THIS is from today's NY TIMES:
"Federal support for the wishful abstinence-only approach, which began in the 1980s, ballooned during George W. Bush’s presidency. As the funding grew, so did evidence of the policy’s failure. A Congressionally mandated study released in 2007 found that elementary and middle school students who received abstinence instruction were just as likely to have sex in the following year as students who did not get such instruction. Many states rightly declined to participate in the abstinence program, forgoing federal money. Most of the nation’s recent progress in reducing the abortion rate has occurred in states that have shown a commitment to real sex education."
Get it? Get the stupidity? No one who piously opposes things on moralistic grounds ever actually reduces the problem they're pretending to address. Why? Because the intention of piety and moralizing is not to solve problems, folks, but to aggrandize the egos of those who judge and throw stones. That's why Conservative Christians never actually follow the teachings of Jesus, because he espoused humility and tolerance, not bombast and hatred.
Ugh!
STILL STUPID AFTER ALL THESE YEARS!
Here's some excerpts from Frank Rich's editorial today in the NY Times on how stupid we are:
"As cons go, Tiger Woods’s fraudulent image as an immaculate exemplar of superhuman steeliness is benign. His fall will damage his family, closest friends, his PR company, Accenture, and the golf industry much more than the rest of us. But the syndrome it epitomizes is not harmless. We keep being fooled by leaders in all sectors of American life, over and over. A decade that began with the “reality” television craze exemplified by “American Idol” and “Survivor” — both blissfully devoid of any reality whatsoever — spiraled into a wholesale flight from truth.
"After his 'indefinite break' from golf, Tiger Woods will surely be back on the links once the next celebrity scandal drowns his out. But after a decade in which two true national catastrophes, a wasteful war and a near-ruinous financial collapse, were both in part byproducts of the ease with which our leaders bamboozled us, we can’t so easily move on. Only a few years after Enron’s very public and extensively dissected crimes, the same bankers, federal regulatory agencies and securities-rating companies were giving toxic 'assets' a pass. We were only too eager to go along for the lucrative ride until it crashed like Tiger’s Escalade."
"As cons go, Tiger Woods’s fraudulent image as an immaculate exemplar of superhuman steeliness is benign. His fall will damage his family, closest friends, his PR company, Accenture, and the golf industry much more than the rest of us. But the syndrome it epitomizes is not harmless. We keep being fooled by leaders in all sectors of American life, over and over. A decade that began with the “reality” television craze exemplified by “American Idol” and “Survivor” — both blissfully devoid of any reality whatsoever — spiraled into a wholesale flight from truth.
"After his 'indefinite break' from golf, Tiger Woods will surely be back on the links once the next celebrity scandal drowns his out. But after a decade in which two true national catastrophes, a wasteful war and a near-ruinous financial collapse, were both in part byproducts of the ease with which our leaders bamboozled us, we can’t so easily move on. Only a few years after Enron’s very public and extensively dissected crimes, the same bankers, federal regulatory agencies and securities-rating companies were giving toxic 'assets' a pass. We were only too eager to go along for the lucrative ride until it crashed like Tiger’s Escalade."
ONCE AGAIN - HOW STUPID ARE WE?! ON MENOPAUSE!
It's a question I've asked often in relation to the insane and inane behavior of human beings when they blindly follow their irrational fears and the nefarious promises of psychopaths to alleviate those fears.
Today's example of our stupidity is on the subject of menopause.
MILLIONS of American women in the 1990s were told they could and should help their bodies ward off the manifestations of menopause and could even prevent major illness by taking menopausal hormone drugs. Major medical associations said so. Gynecologists and physicians said so. Respected medical journals said so, too. And of course, Big Pharma really said so.
Well, here we are again, a decade later, finding out how harmful our trust of Big Daddy is and how equally destructive our lack of trust in nature can be. In a piece in the NY Times today, entitled "Menopause, as Brought to You by Big Pharma," lawsuits and internal documents now show how one drug company, Pfizer, and its predecessors promoted the idea of hormone drugs and how they have made women severely ill.
Here's an excerpt from the Times article:
"Television commercials positioned hormone drugs as treatments for more than hot flashes and night sweats — just two of the better-known symptoms of menopause, which is technically defined as commencing one year after a woman’s last menstrual cycle. One commercial about estrogen loss by the drug maker Wyeth featured a character named Dr. Heartman in a white coat discussing research into connections between menopause and heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease and blindness.
'When considering menopause, consider the entire body of evidence,' Dr. Heartman said. 'Speak to your doctor about what you can do to help protect your health during and after menopause.'
Connie Barton, then a medical office assistant in Peoria, Ill., was one woman who responded to such messages. She says she took Prempro, a hormone drug made by Wyeth, from 1997, when she was 53, until 2002, when she received a diagnosis of breast cancer. As part of her cancer treatment, she had a mastectomy to remove her left breast.
Now Ms. Barton, who said in an interview that she used Prempro in part because her doctor told her it could help prevent heart disease and dementia, is one of more than 13,000 people who have sued Wyeth over the last seven years, claiming in courts across the country that its menopause drugs caused breast cancer and other problems.
The suits also assert, based on recently unsealed court documents, that Wyeth oversold the benefits of menopausal hormones and failed to properly warn of the risks.
In October, a jury in a Pennsylvania state court awarded Ms. Barton $75 million in punitive damages from Wyeth on top of compensatory damages of $3.75 million."
I've said this dozens of time on this blog, folks - Nature doesn't screw up, people do!
Why would we need to drug ourselves to counteract a natural process like menopause? Think about it. I know, when you're stuck in a character structure, and stuck in childhood emotionally and psychologically, thinking is a very threatening challenge, but try. Do we think that nature itself is psychopathic? That a natural process built into the life cycle of all women could somehow simultaneously be life-threatening? Really?! Is it really easier to believe the drug merchants and slash and burn sociopaths masquerading as doctors than to trust in nature?
Please! Grow up, people! Big Daddy is an abusive, greedy drunk, and he does not have your well-being in mind. What he does have in mind is how much money and power he can steal from you because you want to stay a child.
How stupid are we?
Today's example of our stupidity is on the subject of menopause.
MILLIONS of American women in the 1990s were told they could and should help their bodies ward off the manifestations of menopause and could even prevent major illness by taking menopausal hormone drugs. Major medical associations said so. Gynecologists and physicians said so. Respected medical journals said so, too. And of course, Big Pharma really said so.
