Former President Bill Clinton, left, speaks to former President Jimmy Carter during a discussion at a Clinton Global Initiative meeting Tuesday, June 14, 2016, in Atlanta. (AP Photo/John Bazemore)
The impressive output of life work done by both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton after they left office is unchallengeable, if not extraordinary. No matter what their political or personal failures had been as Presidents, nor their mistakes in calculating complex national policy or foreign engagement decisions, all of which makes them no different from any who took the pledge before and since, their post presidency behaviors put them in a separate class that few have belonged.
By looking at these men as examples, two who have redefined philanthropy and humanitarian endeavors, perhaps the best and fairest way to sum up any past President’s values and dedication to a mission, is not by solely assessing the typical President’s tenure of congressional bickering, manipulative stalemates, politically licensed bribery, conflicts, double standards, and compromises.
By looking at their life ahead, after they left elected office, we get to see ex politicians less encumbered by our flawed democratic process, and more effective in doing what they really want to do as private individuals.
There’s a lot to be learned by observing Presidents after they leave the White House. Carter and now Clinton are two we should be proud of.
The rock band that sold me the blues. Outstanding list including some of the very best from the band’s legendary heyday. Each one deserves a listen. Respect! RIP Gregg.
A constituent at a town hall in Arizona last month had a message for Jeff Flake, a Republican senator: Don’t be too chicken to stand up to party leaders.
As Tom Friedman points out in the fourth paragraph, “The G.O.P. never would have embraced someone like Trump in the first place…; all the good men and women in this party’s leadership have been purged or silenced; those who are left have either been bought off by lobbies or have cynically decided to take a ride on Trump’s Good Ship Lollipop to exploit it for any number of different agendas.” I hope he’s wrong, but it’s hard to believe otherwise. Hope is eternal, but the realistic odds of change need to be recognized. Please read.
Since President Trump’s firing of F.B.I. Director James Comey, one question has been repeated over and over: With Democrats lacking any real governing power, are there a few good elected men or women in the Republican Party who will stand up to the president’s abuse of power as their predecessors did during Watergate?
And this question will surely get louder with the report that Trump asked Comey in February to halt the investigation into the president’s former national security adviser.
But we already know the answer: No.
The G.O.P. never would have embraced someone like Trump in the first place — an indecent man with a record of multiple bankruptcies, unpaid bills and alleged sexual harassments who lies as he breathes — for the answer to ever be yes. Virtually all the good men and women in this party’s leadership have been purged or silenced; those who are left have either been bought off by lobbies or have cynically decided to take a ride on Trump’s Good Ship Lollipop to exploit it for any number of different agendas.
It has not been without costs. Trump has made every person in his orbit look like either a “liar or a fool,” as David Axelrod put it. So call off the search. There will be no G.O.P. mutiny, even if Trump resembles Captain Queeg more each day.
That’s why the only relevant question is this: Are there tens of millions of good men and women in America ready to run and vote as Democrats or independents in the 2018 congressional elections and replace the current G.O.P. majority in the House and maybe the Senate?
Nothing else matters — this is now a raw contest of power.
And the one thing I admire about Trump and his enablers: They are not afraid of, and indeed they enjoy, exercising raw power against their opponents. They are not afraid to win by a sliver and govern as if they won by a landslide.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had the power to block President Barack Obama from naming a Supreme Court justice and he did not hesitate to use it, the Constitution be damned.
Trump had the power to appoint climate deniers to key environmental posts and he did it — science be damned. And Trump had the power to fire Comey, even though it meant firing the man investigating him for possible collusion with Russia, and Trump did just that — appearances be damned.
Democrats and independents should not be deluded or distracted by marches on Washington, clever tweets or “Saturday Night Live” skits lampooning Trump. They need power. If you are appalled by what Trump is doing — backed by House and Senate Republicans — then you need to get out of Facebook and into somebody’s face, by running for Congress as a Democrat or an independent, registering someone to vote for a Democrat or an independent, or raising money to support such candidates.
Nothing else matters.
