Jesuit academics who met with him in Munich in 2007. The proceedings have now been published in Ciaran Cronin’s English translation (they appeared in German in 2008) under the title “An Awareness of What is Missing: Faith and Reason in a Post-secular Age.”
Habermas begins his initial contribution to the conversation by recalling the funeral of a friend who in life “rejected any profession of faith,” and yet indicated before his death that he wanted his memorial service to take place at St. Peter’s Church in Zurich. Habermas decides that his friend “had sensed the awkwardness of non-religious burial practices and, by his choice of place, publicly declared that the enlightened modern age has failed to find a suitable replacement for a religious way of coping with the final rite de passage.” The point can be sharpened: in the context of full-bodied secularism, there would seem to be nothing to pass on to, and therefore no reason for anything like a funeral.
To be sure, one could regard funerals for faith-less persons as a vestige of values no longer vital or as a concession to the feelings and desires of family members, but Habermas chooses to take it seriously “as a paradoxical event which tells us something about secular reason.” What it tells us, he goes on to say, is that secular reason is missing something and without it threatens to “spin out of control.”
What secular reason is missing is self-awareness. It is “unenlightened about itself” in the sense that it has within itself no mechanism for questioning the products and conclusions of its formal, procedural entailments and experiments. “Postmetaphysical thinking,” Habermas contends, “cannot cope on its own with the defeatism concerning reason which we encounter today both in the postmodern radicalization of the ‘dialectic of the Enlightenment’ and in the naturalism founded on a naïve faith in science.”
Postmodernism announces (loudly and often) that a supposedly neutral, objective rationality is always a construct informed by interests it neither acknowledges nor knows nor can know. Meanwhile science goes its merry way endlessly inventing and proliferating technological marvels without having the slightest idea of why. The “naive faith” Habermas criticizes is not a faith in what science can do — it can do anything — but a faith in science’s ability to provide reasons, aside from the reason of its own keeping on going, for doing it and for declining to do it in a particular direction because to do so would be wrong.
The counterpart of science in the political world is the modern Liberal state, which, Habermas reminds us, maintains “a neutrality . . . towards world views,” that is, toward comprehensive visions (like religious visions) of what life means, where it is going and what we should be doing to help it get there. The problem is that a political structure that welcomes all worldviews into the marketplace of ideas, but holds itself aloof from any and all of them, will have no basis for judging the outcomes its procedures yield. Worldviews bring with them substantive long-term goals that serve as a check against local desires. Worldviews furnish those who live within them with reasons that are more than merely prudential or strategic for acting in one way rather than another.
The Liberal state, resting on a base of procedural rationality, delivers no such goals or reasons and thus suffers, Habermas says, from a “motivational weakness”; it cannot inspire its citizens to virtuous (as opposed to self-interested) acts because it has lost “its grip on the images, preserved by religion, of the moral whole” and is unable to formulate “collectively binding ideals.”
The liberal citizen is taught that he is the possessor of rights and that the state exists to protect those rights, chief among which is his right to choose. The content of what he chooses — the direction in which he points his life — is a matter of indifference to the state which guarantees his right to go there just as it guarantees the corresponding rights of his neighbors (“different strokes for different folks”). Enlightenment rational morality, Habermas concludes, “is aimed at the insight of individuals, and does not foster any impulse toward solidarity, that is, toward morally guided collective action.”
The consequences of this “motivational weakness” can be seen all around us in the massive injustices nations and tribes inflict on one another. In the face of these injustices, a reason “decoupled from worldviews” does not, Habermas laments, have “sufficient strength to awaken, and to keep awake, in the minds of secular subjects, an awareness of the violations of solidarity throughout the world, an awareness of what is missing, of what cries out to heaven.”
So what will supply the strength that is missing? The answer is more than implied by the reference to heaven. Religion will supply it. But Habermas does not want to embrace religion wholesale for he does not want to give up the “cognitive achievements of modernity” — which include tolerance, equality, individual freedom, freedom of thought, cosmopolitanism and scientific advancement — and risk surrendering to the fundamentalisms that, he says, willfully “cut themselves off” from everything that is good about the Enlightenment project. And so he proposes something less than a merger and more like an agreement between trading partners: “…the religious side must accept the authority of ‘natural’ reason as the fallible results of the institutionalized sciences and the basic principles of universalistic egalitarianism in law and morality. Conversely, secular reason may not set itself up as the judge concerning truths of faith, even though in the end it can accept as reasonable only what it can translate into its own, in principle universally accessible, discourses.”