Well, here we are again, a decade later, finding out how harmful our trust of Big Daddy is and how equally destructive our lack of trust in nature can be. In a piece in the NY Times today, entitled "Menopause, as Brought to You by Big Pharma," lawsuits and internal documents now show how one drug company, Pfizer, and its predecessors promoted the idea of hormone drugs and how they have made women severely ill.
Here's an excerpt from the Times article:
"Television commercials positioned hormone drugs as treatments for more than hot flashes and night sweats — just two of the better-known symptoms of menopause, which is technically defined as commencing one year after a woman’s last menstrual cycle. One commercial about estrogen loss by the drug maker Wyeth featured a character named Dr. Heartman in a white coat discussing research into connections between menopause and heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease and blindness.
'When considering menopause, consider the entire body of evidence,' Dr. Heartman said. 'Speak to your doctor about what you can do to help protect your health during and after menopause.'
Connie Barton, then a medical office assistant in Peoria, Ill., was one woman who responded to such messages. She says she took Prempro, a hormone drug made by Wyeth, from 1997, when she was 53, until 2002, when she received a diagnosis of breast cancer. As part of her cancer treatment, she had a mastectomy to remove her left breast.
Now Ms. Barton, who said in an interview that she used Prempro in part because her doctor told her it could help prevent heart disease and dementia, is one of more than 13,000 people who have sued Wyeth over the last seven years, claiming in courts across the country that its menopause drugs caused breast cancer and other problems.
The suits also assert, based on recently unsealed court documents, that Wyeth oversold the benefits of menopausal hormones and failed to properly warn of the risks.
In October, a jury in a Pennsylvania state court awarded Ms. Barton $75 million in punitive damages from Wyeth on top of compensatory damages of $3.75 million."
I've said this dozens of time on this blog, folks - Nature doesn't screw up, people do!
Why would we need to drug ourselves to counteract a natural process like menopause? Think about it. I know, when you're stuck in a character structure, and stuck in childhood emotionally and psychologically, thinking is a very threatening challenge, but try. Do we think that nature itself is psychopathic? That a natural process built into the life cycle of all women could somehow simultaneously be life-threatening? Really?! Is it really easier to believe the drug merchants and slash and burn sociopaths masquerading as doctors than to trust in nature?
Please! Grow up, people! Big Daddy is an abusive, greedy drunk, and he does not have your well-being in mind. What he does have in mind is how much money and power he can steal from you because you want to stay a child.
How stupid are we?
WHAT IS OBAMA MISSING?
President Barack Obama, as I've written on this blog often, has many qualities that our previous president did not: intelligence, emotional maturity and the presence of mind and selfhood to not be ruled by dogma and ideology. After eight years of the moronic, debased, retrogressive debauchery of W and Darth Cheney, Obama's election was a breath of fresh air and, yes, hope.
The end of the new president's first year in office is still 5 weeks away, and throughout the last eleven months, he has maintained a poised, rational demeanor, even in the face of the most despicable obstruction by the trash heap that has become the Republican Party, and in spite of the vile, racist hatred that has erupted like a fetid volcano from the right wing lunatic fringe that infects the United States like an incurable venereal disease.
Yet, something seems amiss, or perhaps, is missing in Obama's leadership so far.
Last April, I wrote about the president's "Rigid Character Structure," and how his desire to get things done, as with all who have this personality make-up, may supersede his higher wisdom. Obama was elected with a strong mandate to lead the country into an era in which the debacles of unregulated trickle-down economics, xenophobic and militaristic foreign policies, and the suppression of civil liberties would be reversed and our course set straight. It was not only clear when Obama was elected that the Republicans would be a negative force against any progressive movement in these areas, but likewise, it was clear that the Democrats would continue to be the useless, mealy-mouthed, two-faced wimps and shills that they have been for the last thirty years.
So, as he seemed to understand early on, Obama, in league with the majority of citizens that elected him, would have to take the fight to the career politicians and incorrigible psychopaths and fat cats who have become a modern plague upon our world. The hope was that the new president would lead by leading, not by compromising with the crooks and liars, not by patiently tolerating the constant stonewalling for obstruction's sake alone of any and all positive change, and not by listening with an open mind to those who would advise the president to surge into his own Bay of Pigs gambit in a country whose resistance we cannot defeat with brute force or technologically advanced weaponry.
At the end of John Kennedy's first year in office, he, too, seemed to be off the mark he had set during his exhilarating, hope-inspiring campaign. It didn't look good for the young president at the end of 1961. Yet, by the time he was killed, almost two years later, JFK seemed to be hitting his stride and arriving to the leadership potential so many had expected.
Barack Obama may yet arrive and become himself fully as he grows into his office over the next few years. 2009 comes to an end as a dire year in American history, yet perhaps, we are at a moment of rebirth. All such moments include labor pains and fear and resistance before the glory of the delivery.
I still hold hope.
The end of the new president's first year in office is still 5 weeks away, and throughout the last eleven months, he has maintained a poised, rational demeanor, even in the face of the most despicable obstruction by the trash heap that has become the Republican Party, and in spite of the vile, racist hatred that has erupted like a fetid volcano from the right wing lunatic fringe that infects the United States like an incurable venereal disease.
Yet, something seems amiss, or perhaps, is missing in Obama's leadership so far.
Last April, I wrote about the president's "Rigid Character Structure," and how his desire to get things done, as with all who have this personality make-up, may supersede his higher wisdom. Obama was elected with a strong mandate to lead the country into an era in which the debacles of unregulated trickle-down economics, xenophobic and militaristic foreign policies, and the suppression of civil liberties would be reversed and our course set straight. It was not only clear when Obama was elected that the Republicans would be a negative force against any progressive movement in these areas, but likewise, it was clear that the Democrats would continue to be the useless, mealy-mouthed, two-faced wimps and shills that they have been for the last thirty years.
So, as he seemed to understand early on, Obama, in league with the majority of citizens that elected him, would have to take the fight to the career politicians and incorrigible psychopaths and fat cats who have become a modern plague upon our world. The hope was that the new president would lead by leading, not by compromising with the crooks and liars, not by patiently tolerating the constant stonewalling for obstruction's sake alone of any and all positive change, and not by listening with an open mind to those who would advise the president to surge into his own Bay of Pigs gambit in a country whose resistance we cannot defeat with brute force or technologically advanced weaponry.
At the end of John Kennedy's first year in office, he, too, seemed to be off the mark he had set during his exhilarating, hope-inspiring campaign. It didn't look good for the young president at the end of 1961. Yet, by the time he was killed, almost two years later, JFK seemed to be hitting his stride and arriving to the leadership potential so many had expected.