The morally bankrupt crowd running today’s G.O.P. are getting their way not because they have better arguments — polls show majorities disagreeing with them on Comey and climate — but because they have power and are not afraid to use it, no matter what the polls say. And they will use that power to cut taxes for wealthy people, strip health care from poor people and turn climate policy over to the fossil fuel industry until someone else checks that power by getting a majority in the House or the Senate.
Personally, I’m not exactly a rabid Democrat. I’m more conservative on issues of free trade, business, entrepreneurship and use of force than many Democratic candidates. I think the country would benefit from having a smart conservative party offering market and merit-based solutions for our biggest challenges — from climate to energy to education to taxes to infrastructure — that was also ready to meet Democrats halfway. But there is no such G.O.P. today. The party has lost its moral compass.
Just think about that picture of Trump laughing it up with Russia’s foreign minister in the Oval Office, a foreign minister who covered up Syria’s use of poison gas. Trump reportedly shared with him sensitive intelligence on ISIS, and Trump refused to allow any U.S. press in the room. The picture came from Russia’s official photographer. In our White House! It’s nauseating. And the G.O.P. is still largely mute. If Hillary had done that, they would have shut down the government.
That’s why for me, in 2018, the most left-wing Democratic candidate for House or Senate is preferable to the most moderate Republican, because none of the latter will confront Trump. And Trump’s presidency is not just a threat to my political preferences, it is a threat to the rule of law, freedom of the press, ethics in government, the integrity of our institutions, the values our kids need to learn from their president and America’s longstanding role as the respected leader of the free world.
That’s why there are just two choices now: chicken or fish — a Democratic-controlled House or Senate that can at least deter Trump for his last two years, or four years of an out-of-control president. This G.O.P. is not going to impeach him; forget that fantasy. Either Democrats get a lever of power, or we’re stuck emailing each other “S.N.L.” skits.
So, I repeat: Run as, raise money for or register someone to vote for a Democrat or independent running for House or Senate on Nov. 6, 2018. Nothing else matters.
It’s chicken or fish, baby. It’s just chicken or fish.
I’ve been a Mac person since 1993. There was never a question for me. Since that time, and after Microsoft launched its first Windows platform, the main reason individuals and companies chose Microsoft over Mac, was cost savings, and, where applicable, compatibility with specialized business software. Beyond that, the arguments of a quality interface and superior build of Macs were lost on anyone who’s eyes glazed over after two technical words in a sentence, or grossly misunderstood that Macs were only for artists.
But that was then. This is now. Enter the online age of malware, identity theft, and extortion.
Ransomeware is the nastiest thing in cyberspace, short of having a loved one taken hostage. It’s been going on for years. It’s getting worse, and it will get even more worse, when it breaks out further in the U.S. I already know someone here in CT, who has been victimized by ransomeware. A local documentary film producer who had his media files locked until he forked over 2K in bitcoin.
If you own a company that must use software which has absolutely no reasonable second option that is compatible with a Mac, then you’ve painted yourself into a corner, and are stuck in a very dangerous place. It won’t be easy, will be expensive, and will take time, but you and your company need to plan an exit strategy out of Windows now. (No pun intended.) Pay now, or pay much more later.
If you are a company, or an individual, who is not reliant on Windows for specific software, and has reasonable software options on the Mac platform, then, I’m not sure I can find any logical reason for you to stick with Microsoft.
Yes, it will be a large annoyance, and increased cost to switch over, but unless you are impossibly strapped for cash, you are playing with fire, and ultimately running the risk of spending/losing so much more than the initial expense of a changeover.
Windows has always been inferior to Mac’s OS against security threats. Don’t take my word for it. Read up on your own. The security gulf will likely never be narrowed because the native Mac architecture is designed ground-up to protect your files more.
As far as I’m concerned, the justification for dumping Windows, has never been more compelling. With ransomeware and increased security threats sweeping the globe, I don’t know why anyone would even consider buying a PC over a Mac today.
If any of my FB friends here need help or advice to switch over, I’m happy to help you make the switch. Just let me know, and we’ll talk off line.
An appeals court hears arguments Wednesday on the future of Philly’s landmark tax on sweetened drinks. The money is funding preschool for low-income kids, but the soda industry says it’s losing jobs.