As Norbert Brieskorn, one of Habermas’s interlocutors, points out, in Habermas’s bargain “reason addresses demands to the religious communities” but “there is no mention of demands from the opposite direction.” Religion must give up the spheres of law, government, morality and knowledge; reason is asked only to be nice and not dismiss religion as irrational, retrograde and irrelevant. The “truths of faith” can be heard but only those portions of them that have secular counterparts can be admitted into the realm of public discourse. (It seems like a case of “separate but not equal.”) Religion gets to be respected; reason gets to borrow the motivational resources it lacks on its own, resources it can then use to put a brake on its out-of-control spinning.
The result, as Michael Reder, another of Habermas’s interlocutors, observes, is a religion that has been “instrumentalized,” made into something useful for a secular reason that still has no use for its teleological and eschatological underpinnings. Religions, explains Reder, are brought in only “to help to prevent or overcome social disruptions.” Once they have performed this service they go back in their box and don’t trouble us with uncomfortable cosmic demands. At best (and at most), according to Habermas, “the encounter with theology,” like an encounter at a cocktail party, “can remind a self-forgetful secular reason of its origins” in the same “revolutions in worldviews” that gave us monotheism. (One God and one reason stem from the same historical source.)
But Habermas gives us no reason (if you will pardon the word) to believe that such a reminder would be heeded and lead to reason’s being furnished with the motivation-for-solidarity it lacks. Why would secular reason, asked only to acknowledge a genealogical kinship with a form of thought it still compartmentalizes and condescends to, pay serious attention to what that form of thought has to offer? By Habermas’s own account the two great worldviews still remain far apart. Religions resist becoming happy participants in a companionable pluralism and insist on the rightness, for everyone, of their doctrines. Liberal rationality is committed to pluralism and cannot affirm the absolute rightness of anything except its own (empty) proceduralism.
The borrowings and one-way concessions Habermas urges seem insufficient to effect a true and fruitful rapprochment. Nothing he proposes would remove the deficiency he acknowledges when he says that the “humanist self-confidence of a philosophical reason which thinks that it is capable of determining what is true and false” has been “shaken” by “the catastrophes of the twentieth century.” The edifice is not going to be propped up and made strong by something so weak as a reminder, and it is not clear at the end of a volume chock-full of rigorous and impassioned deliberations that secular reason can be saved. There is still something missing.
In his earlier work, Habermas believed, as many did, that the ambition of religion to provide a foundation of social cohesion and normative guidance could now, in the Modern Age, be fulfilled by the full development of human rational capacities harnessed to a “discourse ethics” that admitted into the conversation only propositions vying for the status of “better reasons,” with “better” being determined by a free and open process rather than by presupposed ideological or religious commitments: “…the authority of the holy,” he once declared, “is gradually replaced by the authority of an achieved consensus.”
In recent years, however, Habermas’s stance toward religion has changed. First, he now believes that religion is not going away and that it will continue to play a large and indispensable part in many societies and social movements. And second, he believes that in a post-secular age — an age that recognizes the inability of the secular to go it alone — some form of interaction with religion is necessary: “Among the modern societies, only those that are able to introduce into the secular domain the essential contents of their religious traditions which point beyond the merely human realm will also be able to rescue the substance of the human.”
The question of course is what does Habermas mean by “introduce”? How exactly is the cooperation between secular reason and faith to be managed? Habermas attempted to answer that question in the course of a dialogue with four Jesuit academics who met with him in Munich in 2007. The proceedings have now been published in Ciaran Cronin’s English translation (they appeared in German in 2008) under the title “An Awareness of What is Missing: Faith and Reason in a Post-secular Age.”
Habermas begins his initial contribution to the conversation by recalling the funeral of a friend who in life “rejected any profession of faith,” and yet indicated before his death that he wanted his memorial service to take place at St. Peter’s Church in Zurich. Habermas decides that his friend “had sensed the awkwardness of non-religious burial practices and, by his choice of place, publicly declared that the enlightened modern age has failed to find a suitable replacement for a religious way of coping with the final rite de passage.” The point can be sharpened: in the context of full-bodied secularism, there would seem to be nothing to pass on to, and therefore no reason for anything like a funeral.