Barack Obama may yet arrive and become himself fully as he grows into his office over the next few years. 2009 comes to an end as a dire year in American history, yet perhaps, we are at a moment of rebirth. All such moments include labor pains and fear and resistance before the glory of the delivery.
I still hold hope.
TODAY'S QUOTE!
"YOU'RE SCREWED!"
Democratic Representative Michael Capuano, upon his return from a primary campaign for the Senate seat in Massachusetts vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy. Capuano, who finished in second place, was asked to share the wisdom he learned on the campaign trail.
Democratic Representative Michael Capuano, upon his return from a primary campaign for the Senate seat in Massachusetts vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy. Capuano, who finished in second place, was asked to share the wisdom he learned on the campaign trail.
TODAY'S QUOTE!
"Those at the top are separated from the consequences of their actions. They are exemplified by Robert Rubin, formerly of Citigroup and a mentor to both Obama’s Treasury secretary and chief economic adviser. He looked the other way when his bank made ruinous high-risk bets, and then cashed out and split, leaving taxpayers to pay for the wreckage while he escaped any accountability. Such economic wise men peer down at the country from a hermetically sealed bubble of privilege and self-interest. And they tend to think, as Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs notoriously put it, that they are doing 'God’s work' to sustain our free-market system."
Frank Rich (in today's NY Times)
Frank Rich (in today's NY Times)
LOFF56 IS BACK AND TALKING LIFE AND DEATH! PL RESPONDS!
Here's LOFF56:
Hey PL - Long time no comment...
Yeah, someone posted this on Facebook a couple of days ago and I read the article. Interesting, yes, but my initial reaction was that I was a little suspicious of motivation.
I'm familiar enough with the quantum science that Dr. Lanza employs here. It's incredibly fascinating, completely mind boggling and really makes you think about the nature of reality. But applying this incredibly complex theory which very few people in the world, if any, can actually wrap their minds around the mathematics of to anything tangible or even intangible seems at best extremely mis-guided or excessively optimistic.
I mean I guess anyone can make a theory about something, so I guess he's not at fault for mis-informing anyone. But what's the goal of this theory? As far as I can tell, it seems like he's trying to provide a methodology of coping with death. The article starts, "Many of us fear death." Isn't that like a big neon sign that says: "Read on - I can tell you how to not fear death."?
From a logical standpoint he says: "Death does not exist in a timeless, spaceless world." Ok. Yes, I guess that's true. But if so then you have to concede that LIFE doesn't exist in a timeless, spaceless world. It's comforting to wrap your mind around an uncomfortable abstraction like death by putting it in an equally abstract context, but when you do the same with life which is more easily... felt (for a lack of a better word)... it seems wholly uncomfortable. "What, you're telling me that life doesn't exist? But I experience it as existing." You can't have your cake and eat it too.
From a psychological standpoint the quote that he uses to bolster the practice of his theory seems incredibly psychologically naive: "I grieve that grief can teach me nothing..." Really?? I'll defer to PL on this one, can grief teach us nothing? Is he suggesting that we just forego with any practical or well established methods of grieving and instead just convince ourselves that this scientific theory eliminates the need for us to believe that our loved ones are actually dead? ???
I'm as interested in the scientific answer as anyone, but I think the application of science in real life ought to be carefully checked when people start making claims about it that push it into the realm of religion. At this point in scientific understanding, I don't think it's any more Truthful to suggest that when we die we live on in a parallel universe as it is to suggest that we live on in either heaven or hell.
Yes Einstein said that we live in a "stubbornly persistent illusion". I have the intellect to imagine and comprehend what that means, but I don't have the physical, mental or emotional capacity to actually live outside of that illusion. Enlightenment, I think, would get me closer, but probably still light years away from being able to do that.
I'm curious as to your opinion on this PL. Usually you give it away with your comments when you post an article, but all you said was "interesting" this time. Perhaps you're on neutral ground?
Here's PL:
Welcome back, L56! Good to have your thoughtful ponderings about ponderous matters.
Here are some of my thoughts -
Trying to understand life beyond a space-time continuum, while living in one, is a major challenge, but do-able. A knowledge of quantum physics can give us that understanding. Actually experiencing life outside of the space-time continuum, while living in one, well, some would say that happens all the time - when we dream. Often in dreams, "we" are in two or more places at once and traversing the past and present simultaneously. I actually do think, L56, that there is ample scientific evidence that consciousness continues after the body "dies," but the fear-of-death business is a very lucrative one, so mainstream culture is indoctrinated with that fear. Religion is worse than useless in this regard, because religions push a reward and punishment philosophy more relevant to controlling children and prison inmates than alleviating irrational fears of death.
Does life exist outside of the space-time continuum? Well, unless you are strictly defining life as only that which is physical, why not? I take it you don't subscribe to Descarte's "I think, therefore I am" position?
On the subject of grief, well, to be human is to feel, and to feel must include feeling loss. Knowing that a loved one who has died may yet exist in another realm does not mitigate the need for grieving the loss in this realm. And not fearing death, or understanding that death is an illusion in some ways, again does not eliminate the need to experience loss at the emotional levels of our being. We are, after all, only human!
Thanks, L56!
Hey PL - Long time no comment...
Yeah, someone posted this on Facebook a couple of days ago and I read the article. Interesting, yes, but my initial reaction was that I was a little suspicious of motivation.
I'm familiar enough with the quantum science that Dr. Lanza employs here. It's incredibly fascinating, completely mind boggling and really makes you think about the nature of reality. But applying this incredibly complex theory which very few people in the world, if any, can actually wrap their minds around the mathematics of to anything tangible or even intangible seems at best extremely mis-guided or excessively optimistic.
I mean I guess anyone can make a theory about something, so I guess he's not at fault for mis-informing anyone. But what's the goal of this theory? As far as I can tell, it seems like he's trying to provide a methodology of coping with death. The article starts, "Many of us fear death." Isn't that like a big neon sign that says: "Read on - I can tell you how to not fear death."?
From a logical standpoint he says: "Death does not exist in a timeless, spaceless world." Ok. Yes, I guess that's true. But if so then you have to concede that LIFE doesn't exist in a timeless, spaceless world. It's comforting to wrap your mind around an uncomfortable abstraction like death by putting it in an equally abstract context, but when you do the same with life which is more easily... felt (for a lack of a better word)... it seems wholly uncomfortable. "What, you're telling me that life doesn't exist? But I experience it as existing." You can't have your cake and eat it too.