In observing those people who are directly involved in the sales and distribution of zero nutrition sugar drinks and soda, I find them similar to people involved in the economies of the fossil fuels industry.
People who gain income or revenue from one, or the other, are a contributing factor to making our planet dirty, and polluted, or, they are a contributing factor to an unhealthy and damaging diet of the planet’s inhabitants. Those who disagree with this statement, probably question the dangers of climate change, pollution, or, sugar in our diet, even though solid facts are established on all of them. So, in dealing with facts, let’s put those people who deny them, aside.
The arguments against cutting back on fossil fuels and sugary drink distribution, whether it be by reduced funding, tariffs, or legislation, are always the same. Job and revenue loss. That puts the decision to cuts on a different plane. A higher purpose…..
NPR
Philadelphia created a buzz last summer when its city council voted to impose a tax on sweetened drinks.
Three cities followed suit with similar measures. But the beverage industry has been fighting back.
On Wednesday, a panel of judges in a Pennsylvania appeals court is expected to hear oral arguments in a lawsuit brought by the beverage industry against the city.
The plaintiffs — including the American Beverage Association and the Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association — are seeking to invalidate the tax. One of their legal arguments is that the beverage tax conflicts with the Pennsylvania sales tax.
The legal challenge has put the brakes on the city’s planned expansion of programs that are funded by revenues from the tax. The mayor’s office says the city will hold off on adding additional pre-K seats.
Currently, the revenue is funding 2,000 pre-K spots for low-income families in the city. But now, the city says it will not add an additional 1,000 seats as previously planned.
I visited Philadelphia to gauge how the tax has impacted businesses and people in the city. I walked a few city blocks with Larry Ceisler, a spokesperson for the Ax The Bev Tax coalition, which is funded by the industry. As we passed a small supermarket, he told me the tax is having a negative effect.
“What’s happening is that business is down,” Ceisler tells me. Some city dwellers are going to the suburbs to do their shopping, Ceisler says. They’re not just leaving to buy drinks but other groceries too, he says.
“Overall, my business is down by 15 percent — an unsustainable drop in an industry with tight margins,” Jeff Brown, who owns six ShopRite supermarkets in Philadelphia told us. “This tax has also forced me to cut thousands of hours each week from my union employees,” Brown says.
Local beverage distributors say their sales are down significantly. Canada Dry Of Delaware Valley, which distributes a range of carbonated drinks, teas and bottled waters in Philadelphia says sales are down by about 45 percent. The company has laid off about 30 employees, including drivers and workers who stock the shelves.
A worker restocks a cold soda display. Soda distributors in Philadelphia say sales are down and they have had to let employees go since the city’s tax on sweetened drinks went into effect.
“It’s obviously disappointing,” Bob Brockway, president and COO of Canada Dry Delaware Valley told us. He says bottled water sales have grown, but not nearly enough to offset losses.
But there are people in the city benefiting from the soda tax, too.
The mayor’s office says the city has brought in about $12.3 million in revenues from the first two months of tax collections. The tax is projected to bring in about $91 million over 12 months. The mayor’s office says the Philly Beverage Tax will be used to “make much needed investments in pre-K and community schools, as well as in Philadelphia parks, rec centers and libraries.”
I decided to check out Pee Week Prep Educational Center, one of the preschool programs that’s expanded its pre-K enrollment due to revenue from the soda tax. It’s located in West Philly, so I hopped in an Uber. Along the way we passed plenty of boarded up houses. “Yes, a lot, ” the driver Al McLean commented.”
“A lot of the kids here are what I call couch-to-classroom,” Stacy Phillips, the founder and CEO of Pee Wee Prep, told me. In other words, before they enrolled in school here, they were home watching TV on the couch.
All sweetened drinks in Philadelphia are taxed, including those with artificial sweeteners.
Now, Phillips is offering a full-day curriculum. When I visited, kids were rotating through science centers. They were engaged in matching games, counting and P.E. classes.
Phillips has been able to add 90 children to her roster. “I’m thrilled, I’m happy about the soda tax,” she tells me. She says investing in these children is the right thing to do.