To be sure, one could regard funerals for faith-less persons as a vestige of values no longer vital or as a concession to the feelings and desires of family members, but Habermas chooses to take it seriously “as a paradoxical event which tells us something about secular reason.” What it tells us, he goes on to say, is that secular reason is missing something and without it threatens to “spin out of control.”
What secular reason is missing is self-awareness. It is “unenlightened about itself” in the sense that it has within itself no mechanism for questioning the products and conclusions of its formal, procedural entailments and experiments. “Postmetaphysical thinking,” Habermas contends, “cannot cope on its own with the defeatism concerning reason which we encounter today both in the postmodern radicalization of the ‘dialectic of the Enlightenment’ and in the naturalism founded on a naïve faith in science.”
Postmodernism announces (loudly and often) that a supposedly neutral, objective rationality is always a construct informed by interests it neither acknowledges nor knows nor can know. Meanwhile science goes its merry way endlessly inventing and proliferating technological marvels without having the slightest idea of why. The “naive faith” Habermas criticizes is not a faith in what science can do — it can do anything — but a faith in science’s ability to provide reasons, aside from the reason of its own keeping on going, for doing it and for declining to do it in a particular direction because to do so would be wrong.
The counterpart of science in the political world is the modern Liberal state, which, Habermas reminds us, maintains “a neutrality . . . towards world views,” that is, toward comprehensive visions (like religious visions) of what life means, where it is going and what we should be doing to help it get there. The problem is that a political structure that welcomes all worldviews into the marketplace of ideas, but holds itself aloof from any and all of them, will have no basis for judging the outcomes its procedures yield. Worldviews bring with them substantive long-term goals that serve as a check against local desires. Worldviews furnish those who live within them with reasons that are more than merely prudential or strategic for acting in one way rather than another.
The Liberal state, resting on a base of procedural rationality, delivers no such goals or reasons and thus suffers, Habermas says, from a “motivational weakness”; it cannot inspire its citizens to virtuous (as opposed to self-interested) acts because it has lost “its grip on the images, preserved by religion, of the moral whole” and is unable to formulate “collectively binding ideals.”
The liberal citizen is taught that he is the possessor of rights and that the state exists to protect those rights, chief among which is his right to choose. The content of what he chooses — the direction in which he points his life — is a matter of indifference to the state which guarantees his right to go there just as it guarantees the corresponding rights of his neighbors (“different strokes for different folks”). Enlightenment rational morality, Habermas concludes, “is aimed at the insight of individuals, and does not foster any impulse toward solidarity, that is, toward morally guided collective action.”
The consequences of this “motivational weakness” can be seen all around us in the massive injustices nations and tribes inflict on one another. In the face of these injustices, a reason “decoupled from worldviews” does not, Habermas laments, have “sufficient strength to awaken, and to keep awake, in the minds of secular subjects, an awareness of the violations of solidarity throughout the world, an awareness of what is missing, of what cries out to heaven.”
So what will supply the strength that is missing? The answer is more than implied by the reference to heaven. Religion will supply it. But Habermas does not want to embrace religion wholesale for he does not want to give up the “cognitive achievements of modernity” — which include tolerance, equality, individual freedom, freedom of thought, cosmopolitanism and scientific advancement — and risk surrendering to the fundamentalisms that, he says, willfully “cut themselves off” from everything that is good about the Enlightenment project. And so he proposes something less than a merger and more like an agreement between trading partners: “…the religious side must accept the authority of ‘natural’ reason as the fallible results of the institutionalized sciences and the basic principles of universalistic egalitarianism in law and morality. Conversely, secular reason may not set itself up as the judge concerning truths of faith, even though in the end it can accept as reasonable only what it can translate into its own, in principle universally accessible, discourses.”
As Norbert Brieskorn, one of Habermas’s interlocutors, points out, in Habermas’s bargain “reason addresses demands to the religious communities” but “there is no mention of demands from the opposite direction.” Religion must give up the spheres of law, government, morality and knowledge; reason is asked only to be nice and not dismiss religion as irrational, retrograde and irrelevant. The “truths of faith” can be heard but only those portions of them that have secular counterparts can be admitted into the realm of public discourse. (It seems like a case of “separate but not equal.”) Religion gets to be respected; reason gets to borrow the motivational resources it lacks on its own, resources it can then use to put a brake on its out-of-control spinning.