From a psychological standpoint the quote that he uses to bolster the practice of his theory seems incredibly psychologically naive: "I grieve that grief can teach me nothing..." Really?? I'll defer to PL on this one, can grief teach us nothing? Is he suggesting that we just forego with any practical or well established methods of grieving and instead just convince ourselves that this scientific theory eliminates the need for us to believe that our loved ones are actually dead? ???
I'm as interested in the scientific answer as anyone, but I think the application of science in real life ought to be carefully checked when people start making claims about it that push it into the realm of religion. At this point in scientific understanding, I don't think it's any more Truthful to suggest that when we die we live on in a parallel universe as it is to suggest that we live on in either heaven or hell.
Yes Einstein said that we live in a "stubbornly persistent illusion". I have the intellect to imagine and comprehend what that means, but I don't have the physical, mental or emotional capacity to actually live outside of that illusion. Enlightenment, I think, would get me closer, but probably still light years away from being able to do that.
I'm curious as to your opinion on this PL. Usually you give it away with your comments when you post an article, but all you said was "interesting" this time. Perhaps you're on neutral ground?
Here's PL:
Welcome back, L56! Good to have your thoughtful ponderings about ponderous matters.
Here are some of my thoughts -
Trying to understand life beyond a space-time continuum, while living in one, is a major challenge, but do-able. A knowledge of quantum physics can give us that understanding. Actually experiencing life outside of the space-time continuum, while living in one, well, some would say that happens all the time - when we dream. Often in dreams, "we" are in two or more places at once and traversing the past and present simultaneously. I actually do think, L56, that there is ample scientific evidence that consciousness continues after the body "dies," but the fear-of-death business is a very lucrative one, so mainstream culture is indoctrinated with that fear. Religion is worse than useless in this regard, because religions push a reward and punishment philosophy more relevant to controlling children and prison inmates than alleviating irrational fears of death.
Does life exist outside of the space-time continuum? Well, unless you are strictly defining life as only that which is physical, why not? I take it you don't subscribe to Descarte's "I think, therefore I am" position?
On the subject of grief, well, to be human is to feel, and to feel must include feeling loss. Knowing that a loved one who has died may yet exist in another realm does not mitigate the need for grieving the loss in this realm. And not fearing death, or understanding that death is an illusion in some ways, again does not eliminate the need to experience loss at the emotional levels of our being. We are, after all, only human!
Thanks, L56!
"Does Death Exist? New Theory Says 'No!"
Check out this interesting article by Robert Lanza, M.D.
"Many of us fear death. We believe in death because we have been told we will die. We associate ourselves with the body, and we know that bodies die. But a new scientific theory suggests that death is not the terminal event we think."
"Many of us fear death. We believe in death because we have been told we will die. We associate ourselves with the body, and we know that bodies die. But a new scientific theory suggests that death is not the terminal event we think."
ARE YOU READY TO HATCH? FEAR NOT!
Inevitably, when someone working with me has a breakthrough and comes out of their character structure - that conglomerate of defense mechanisms created to survive childhood - the response is the same. It's like they've just hatched from an egg or awoken from a dream. The sense of freedom, exhilaration and clarity is striking initially, like they're seeing the world around them for the first time, and it is often startling, as well.
It is almost assured at some point early on that said "hatchling" will express dismay in this way to me: "Oh my God! Everywhere I look, everyone seems crazy!" I reassure them, sort of, by confirming that perception with a calm, "Yes. Most people are."
The next very important phase of acclimation to sanity and freedom, then, is to adjust to that reality. Being a sane person in an insane world can stir up fears of being isolated and lonely forever, and even inspire wishes to be insane again, so as not to be alone.
Undaunted, I continue on: "Yes, most people regularly lie, even to themselves." "Yes, most people cannot truly love, but substitute co-dependence for the real thing and call it love, utterly confusing the children they bear in far too many numbers." "Yes, most people resist growth and change vehemently, at times even violently, and call it being 'traditional' or having 'values." "Yes, sadism, the flip side of the rampant masochism infecting most people, is experienced as pleasure, while affection and sensuality are decried as weakness." "Yes, running up deficits to start wars and give tax cuts to subsidize the extravagant lifestyles of the rich is not thought of as spending, but using public funds to build better roads or schools or environmentally safe industries is thought of as wasteful." "Yes, it seems like we live in the Bizarro World of the Superman comics where up is down, square is round and bad is good." "And yes, Glenn Beck is really getting paid big money to break down and have psychotic episodes on television."
But not to worry, I insist. True loneliness comes from being alienated from yourself, from living inside the cocoon of a character structure, separated artificially from life. As you get used to being free internally, the fear of loneliness will be replaced with a confident, grounded, empowered sense of self and a oneness with all of those around you, even with those whose toxicity may be such that you cannot directly engage with them. You will realize that while we are all human, we are not all the same, and especially not all the same in terms of "soul age." Many people on Planet Earth, in fact, are still relatively young in that regard, and so still given to the delusions and dictates of the ego. Your presence as a mature, older soul, whatever chronological age you are, will ultimately be a guiding light for those who only appear to be in power.
And to boot, your health will improve - physically, mentally, emotionally, financially and sexually - and again, regardless of what age you are when you break through.
So, come on out. It's not only safe out here in the light, it's fun!
It is almost assured at some point early on that said "hatchling" will express dismay in this way to me: "Oh my God! Everywhere I look, everyone seems crazy!" I reassure them, sort of, by confirming that perception with a calm, "Yes. Most people are."
The next very important phase of acclimation to sanity and freedom, then, is to adjust to that reality. Being a sane person in an insane world can stir up fears of being isolated and lonely forever, and even inspire wishes to be insane again, so as not to be alone.
Undaunted, I continue on: "Yes, most people regularly lie, even to themselves." "Yes, most people cannot truly love, but substitute co-dependence for the real thing and call it love, utterly confusing the children they bear in far too many numbers." "Yes, most people resist growth and change vehemently, at times even violently, and call it being 'traditional' or having 'values." "Yes, sadism, the flip side of the rampant masochism infecting most people, is experienced as pleasure, while affection and sensuality are decried as weakness." "Yes, running up deficits to start wars and give tax cuts to subsidize the extravagant lifestyles of the rich is not thought of as spending, but using public funds to build better roads or schools or environmentally safe industries is thought of as wasteful." "Yes, it seems like we live in the Bizarro World of the Superman comics where up is down, square is round and bad is good." "And yes, Glenn Beck is really getting paid big money to break down and have psychotic episodes on television."