Despite the funding of popular programs, the tax is controversial in the city. Last fall, a poll from The Pew Charitable Trusts, found 54 percent of residents endorsed the City Council’s decision to impose a beverage tax. Forty-two percent did not endorse it. A more recent survey commissioned by the industry-funded Ax The Bev Tax coalition found a majority of residents (58 percent) oppose the tax.
Some residents I spoke to told me they love the idea of investing in children and expanding preschool education, but they think the city should find another way to pay for it.
“I live here, and I pay a significant portion of [my wages] to the city,” Dan McFadden told me. I caught up with him during his lunch break. He says that in his opinion, the city doesn’t need a separate tax on sugary drinks.
As the industry and the City of Philadelphia prepare to face off in court, the legal arguments are strictly economic. The hotly debated issue of whether a soda tax is a good way to help nudge people towards healthier behaviors is not part of the argument.
Still, many eyes are on Philly.
The World Health Organization has called on nations around the globe to enact taxes on sugary beverages. And Bloomberg Philanthropies says raising taxes on sugary beverages can be part of the strategy to “reduce consumer demand for unhealthy foods and beverages, improve the food environment, and make healthier choices easier for everyone.”
And many other public health advocates support the City in its legal battle to keep the beverage tax in place.
Fifteen national organizations including the American Heart Association and the American Medical Association filed a friend-of-the court brief with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
“The evidence is clear that sugary drinks are a major contributor to the increasing rates of type 2 diabetes and heart disease,” reads a joint statement from the organizations.
“Philadelphia’s tax on sugary drinks has the potential to change lives for the better – preventing chronic disease and extending quality of life by simply incentivizing families to choose health,” the brief concludes.
Mowing the lawn can be good exercise, and is fun for some people. But others who find themselves squeezed for time might find the luxury of paying someone else to do it to be of much more value than buying more stuff.
Of course, this assumes you have enough disposable income to even have choices.
The problem with American culture within those who have fair amounts of disposable income, is the preoccupation with consumption and fleeting pleasures, as opposed to more thoughtful spending, with an investment factor in mind. Tangible and intangible.
Its a shame actually that many people don’t recognize the benefits of deeper psychological and spiritual rewards from their spending decisions, beyond material gains, or hedonistic pleasures.
Money can’t buy happiness, right? Well, some researchers beg to differ. They say it depends on how you spend it.
A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that when people spend money on time-saving services such as a house cleaner, lawn care or grocery delivery, it can make them feel a little happier. By comparison, money spent on material purchases — aka things — does not boost positive emotions the way we might expect.
A family member holds twins Eloisa (left) and Eloa, both 8 months old and born with microcephaly, during a Christmas gathering. The mother of the twins, Raquel, who lives in Brazil, said she contracted Zika during her pregnancy. – Mario Tama/Getty Images
I don’t normally think of animal testing for medical research. It’s a hornets nest of moral questions and human purpose that for me, is almost impossible to get through unharmed from guilt, and some degree of hypocrisy. For some reason, today, I revisited the quandary of animal testing I medical research. It struck me with this article.
The first question that dawned on me was, when did the first animal testing occur, for what purpose, and to what outcome? The second question, or questions, was, how much longer do humans live since medical testing due to animal testing, and to what qualities of their lives?
by Michaeleen Doucleff, NPR – March 30, 2017
Back in 2015, Brazil reported a horrific a surge in birth defects. Thousands of babies were born with brain damage and abnormally small heads, a condition called microcephaly.
Scientists quickly concluded the Zika virus was the culprit. So when Zika returned last year during Brazil’s summer months of December, January and February — when mosquitoes are most active — health officials expected another surge in microcephaly cases.
But that never happened.
“We apparently saw a lot of cases Zika virus in 2016. But there was no microcephaly,” says Christopher Dye of the World Health Organization.
The difference between 2015 and 2016 “is spectacular,” he says.
Health officials were predicting more than 1,000 cases of microcephaly in the northeast of Brazil last year. But there were fewer than 100, Dye and his colleagues report Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“This is a huge, huge discrepancy,” Dye says. “So what could possibly be the explanation for that?”