The result, as Michael Reder, another of Habermas’s interlocutors, observes, is a religion that has been “instrumentalized,” made into something useful for a secular reason that still has no use for its teleological and eschatological underpinnings. Religions, explains Reder, are brought in only “to help to prevent or overcome social disruptions.” Once they have performed this service they go back in their box and don’t trouble us with uncomfortable cosmic demands. At best (and at most), according to Habermas, “the encounter with theology,” like an encounter at a cocktail party, “can remind a self-forgetful secular reason of its origins” in the same “revolutions in worldviews” that gave us monotheism. (One God and one reason stem from the same historical source.)
But Habermas gives us no reason (if you will pardon the word) to believe that such a reminder would be heeded and lead to reason’s being furnished with the motivation-for-solidarity it lacks. Why would secular reason, asked only to acknowledge a genealogical kinship with a form of thought it still compartmentalizes and condescends to, pay serious attention to what that form of thought has to offer? By Habermas’s own account the two great worldviews still remain far apart. Religions resist becoming happy participants in a companionable pluralism and insist on the rightness, for everyone, of their doctrines. Liberal rationality is committed to pluralism and cannot affirm the absolute rightness of anything except its own (empty) proceduralism.
The borrowings and one-way concessions Habermas urges seem insufficient to effect a true and fruitful rapprochment. Nothing he proposes would remove the deficiency he acknowledges when he says that the “humanist self-confidence of a philosophical reason which thinks that it is capable of determining what is true and false” has been “shaken” by “the catastrophes of the twentieth century.” The edifice is not going to be propped up and made strong by something so weak as a reminder, and it is not clear at the end of a volume chock-full of rigorous and impassioned deliberations that secular reason can be saved. There is still something missing.
Monday, April 12, 2010
NBC Mind Control for the viewers
Business
Unvarnished.com: Career destroyer?
U.S. Business
Email
NBC's 'cynical' mind-control games
The network admits it uses "behavior placement" on popular shows to encourage healthy, eco-friendly habits — and sell ads.
posted on April 9, 2010, at 6:43 PM
Sponsored by
Tina Fey before NBC instituted
Tina Fey before NBC instituted "behavior placement." Photo: Creative Commons
Best Opinion: Movieline, Wall Street Journal, Mediaite
First there was product placement. Now there's "behavior placement," the planting of subtle messages in popular TV shows to encourage certain viewer behavior — such as healthy eating or eco-conscious habits — and thereby convince sponsors that their brands will be associated with "feel-good, socially aware" shows. NBC has owned up to the practice, reports The Wall Street Journal, as part of its Green Initiative: If "Tina Fey is tossing a plastic bottle into the recycling bin," the theory goes, audience members will be more apt to do the same. Innocuous or "Orwellian"?
This isn't just creepy, it's dumb: The pressure to be eco-conscious has reached a new high, says says Christopher Rosen in Movieline. NBC implies that people are too dumb to make healthy decisions on their own. How "patently stupid." Do viewers really need NBC "telling them how to run their life?"
"NBC thinks you're an idiot, part 56: 'Behavior placement'"
What's the big deal? Despite the hubbub, the principles NBC promotes are "fairly innocuous," says Amy Chozick in the Wall Street Journal. "Climate change may be controversial," but these shows don't make a political statement — they simply show characters making green-conscious decisions. "Most people can agree... [this] is a good thing."
"What your TV is telling you to do"
Unfortunately, healthy habits aren't the bottom line: Clearly, for NBC, behavior placement is about dollar signs and cynicism, says Jon Bershad in Mediaite. The execs' attempts to manipulate their viewers to draw eco-conscious, health-conscious advertisers is "soul-crushing" proof that "everything is a business" these days.
"NBC — Green initiative"
Unvarnished.com: Career destroyer?