But not to worry, I insist. True loneliness comes from being alienated from yourself, from living inside the cocoon of a character structure, separated artificially from life. As you get used to being free internally, the fear of loneliness will be replaced with a confident, grounded, empowered sense of self and a oneness with all of those around you, even with those whose toxicity may be such that you cannot directly engage with them. You will realize that while we are all human, we are not all the same, and especially not all the same in terms of "soul age." Many people on Planet Earth, in fact, are still relatively young in that regard, and so still given to the delusions and dictates of the ego. Your presence as a mature, older soul, whatever chronological age you are, will ultimately be a guiding light for those who only appear to be in power.
And to boot, your health will improve - physically, mentally, emotionally, financially and sexually - and again, regardless of what age you are when you break through.
So, come on out. It's not only safe out here in the light, it's fun!
TODAY'S QUOTE!
"The most exquisite paradox: As soon as you give it all up you can have it all."
Ram Das
Ram Das
"THE BIGGEST LOSER" REALLY IS!
As the first decade of the 21st Century draws to a close, TIME Magazine has taken a look back and concluded that the 00's constituted the "worst decade ever."
This is from TIME's cover story on what it calls, "THE DECADE FROM HELL!":
"Bookended by 9/11 at the start and a financial wipeout at the end, the first 10 years of this century will very likely go down as the most dispiriting and disillusioning decade Americans have lived through in the post-World War II era."
I'd like to add two additional "bookends" that suggest the U.S. may have hit bottom in the 00's - the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and the rise of "The Biggest Loser" to the top of the ratings on television.
Everyone knows by now, even a majority of Republicans, that W was perhaps the most incompetent and inane leader we have ever had in the White House. That is why so many humiliated "former" Republicans are pretending to be "independents" now, longing for the good old days before the greatest Republican, Abraham Lincoln, when people of color and women were regarded as chattel, homosexuality wasn't even a word, and there were no anti-trust or labor laws.
Anyway, Bush is history, and the self-described balls-in-the-mouth "teabaggers" are a sad sideshow, but the popularity, no, the very existence of The Biggest Loser is as close to an apocalyptic sign as any earthquake, tsunami or 2012 movie.
Wednesday's New York Times pulled the curtain back on NBC's ratings juggernaut, this so-called "reality" game show which features overweight contestants competing to lose the most pounds. The Times reported that Season 1 winner Ryan Benson, who lost 122 of his 330-pound starting weight, will be absent from an upcoming reunion show. Mr. Benson is now back above 300 pounds but he thinks he has been shunned by the show because he publicly admitted that he dropped some of the weight by fasting and dehydrating himself to the point that he was urinating blood.
Now in its eighth season, “The Biggest Loser” is one of NBC’s most-watched prime-time programs besides football, drawing an estimated 10 million viewers each week, according to Nielsen. TEN MILLION VIEWERS! That's the apocalyptic part, folks, that so many of us are so emotionally numb, spiritually disconnected and intellectually addled that we could possibly become obsessed with such an exploitive, no, demented, carnival act.
“I’m waiting for the first person to have a heart attack,” said Dr. Charles Burant, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan Health System director of the Michigan Metabolomics and Obesity Center. “I have had some patients who want to do the same thing, and I counsel them against it,” Dr. Burant said. “I think the show is so exploitative. They are taking poor people who have severe weight problems whose real focus is trying to win the quarter-million dollars.”
Getting contestants to talk openly about the environment of the program is difficult. Shortly after a reporter started contacting former contestants to interview them about their experiences, a talent producer on the series sent an e-mail message to many former contestants reminding them that “serious consequences” could ensue if they ever talked to a reporter without the show’s permission. To do so could subject them to a fine of $1 million!!
HELLO?!!? Now, why would a producer be so adamant about contestants not talking about what goes on behind the scenes on their show?
Don't get me wrong. 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, torture, economic collapse, all part of the horrific legacy of the Bush-Cheney years, yes, but we were all part of that debacle, people, and again, unbelievably, 10,000,000 of us are currently flooding our consciousnesses with a game show about obesity!
So, who's the biggest loser?
This is from TIME's cover story on what it calls, "THE DECADE FROM HELL!":
"Bookended by 9/11 at the start and a financial wipeout at the end, the first 10 years of this century will very likely go down as the most dispiriting and disillusioning decade Americans have lived through in the post-World War II era."
I'd like to add two additional "bookends" that suggest the U.S. may have hit bottom in the 00's - the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and the rise of "The Biggest Loser" to the top of the ratings on television.
Everyone knows by now, even a majority of Republicans, that W was perhaps the most incompetent and inane leader we have ever had in the White House. That is why so many humiliated "former" Republicans are pretending to be "independents" now, longing for the good old days before the greatest Republican, Abraham Lincoln, when people of color and women were regarded as chattel, homosexuality wasn't even a word, and there were no anti-trust or labor laws.
Anyway, Bush is history, and the self-described balls-in-the-mouth "teabaggers" are a sad sideshow, but the popularity, no, the very existence of The Biggest Loser is as close to an apocalyptic sign as any earthquake, tsunami or 2012 movie.
Wednesday's New York Times pulled the curtain back on NBC's ratings juggernaut, this so-called "reality" game show which features overweight contestants competing to lose the most pounds. The Times reported that Season 1 winner Ryan Benson, who lost 122 of his 330-pound starting weight, will be absent from an upcoming reunion show. Mr. Benson is now back above 300 pounds but he thinks he has been shunned by the show because he publicly admitted that he dropped some of the weight by fasting and dehydrating himself to the point that he was urinating blood.
Now in its eighth season, “The Biggest Loser” is one of NBC’s most-watched prime-time programs besides football, drawing an estimated 10 million viewers each week, according to Nielsen. TEN MILLION VIEWERS! That's the apocalyptic part, folks, that so many of us are so emotionally numb, spiritually disconnected and intellectually addled that we could possibly become obsessed with such an exploitive, no, demented, carnival act.
“I’m waiting for the first person to have a heart attack,” said Dr. Charles Burant, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan Health System director of the Michigan Metabolomics and Obesity Center. “I have had some patients who want to do the same thing, and I counsel them against it,” Dr. Burant said. “I think the show is so exploitative. They are taking poor people who have severe weight problems whose real focus is trying to win the quarter-million dollars.”