Scientists aren’t sure, Dye says. But he and his colleagues suggest a few possibilities in their study.
First off, Dye says, health officials could have vastly overestimated the number of Zika cases in Brazil.
Zika can be misdiagnosed as another mosquito-borne virus, called chikungunya. Both viruses cause a fever, a rash and joint pain. “So chikungunya can easily be mistaken for Zika,” Dye says.
But chikungunya doesn’t cause microcephaly.
So perhaps Brazil actually didn’t have that many Zika cases in 2016. And in turn, there weren’t a lot of babies born with microcephaly.
Now for this theory to hold true, we’re talking about thousands of Zika cases being mistaken for a totally different virus that’s not even closely related to Zika. Could this really happen?
“Yes, I do think it’s a possibility,” Dye says. “This is this is our best view of what happened in 2016.”
But Albert Ko at Yale School of Public Health doesn’t quite buy it.
“Misdiagnosis is a reasonable hypothesis. But it’s not clear that this explanation accounts for the whole story,” says Ko, an epidemiologist, who is studying mothers and babies born with Zika in the northeast part of Brazil.
Ko think’s there’s another possible explanation: Zika might not be working alone. When a pregnant woman contracts Zika, that might not be enough to cause microcephaly in all cases.
Since the surge in Brazil’s microcephaly cases in 2015, many scientists began to wonder whether a second virus could be involved. Maybe another infection combines with Zika to make the disease worse and increase the risk of birth defects.
Dye agrees that this phenomenon could be contributing to the overestimation of microcephaly cases.
In particular, scientists have their eyes on another mosquito-borne virus, which is common in Brazil, called dengue. In 2015, the country recorded more than 1.5 million cases of dengue, including many in the northeast, where many of the birth defects occurred.
“Everything is probably speculation at this point,” Ko says. “But many groups are concerned about the exposure to dengue in Brazil.”
Here’s why.
Dengue is a complex virus. There are actually five different versions. Prior exposure to one version of dengue can actually make your illness worse when you’re exposed to a second version.
And what’s closely related to dengue? Zika.
“So another hypothesis is that prior exposure to dengue may actually enhance or promote the risk of birth defects from Zika,” Ko says.
Right now, there is no evidence that a dengue infection exacerbates the symptoms of Zika — or increases its risk to pregnant women.
But several studies suggest it could happen. For starters, the presence of dengue antibodies helps the Zika virus infect cells in a petri dish.
And now, scientists are reporting that dengue antibodies make a Zika infection more deadly in mice.
Typically mice don’t get Zika. But a team at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York engineered the animals to be susceptible to a Zika infection by crippling their immune systems.
The engineered mice get a fever and show signs of neurological problems when they’re infected with Zika. Fewer than 10 percent of them die from the infection.
But when the mice received dengue antibodies before the Zika infection, the outcome was quite different. More than 80 percent of the mice died after eight days, immunologist Jean Lim and her colleagues report Thursday in the journal Science.
So now the big question is: Does a similar phenomenon occur in people?
Ko is working on epidemiological studies in northeast Brazil, right now, to see whether that is the case. If the dengue theory turns out to be true, it could mean the global threat of Zika for pregnant women is less dire than scientists originally thought.
Grass strips alongside streams, like this one in the Lac qui Parle River watershed of Minnesota, can help to reduce fertilizer runoff from fields. MN Pollution Control Agency/Flickr
by Dan Charles NPR – March 7, 2017 The way environmentalist Craig Cox sees it, streams and rivers across much the country are suffering from the side effects of growing our food. Yet the people responsible for that pollution, America’s farmers, are fighting any hint of regulation to prevent it. “The leading problems are driven by fertilizer and manure runoff from farm operations,” says Cox, who is the Environmental Working Group’s top expert on agriculture. Across the Midwest, he says, nitrate-filled water from farm fields is making drinking water less safe. Phosphorus runoff is feeding toxic algae blooms in rivers and lakes, “interfering with people’s vacations. [They’re] taking their kids to the beach and the beach is closed. There’s stories about people getting sick.” This is preventable, Cox says. There are simple things that farmers can do to reduce the problems dramatically.