U.S. Business
NBC's 'cynical' mind-control games
The network admits it uses "behavior placement" on popular shows to encourage healthy, eco-friendly habits — and sell ads.
posted on April 9, 2010, at 6:43 PM
Sponsored by
Tina Fey before NBC instituted
Tina Fey before NBC instituted "behavior placement." Photo: Creative Commons
Best Opinion: Movieline, Wall Street Journal, Mediaite
First there was product placement. Now there's "behavior placement," the planting of subtle messages in popular TV shows to encourage certain viewer behavior — such as healthy eating or eco-conscious habits — and thereby convince sponsors that their brands will be associated with "feel-good, socially aware" shows. NBC has owned up to the practice, reports The Wall Street Journal, as part of its Green Initiative: If "Tina Fey is tossing a plastic bottle into the recycling bin," the theory goes, audience members will be more apt to do the same. Innocuous or "Orwellian"?
This isn't just creepy, it's dumb: The pressure to be eco-conscious has reached a new high, says says Christopher Rosen in Movieline. NBC implies that people are too dumb to make healthy decisions on their own. How "patently stupid." Do viewers really need NBC "telling them how to run their life?"
"NBC thinks you're an idiot, part 56: 'Behavior placement'"
What's the big deal? Despite the hubbub, the principles NBC promotes are "fairly innocuous," says Amy Chozick in the Wall Street Journal. "Climate change may be controversial," but these shows don't make a political statement — they simply show characters making green-conscious decisions. "Most people can agree... [this] is a good thing."
"What your TV is telling you to do"
Unfortunately, healthy habits aren't the bottom line: Clearly, for NBC, behavior placement is about dollar signs and cynicism, says Jon Bershad in Mediaite. The execs' attempts to manipulate their viewers to draw eco-conscious, health-conscious advertisers is "soul-crushing" proof that "everything is a business" these days.
"NBC — Green initiative"
Uganda's 'Kill the Gays' Bill on the Backburner?-Steve Williams
According to the AFP, members of a Ugandan parliamentary panel stated on Friday that, while backing for Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 still exists, support has wained and focus has turned elsewhere to matters of economic and electoral reform. Also indicated was the fact that no date has been set for when the bill should go before Uganda's lawmakers for a formal vote, and nor will it be in the near future.
From the AFP:
"I think it is useless and will not achieve what it intends to achieve," said Alex Ndeezi, a member of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee tasked with reviewing the bill before it can be presented to the house...
The panel's chairman Stephen Tashyoba said the draft law was not a priority.
"As far as I am concerned, we really have more urgent matters to discuss like electoral reforms, which are already behind schedule," he said.
The Anti-Homosexuality Bill, dubbed the "Kill the Gays Bill", would create the offense of "aggravated homosexuality" which, under certain circumstances, could mean the death penalty for repeat offenders and any sexually active gay person with HIV/AIDS.
Among other penalties, it would also demand a jail term for intent to commit homosexuality, and would call for the extradition of gay Ugandans so that they might be charged under the law. It would also make it an offense to know someone that is gay but to not inform the police about that person's sexuality, and would render HIV/AIDS relief efforts and education programs practically untenable. To read the full text of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, please click here.
The bill has received widespread condemnation from the international community since it was introduced by MP David Bahati last year, with countries such as Switzerland and the U.S. warning that passage of the bill might have serious implications for the financial aid that Uganda receives.
Last week, 120 British MPs signed an Early Day Motion condemning the bill and requesting that the British Government and the European Union press Ugandan lawmakers to abandon the proposed law and to decriminalize homosexuality altogether. While an Early Day Motion is rarely debated in the House of Commons, such motions are often used to declare an MP's personal views on a topic, or to draw attention to a specific cause or issue.
It is widely thought that the creation of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was influenced by certain American evangelicals that, in March of last year, attended a conference in Uganda entitled "A Seminar on Exposing the Homosexual Agenda." You can find more information on the possible American ties to this bill by going here.
While there are still strong forces pushing for the bill to be passed, perhaps chief among them Ugandan Ethics Minister James Nsaba Buturo who rather infamously told gay and lesbian Ugandans to "forget about human rights" and to get out of the country, it is known that Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, has said that, due to the fact that this has now become a matter of international relations, parliament should go slow and carefully weigh the legislation. He has even suggested that the more stringent aspects of the bill, including the death penalty, should be dropped, and has indicated that he would be inclined to veto the bill if this was not done.
It is known that there are several Ugandan legislators who also oppose the bill, many of whom feel that existing laws that criminalize homosexuality in the country are strict enough.