Getting contestants to talk openly about the environment of the program is difficult. Shortly after a reporter started contacting former contestants to interview them about their experiences, a talent producer on the series sent an e-mail message to many former contestants reminding them that “serious consequences” could ensue if they ever talked to a reporter without the show’s permission. To do so could subject them to a fine of $1 million!!
HELLO?!!? Now, why would a producer be so adamant about contestants not talking about what goes on behind the scenes on their show?
Don't get me wrong. 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, torture, economic collapse, all part of the horrific legacy of the Bush-Cheney years, yes, but we were all part of that debacle, people, and again, unbelievably, 10,000,000 of us are currently flooding our consciousnesses with a game show about obesity!
So, who's the biggest loser?
TODAY'S QUOTE!
"And in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
Abe Lincoln
REPOST: "BILL MAHER ON HOW STUPID ARE WE?"
Here's Bill Maher:
"Just because a country elects a smart president doesn't make it a smart country. And before I go about demonstrating how, sadly, easy it is to prove the dumbness dragging down our country, let me just say that ignorance has life and death consequences. On the eve of the Iraq War, 69% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11. Four years later, 34% still did. Or take the health care debate we're presently having: members of Congress have recessed now so they can go home and 'listen to their constituents.' An urge they should resist because their constituents don't know anything. At a recent town-hall meeting in South Carolina, a man stood up and told his Congressman to 'keep your government hands off my Medicare,' which is kind of like driving cross country to protest highways.
"I'm the bad guy for saying it's a stupid country, yet polls show that a majority of Americans cannot name a single branch of government, or explain what the Bill of Rights is. 24% could not name the country America fought in the Revolutionary War. More than two-thirds of Americans don't know what's in Roe v. Wade. Two-thirds don't know what the Food and Drug Administration does. Some of this stuff you should be able to pick up simply by being alive. You know, like the way the Slumdog kid knew about cricket.
"Not here. Nearly half of Americans don't know that states have two senators and more than half can't name their congressman. And among Republican governors, only 30% got their wife's name right on the first try.
"Sarah Palin says she would never apologize for America. Even though a Gallup poll says 18% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth. No, they're not stupid. They're interplanetary mavericks. A third of Republicans believe Obama is not a citizen, and a third of Democrats believe that George Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, which is an absurd sentence because it contains the words 'Bush' and 'knowledge.'
"People bitch and moan about taxes and spending, but they have no idea what their government spends money on. The average voter thinks foreign aid consumes 24% of our federal budget. It's actually less than 1%. And don't even ask about cabinet members: seven in ten think Napolitano is a kind of three-flavored ice cream. And last election, a full one-third of voters forgot why they were in the booth, handed out their pants, and asked, 'Do you have these in a relaxed-fit?'
"And I haven't even brought up America's religious beliefs. But here's one fun fact you can take away: did you know only about half of Americans are aware that Judaism is an older religion than Christianity? That's right, half of America looks at books called the Old Testament and the New Testament and cannot figure out which one came first.
"And these are the idiots we want to weigh in on the minutia of health care policy? We should forget town halls, and replace them with study halls. There's a lot of populist anger directed towards Washington, but you know who concerned citizens should be most angry at? Their fellow citizens. 'Inside the beltway' thinking may be wrong, but at least it's thinking, which is more than you can say for what's going on outside the beltway.
"And if you want to call me an elitist for this, I say thank you. Yes, I want decisions made by an elite group of people who know what they're talking about. That means Obama budget director Peter Orszag, not Sarah Palin. Which is the way our founding fathers wanted it. James Madison wrote that 'pure democracy' doesn't work because 'there is nothing to check... an obnoxious individual.' Then, in the margins, he doodled a picture of Joe the Plumber.
Until we admit there are things we don't know, we can't even start asking the questions to find out. Until we admit that America can make a mistake, we can't stop the next one. A smart guy named Chesterton once said: 'My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' To which most Americans would respond: 'Are you calling my mother a drunk?"
"Just because a country elects a smart president doesn't make it a smart country. And before I go about demonstrating how, sadly, easy it is to prove the dumbness dragging down our country, let me just say that ignorance has life and death consequences. On the eve of the Iraq War, 69% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11. Four years later, 34% still did. Or take the health care debate we're presently having: members of Congress have recessed now so they can go home and 'listen to their constituents.' An urge they should resist because their constituents don't know anything. At a recent town-hall meeting in South Carolina, a man stood up and told his Congressman to 'keep your government hands off my Medicare,' which is kind of like driving cross country to protest highways.
"I'm the bad guy for saying it's a stupid country, yet polls show that a majority of Americans cannot name a single branch of government, or explain what the Bill of Rights is. 24% could not name the country America fought in the Revolutionary War. More than two-thirds of Americans don't know what's in Roe v. Wade. Two-thirds don't know what the Food and Drug Administration does. Some of this stuff you should be able to pick up simply by being alive. You know, like the way the Slumdog kid knew about cricket.
"Not here. Nearly half of Americans don't know that states have two senators and more than half can't name their congressman. And among Republican governors, only 30% got their wife's name right on the first try.
"Sarah Palin says she would never apologize for America. Even though a Gallup poll says 18% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth. No, they're not stupid. They're interplanetary mavericks. A third of Republicans believe Obama is not a citizen, and a third of Democrats believe that George Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, which is an absurd sentence because it contains the words 'Bush' and 'knowledge.'
"People bitch and moan about taxes and spending, but they have no idea what their government spends money on. The average voter thinks foreign aid consumes 24% of our federal budget. It's actually less than 1%. And don't even ask about cabinet members: seven in ten think Napolitano is a kind of three-flavored ice cream. And last election, a full one-third of voters forgot why they were in the booth, handed out their pants, and asked, 'Do you have these in a relaxed-fit?'
"And I haven't even brought up America's religious beliefs. But here's one fun fact you can take away: did you know only about half of Americans are aware that Judaism is an older religion than Christianity? That's right, half of America looks at books called the Old Testament and the New Testament and cannot figure out which one came first.
"And these are the idiots we want to weigh in on the minutia of health care policy? We should forget town halls, and replace them with study halls. There's a lot of populist anger directed towards Washington, but you know who concerned citizens should be most angry at? Their fellow citizens. 'Inside the beltway' thinking may be wrong, but at least it's thinking, which is more than you can say for what's going on outside the beltway.
"And if you want to call me an elitist for this, I say thank you. Yes, I want decisions made by an elite group of people who know what they're talking about. That means Obama budget director Peter Orszag, not Sarah Palin. Which is the way our founding fathers wanted it. James Madison wrote that 'pure democracy' doesn't work because 'there is nothing to check... an obnoxious individual.' Then, in the margins, he doodled a picture of Joe the Plumber.