Tyler Cowen argues, in his new book The Complacent Class, that Americans are in a period of stagnation because we are doing less and less of what made us successful in the past: embracing change, moving to different parts of the country and associating with different kinds of people.
A good read. Overall, makes sense to me, though…
Though optimism is always welcome, here it’s awkward, because author, Cowen, frames it only in relative terms. That’s all good, if you want to play long view, historical, cyclical, and all that, but in the real world time frames, where people manage, and de facto, “live” their lives, in five or ten year increments of hopes and expectations, academic longview optimism is not helpful.
The upside to Cowen’s optimism, if you want to board the Good Ship Lollipop, is a less turbulent outlook for today’s newborns, and hopefully, the kids that follow them.
All I know is, right now, things suck for a lot of people, and it looks that way for a wide demographic in addition to young adults entering the mainstream. So it’s just as easy enough to make the contrary argument as well. Especially since it’s not a prediction. It’s in our faces in the present moment.
America’s ‘Complacent Class’: How Self-Segregation Is Leading To Stagnation by Heidi Glenn
Tyler Cowen, Via NPR – March 2, 2017
In a new book, The Complacent Class, economist Tyler Cowen argues the country is standing still….
http://www.npr.org/2017/03/02/517915510/americas-complacent-class-how-self-segregation-is-leading-to-stagnation?sc=17&f=1001&utm_source=iosnewsapp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=app
Most people say “I’m sorry” many times a day for a host of trivial affronts – accidentally bumping into someone or failing to hold open a door. These apologies are easy and usually readily accepted, often with a response like, “No problem.”
But when “I’m sorry” are the words needed to right truly hurtful words, acts or inaction, they can be the hardest ones to utter. And even when an apology is offered with the best of intentions, it can be seriously undermined by the way in which it is worded. Instead of eradicating the emotional pain the affront caused, a poorly worded apology can result in lasting anger and antagonism, and undermine an important relationship.
I admit to a lifetime of challenges when it comes to apologizing, especially when I thought I was right or misunderstood or that the offended party was being overly sensitive. But I recently discovered that the need for an apology is less about me than the person who, for whatever reason, is offended by something I said or did or failed to do, regardless of my intentions.
I also learned that a sincere apology can be powerful medicine with surprising value for the giver as well as the recipient.
After learning that a neighbor who had assaulted me verbally was furious about an oversight I had not known I committed, I wrote a letter in hopes of defusing the hostility. Without offering any excuses, I apologized for my lapse in etiquette and respect. I said I was not asking for or expecting forgiveness, merely that I hoped we could have a civil, if not friendly, relationship going forward, then delivered the letter with a jar of my homemade jam.
Expecting nothing in return, I was greatly relieved when my doorbell rang and the neighbor thanked me warmly for what I had said and done. My relief was palpable. I felt as if I’d not only discarded an enemy but made a new friend, which is indeed how it played out in the days that followed.
About a week later I learned that, according to the psychologist and author Harriet Lerner, the wording of my apology was just what the “doctor” would have ordered. In the very first chapter of her new book, “Why Won’t You Apologize?,” Dr. Lerner points out that apologies followed by rationalizations are “never satisfying” and can even be harmful.
“When ‘but’ is tagged on to an apology,” she wrote, it’s an excuse that counters the sincerity of the original message. The best apologies are short and don’t include explanations that can undo them.
Nor should a request for forgiveness be part of an apology. The offended party may accept a sincere apology but still be unready to forgive the transgression. Forgiveness, should it come, may depend on a demonstration going forward that the offense will not be repeated.
“It’s not our place to tell anyone to forgive or not to forgive,” Dr. Lerner said in an interview. She disputes popular thinking that failing to forgive is bad for one’s health and can lead to a life mired in bitterness and hate.
“There is no one path to healing,” she said. “There are many roads to letting go of corrosive emotions without forgiving, like therapy, meditation, medication, even swimming.”