A formal vote on the bill was expected after Uganda's parliament returned from recess in February, but that vote never materialized, and, as signaled above, this does not seem to be a priority in the near future.
However, it would be premature to call the bill dead in the water, as the legislative process in Uganda is often tumultuous and unpredictable. Rather, this latest statement perhaps signals the slow abandonment of a bill that once looked certain to become law.
Thanks to international pressure, whether from world leaders like President Obama who labeled the bill "odious" and called for it to be scrapped, to the many religious quarters that also came out against the bill such as the leader of the Anglican church, Rowan Williams, who said that the bill was completely at odds with the Anglican ethos, and all this teamed with considerable opposition from within Uganda itself, the bill has now been marked as an unfavorable battleground for Museveni and Uganda's lawmakers and is likely to be seen as just too damaging on all sides to be allowed to pass, at least in its current form.
While this most recent news seems somewhat encouraging, it is imperative that we continue to apply pressure until the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 is firmly abandoned and not just watered down.
From the AFP:
"I think it is useless and will not achieve what it intends to achieve," said Alex Ndeezi, a member of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee tasked with reviewing the bill before it can be presented to the house...
The panel's chairman Stephen Tashyoba said the draft law was not a priority.
"As far as I am concerned, we really have more urgent matters to discuss like electoral reforms, which are already behind schedule," he said.
The Anti-Homosexuality Bill, dubbed the "Kill the Gays Bill", would create the offense of "aggravated homosexuality" which, under certain circumstances, could mean the death penalty for repeat offenders and any sexually active gay person with HIV/AIDS.
Among other penalties, it would also demand a jail term for intent to commit homosexuality, and would call for the extradition of gay Ugandans so that they might be charged under the law. It would also make it an offense to know someone that is gay but to not inform the police about that person's sexuality, and would render HIV/AIDS relief efforts and education programs practically untenable. To read the full text of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, please click here.
The bill has received widespread condemnation from the international community since it was introduced by MP David Bahati last year, with countries such as Switzerland and the U.S. warning that passage of the bill might have serious implications for the financial aid that Uganda receives.
Last week, 120 British MPs signed an Early Day Motion condemning the bill and requesting that the British Government and the European Union press Ugandan lawmakers to abandon the proposed law and to decriminalize homosexuality altogether. While an Early Day Motion is rarely debated in the House of Commons, such motions are often used to declare an MP's personal views on a topic, or to draw attention to a specific cause or issue.
It is widely thought that the creation of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was influenced by certain American evangelicals that, in March of last year, attended a conference in Uganda entitled "A Seminar on Exposing the Homosexual Agenda." You can find more information on the possible American ties to this bill by going here.
While there are still strong forces pushing for the bill to be passed, perhaps chief among them Ugandan Ethics Minister James Nsaba Buturo who rather infamously told gay and lesbian Ugandans to "forget about human rights" and to get out of the country, it is known that Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, has said that, due to the fact that this has now become a matter of international relations, parliament should go slow and carefully weigh the legislation. He has even suggested that the more stringent aspects of the bill, including the death penalty, should be dropped, and has indicated that he would be inclined to veto the bill if this was not done.
It is known that there are several Ugandan legislators who also oppose the bill, many of whom feel that existing laws that criminalize homosexuality in the country are strict enough.
A formal vote on the bill was expected after Uganda's parliament returned from recess in February, but that vote never materialized, and, as signaled above, this does not seem to be a priority in the near future.
However, it would be premature to call the bill dead in the water, as the legislative process in Uganda is often tumultuous and unpredictable. Rather, this latest statement perhaps signals the slow abandonment of a bill that once looked certain to become law.
Thanks to international pressure, whether from world leaders like President Obama who labeled the bill "odious" and called for it to be scrapped, to the many religious quarters that also came out against the bill such as the leader of the Anglican church, Rowan Williams, who said that the bill was completely at odds with the Anglican ethos, and all this teamed with considerable opposition from within Uganda itself, the bill has now been marked as an unfavorable battleground for Museveni and Uganda's lawmakers and is likely to be seen as just too damaging on all sides to be allowed to pass, at least in its current form.
While this most recent news seems somewhat encouraging, it is imperative that we continue to apply pressure until the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 is firmly abandoned and not just watered down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