Until we admit there are things we don't know, we can't even start asking the questions to find out. Until we admit that America can make a mistake, we can't stop the next one. A smart guy named Chesterton once said: 'My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' To which most Americans would respond: 'Are you calling my mother a drunk?"
MORE ON THE VILLAGE IDIOT!
Here's an excerpt from a MUST READ ARTICLE in Salon.com on the state of stupidity in America:
"In the parlance of our times, the term 'idiocracy' means a nation run by idiots -- and the term 'idiot' is defined by the dictionary as 'an utterly foolish or senseless person' who exhibits 'a mental age of less than 3 years old.' There are obvious reasons to believe America is becoming an idiocracy - a series of horrendous government and business decisions strongly suggest that we've seen the ascension of utterly foolish, senseless people, many with the mental age of infants (yes, W., I'm looking at you)."
"In the parlance of our times, the term 'idiocracy' means a nation run by idiots -- and the term 'idiot' is defined by the dictionary as 'an utterly foolish or senseless person' who exhibits 'a mental age of less than 3 years old.' There are obvious reasons to believe America is becoming an idiocracy - a series of horrendous government and business decisions strongly suggest that we've seen the ascension of utterly foolish, senseless people, many with the mental age of infants (yes, W., I'm looking at you)."
A "NEW" MODEL FOR TREATING DEPRESSION! READ THIS!
Integrative Mental Health: A New Model For Depression Relief
Well, it's not new to everybody, but it's definitely worth the read. Below is an excerpt:
The World Health Organization has predicted that by 2030, more people will be affected by depression than any other health problem. Yet of all the dysfunctions of modern medicine, the way we treat depression may be the worst.
As outlined in "Are You Depressed, Or Just Human?" by Andrew Weil, normal changes in mood are often labeled as depression, leading to an overdiagnosis of the condition. But even if the patient is truly depressed, the prescribed treatment is almost always limited to a potent pharmaceutical. In other words, a complex, multifaceted problem is frequently treated with an oversimplified, expensive therapy that, sadly, is often ineffective.
The reason? Money. Our profit-driven medical system makes it difficult for doctors to spend enough time with patients to make a correct diagnosis and to craft truly individualized treatments. Also, patients themselves often demand the drugs they have seen advertised, and overworked, harried doctors frequently go along.
There is another reason for this regrettable situation. Many physicians are not trained in other treatment options for depression, though these can be safe, inexpensive and highly effective. So even if both physician and patient favor an alternative to drugs, they often lack the knowledge to employ it.
DADLOFF IS BACK, BUT WHAT IS HE SAYING?! PL RESPONDS ANYWAY!
DADLOFF responds to two posts by PL (linked below):
TODAY'S DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSION HEADLINE!
State Labor Dept. Finds Park Slope Restaurants Underpaid Workers
and
TODAY'S QUOTE! by Bob Cesca
Now, here's DL's responses:
"Where have you been lately? I don't think I know of too many places where you can eat these days that don't have many illegal aliens working for below wages. Be it Park Slope, Manhattan, Westchester or here in upstate New York where some of the 11 to 13 million illegals work below wages and for cash as well. And by the way, what do you mean by 'coolie labor?'
Next item: What kind of inherent talent does Obama have for leadership? He may have natural intelligence but not any notable skills or experience to be leader of this country. He is probably winging it and depending on the people around him to guide him along. That to me is troublesome. The reason he got elected is because people didn't want to elect another republican. Any democrat that ran could have won this time around."
PL:
So, DL, are you saying that because the exploitation of non-citizens occurs in a lot of places in New York, I should give Park Slope, a very wealthy community, a break? Or are you implying that it is somehow the fault of said non-citizens willing to be exploited that we have this exploitation? I'm confused. And what I mean by "coolie labor" is what coolie labor is defined as - a system of indentured servitude, just above outright slavery.
Regarding Obama versus Sarah Palin, are you suggesting, DL, that "natural intelligence" is a throw-away asset when it comes to leadership? Until Obama's election, we hadn't had any intelligence of any kind in the White House yet in the 21st century. While you may disagree with some of Obama's policies, I hope you at least would agree that intelligence is a bottom-line prerequisite, unlike the Republican Party of the 21st Century which seems to believe that intelligence and education make you an "elite," while macho bluster, superstition, homophobia, racism, sexism and xenophobia make you their kind of leader.
And are you actually basing your point of view on a belief that President Obama is, in your words, "probably winging it?!" Our last president was most certainly winging it, and as Sarah "Wilma Flintstone" Palin might say - "You betcha the people didn't want to elect another Republican!"
What are you saying, Dadloff?
TODAY'S DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSION HEADLINE!
State Labor Dept. Finds Park Slope Restaurants Underpaid Workers
and
TODAY'S QUOTE! by Bob Cesca
Now, here's DL's responses:
"Where have you been lately? I don't think I know of too many places where you can eat these days that don't have many illegal aliens working for below wages. Be it Park Slope, Manhattan, Westchester or here in upstate New York where some of the 11 to 13 million illegals work below wages and for cash as well. And by the way, what do you mean by 'coolie labor?'
Next item: What kind of inherent talent does Obama have for leadership? He may have natural intelligence but not any notable skills or experience to be leader of this country. He is probably winging it and depending on the people around him to guide him along. That to me is troublesome. The reason he got elected is because people didn't want to elect another republican. Any democrat that ran could have won this time around."
PL:
So, DL, are you saying that because the exploitation of non-citizens occurs in a lot of places in New York, I should give Park Slope, a very wealthy community, a break? Or are you implying that it is somehow the fault of said non-citizens willing to be exploited that we have this exploitation? I'm confused. And what I mean by "coolie labor" is what coolie labor is defined as - a system of indentured servitude, just above outright slavery.
Regarding Obama versus Sarah Palin, are you suggesting, DL, that "natural intelligence" is a throw-away asset when it comes to leadership? Until Obama's election, we hadn't had any intelligence of any kind in the White House yet in the 21st century. While you may disagree with some of Obama's policies, I hope you at least would agree that intelligence is a bottom-line prerequisite, unlike the Republican Party of the 21st Century which seems to believe that intelligence and education make you an "elite," while macho bluster, superstition, homophobia, racism, sexism and xenophobia make you their kind of leader.