Hardest of all, Dr. Lerner said, is to forgive a nonapologetic offender, like my aunt whom I had loved dearly and who served as my second mother after mine died. But when I, raised Jewish, married a Christian, she refused to come to the wedding and never apologized for the intense hurt her absence had caused. Although I made several attempts to restore the relationship, she always managed to deflect them, and to this day, more than half a century later, I cannot forgive her.
The focus of an apology should be on what the offender has said or done, not on the person’s reaction to it. Saying “I’m sorry you feel that way” shifts the focus away from the person who is supposedly apologizing and turns “I’m sorry” into “I’m not really sorry at all,” the psychologist wrote.
As to why many people find it hard to offer a sincere, unfettered apology, Dr. Lerner pointed out that “humans are hard-wired for defensiveness. It’s very difficult to take direct, unequivocal responsibility for our hurtful actions. It takes a great deal of maturity to put a relationship or another person before our need to be right.”
Offering an apology is an admission of guilt that admittedly leaves people vulnerable. There’s no guarantee as to how it will be received. It is the prerogative of the injured party to reject an apology, even when sincerely offered. The person may feel the offense was so enormous — for example, having been sexually abused by a parent — that it is impossible to accept a mea culpa offered by the abusive parent years later.
Righting a perceived wrong can be especially challenging when it involves family members, who may be inclined to cite history — he was abused by his father, or she was raised by a distant mother — as an excuse for hurtful behavior. “History can be used as an explanation, not an excuse,” the psychologist said. “It should involve a conversation that allows the hurt party to express anger and pain if an apology, however sincere, is to heal a broken connection.”
As she wrote: “Nondefensive listening [to the hurt party] is at the heart of offering a sincere apology.” She urges the listener not to “interrupt, argue, refute, or correct facts, or bring up your own criticisms and complaints.” Even when the offended party is largely at fault, she suggests apologizing for one’s own part in the incident, however small it may be.
Dr. Lerner views apology as “central to health, both physical and emotional. ‘I’m sorry’ are the two most healing words in the English language,” she said. “The courage to apologize wisely and well is not just a gift to the injured person, who can then feel soothed and released from obsessive recriminations, bitterness and corrosive anger. It’s also a gift to one’s own health, bestowing self-respect, integrity and maturity — an ability to take a cleareyed look at how our behavior affects others and to assume responsibility for acting at another person’s expense.”
Beverly Engel, the author of “The Power of Apology,” relates how her life was changed by a sincere, effective apology from her mother for years of emotional abuse. “Almost like magic,” she wrote, “apology has the power to repair harm, mend relationships, soothe wounds and heal broken hearts. An apology actually affects the bodily functions of the person receiving it — blood pressure decreases, heart rate slows and breathing becomes steadier.”
People who understand global dynamics can be nothing but alarmed. All the rest don’t understand the words.
Many of Trump’s supporters make vigorous arguments about how he’s going to fix their country. That’s all well and good, but they don’t seem to give thoughtful analysis to, and acknowledgment of, the risks and consequences from these serious decisions regarding military action around the world. That’s being out of touch.
Donald Trump’s personality shows clear signs that he will be on a mission to gain street cred as soon as possible, from Day 1 in the Oval Office. He has forced himself into this position of dangerous impulse with his grandiose statements and promises.
As Trump realizes the wheels of the biggest changes (his glory moments) don’t move as fast he wants, he will seek out any, and all options, to act out, and fill, his driven need, if not obsession, to show strength and power, and to be applauded by an audience.
He will find those clearest options in war, because that’s what Trump does. In his narrow business, and obsolete, adversarial salesman’s mind, life is always a war. Its black and white. There’s a winner and a loser, and a (Trumpian-branded) simplistic strategy of how to prevail.
He has already sold his soul to Putin, and even he must know the Middle East quagmire has no returns for him. East Asia is the place for him. Its the place that Trump will try to show he’s king of the schoolyard, and in charge of all the chalk lines. This is too dangerous for words. ISIS and the Middle East are skirmishes compared to the risk of armed conflict in this part of the world. The entire Pacific Rim is at risk from military maneuvers here.
North Korea, and China, are problematic. From the nuclear situation and the developing South China Sea controversy, both of them have engaged in little more than patronizing diplomacy. This is not the same style of quagmire of the Middle East, but its still a complicated mash up of power and insecurity, that needs to be addressed. It was bound to test one American President or another eventually.