And are you actually basing your point of view on a belief that President Obama is, in your words, "probably winging it?!" Our last president was most certainly winging it, and as Sarah "Wilma Flintstone" Palin might say - "You betcha the people didn't want to elect another Republican!"
What are you saying, Dadloff?
TODAY'S DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSION HEADLINE!
State Labor Dept. Finds Park Slope Restaurants Underpaid Workers
Upscale neighborhood, narcissistic stroller set, fascist food coop... paying coolie wages to those who serve them? Just connect the dots, folks. That's all you ever have to do.
Upscale neighborhood, narcissistic stroller set, fascist food coop... paying coolie wages to those who serve them? Just connect the dots, folks. That's all you ever have to do.
TODAY'S QUOTE!
"Where Ronald Reagan was a celebrity in the old-Hollywood framework, Palin is a celebrity in the talentless, Balloon Boy, reality show, Prejean, new-Hollywood framework. Suffice to say, this strategy further devalues what it means to be considered 'presidential.' It chips away at all of the basic but necessary prerequisites for the gig, replacing them with nothing but the base notion of fame. Not even popularity as it applies to fame, but merely the quality of being known. Consequently, this can only contribute to a future when we choose a president based solely upon his or her ability to achieve the most real life drama, irrespective of any sort of inherent talent for leadership, natural intelligence or any notable skills whatsoever. A reality show president."
Bob Cesca
Bob Cesca
"ACROSS THE HALL" = GENUINE FILMMAKING = MUST SEE!!
I had the privilege last night of being at a screening in New York of director Alex Merkin's new feature film, "ACROSS THE HALL."
It was an astonishing and very heartening experience for me, as a movie lover and as an aspiring screenwriter and filmmaker.
Across the Hall was astonishing not simply because it was an edge-of your-seat, adrenaline-draining thriller, or because the shooting style and editing made me imagine what Alfred Hitchcock might be doing today if he were young and alive and had his hands on today's technology. Nor was it astonishing mainly because the actors, particularly the two main characters, played by Mike Vogel and Danny Pino, were encouraged by Merkin to maintain a level of close-up intensity that never burned out and never burned the audience out. All of those elements made the film great, but what made it astonishing was that this was the first feature by this director, and it was shot in seventeen days on a very low budget, and it was still great!
Across the Hall was heartening because like my hero as a writer, Alan Ball ("American Beauty"), Alex Merkin clearly made the film he wanted to make, not the film that an aspiring director might think the Hollywood money people would want him to make. (Praise to producer Stephen Fromkin for giving Merkin the latitude to express his budding creative genius in this project.)
Filmmaking is not just a business, folks, and while there is always pressure to make it so from the suits of Hollywood and Wall Street, it cannot ever become only that because storytelling is a practice necessary for human evolution. From the earliest cave drawings and sand-paintings to today's webisodes, we communicate not just through language, but through the metaphors of story that convey our deeper yearnings and common experiences, and give us pause to laugh, cry and ponder.
As I watched this film last night, I couldn't escape having a couple of thoughts: Alex Merkin is going to become a household name soon, and I want this man to direct one of my films!
Congratulations, Alex!
It was an astonishing and very heartening experience for me, as a movie lover and as an aspiring screenwriter and filmmaker.
Across the Hall was astonishing not simply because it was an edge-of your-seat, adrenaline-draining thriller, or because the shooting style and editing made me imagine what Alfred Hitchcock might be doing today if he were young and alive and had his hands on today's technology. Nor was it astonishing mainly because the actors, particularly the two main characters, played by Mike Vogel and Danny Pino, were encouraged by Merkin to maintain a level of close-up intensity that never burned out and never burned the audience out. All of those elements made the film great, but what made it astonishing was that this was the first feature by this director, and it was shot in seventeen days on a very low budget, and it was still great!
Across the Hall was heartening because like my hero as a writer, Alan Ball ("American Beauty"), Alex Merkin clearly made the film he wanted to make, not the film that an aspiring director might think the Hollywood money people would want him to make. (Praise to producer Stephen Fromkin for giving Merkin the latitude to express his budding creative genius in this project.)
Filmmaking is not just a business, folks, and while there is always pressure to make it so from the suits of Hollywood and Wall Street, it cannot ever become only that because storytelling is a practice necessary for human evolution. From the earliest cave drawings and sand-paintings to today's webisodes, we communicate not just through language, but through the metaphors of story that convey our deeper yearnings and common experiences, and give us pause to laugh, cry and ponder.
As I watched this film last night, I couldn't escape having a couple of thoughts: Alex Merkin is going to become a household name soon, and I want this man to direct one of my films!
Congratulations, Alex!
SPANKING IS BAD FOR KIDS? FOR THIS, WE NEEDED A STUDY?!!?
HERE'S A LINK to a few pieces I've posted about spanking, some a little tongue in cheek, if you'll excuse the pun, and below is a news item about a new study that shows that spanking children is harmful to them. Is there a more emphatic expression than "DUH!" that I could use?!
BREAKING: (CNN) - SPANKING DETRIMENTAL TO CHILDREN, STUDY SAYS
"Think a little spanking won't do much harm to kids? New research says the effects can be long-lasting.
Children are too young to understand when parenting behavior is wrong, a social psychologist says.
A new study of more than 2,500 toddlers found that spanking may have detrimental effects on behavior and mental development.
Lisa Berlin, the study's lead author and research scientist at the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University found that children who were spanked as 1-year-olds tended to behave more aggressively at age 2, and did not perform as well as other children on a test measuring thinking skills at age 3. The study is published in the journal Child Development."
By the way, one of the studies that I referenced shows that Republicans by far spank their kids more than Democrats, and that 8 of the 9 biggest spanking states voted for McCain in 2008. I repeat - "DUH!!"
BREAKING: (CNN) - SPANKING DETRIMENTAL TO CHILDREN, STUDY SAYS
"Think a little spanking won't do much harm to kids? New research says the effects can be long-lasting.
Children are too young to understand when parenting behavior is wrong, a social psychologist says.
A new study of more than 2,500 toddlers found that spanking may have detrimental effects on behavior and mental development.
Lisa Berlin, the study's lead author and research scientist at the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University found that children who were spanked as 1-year-olds tended to behave more aggressively at age 2, and did not perform as well as other children on a test measuring thinking skills at age 3. The study is published in the journal Child Development."
By the way, one of the studies that I referenced shows that Republicans by far spank their kids more than Democrats, and that 8 of the 9 biggest spanking states voted for McCain in 2008. I repeat - "DUH!!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