I am sure that Barack Obama is happy to leave behind these two complex dynamics on someone else’s plate, but as a human being, and a citizen of this country with a family, he has to be concerned of what will come of it.
East Asia needs to be dealt with. Whether Trump is the right American President to do it will come clear soon enough. Its sitting there right in full view, waiting for him to make his move. For him, it may be the easiest move of all. Its what he’s built for. Trump does war.
Not one to miss an opportunity to recite yet another “When I was a kid….” story, I have to say how annoyed I am with the public school system here in CT. I also can’t miss another opportunity to clarify that I am not a native Connecticutian, or whatever they call themselves here. Nothing I guess.
So the schools here let out at 1:45-2:00pm. What?! I mean, WHAT?!
Is this considered a full day of education in this state? Holy crap. When I was a kid in grade, middle, junior, high, I was in till 3:00-3:30p. Every day. Sometimes. Sometimes. On the rare occasion, we’d get out at 2:30 or 2:45. Wow. Was that great. We lived for those short/er days. But here in CT, god forbid the buses aren’t fully loaded, half out the school driveways by 1:50p.
It would be one thing if US reading scores and aptitudes were good compared to other countries, or just to ourselves. But they aren’t. And worse, kids today are more hampered by useless cultural distractions, and dangerous influences once they get out of a classroom than ever before.
Tax payers are hit enormously with education tariffs in the towns and states where they live regardless of whether they have children or not. Meanwhile, these states and towns have cut back the educational standards for children who need more dedication from municipalities and states. Not less. Parents should know this already when they see their kids done for the day barely after 2pm, only to hop on a skateboard for two hours or waste time in a Froyo store. The schools cut the days to save money, but still lobby for higher taxes. And in the end, what is the net benefit to the kids? What’s the upgrade, if the time is less? A new projector screen? Some re-flooring of the gym floor. Come on, man. That’s what fundraising and benefits are for. There can be no upgrade, if time is slashed. Time is the upgrade. Hence, time is also a downgrade.
Dramatic medical progress and scientific breakthroughs all point convincingly to human beings living much longer in the coming decades and beyond. Below is a quick glance at the projected outcomes of what to expect in the near and not-to-distant future.
The question came to me in a dream last night. There was/is no clear trigger, or connection to my conscious state. At least not in a direct way. Symbolism? Well, we could go on all day about that with dream content.
Been thinking a lot about it…
Taken just as it is, as a question not related to any spiritual, or religious doctrine, or enveloped in platitude, how does the question strike you?
With his election to President of the United States, Donald Trump, amazingly, has risen higher than most of us, maybe even he, thought he ever could. President of the United States, Donald Trump! If anybody thought his insatiable ego was through the roof before, it is stratospheric now. Putting aside the real inner soul motivations of Trump and his fluid and contradictory ideologies, there is one thing that is true without question. This man has displayed the most impressive skill of aggrandizing his id and ego that any public figure has shown in, well, you tell me when it happened last. I don’t have a personal witness reference, but the comparisons I can imagine disturb me greatly. They are not known to end well.
This morning, I heard a young HRC supporter crying hysterically on public radio. She struggled to catch her breath as she tried to squeeze out the fractured words of her heartbreak and the devastation she felt from this loss of a candidate she was so sure would prevail. The hurt, confusion and fear poured out of this young woman, as I imagine it would, from many more of us who have experienced profound loss after working heroically to prevent it. It is an injury that takes long to heal before a first lesson can be learned. This little snippet of an interview that I heard, was a poignant moment in my morning that touched me more deeply than I expected.
If Donald Trump had lost, there would have been anger, bombast, accusations, denial, and maybe violence. Hillary Clinton’s loss creates a sadness and nearly paralytic desolation in the Democratic party, with its supporters and campaigners, that today, seems insurmountable. I heard it in the young woman’s cracking voice. She is just one voice of millions more who feel the same.
Its okay to be dumbfounded. Its okay to be shell-shocked, catatonic, dazed, and numb. There is no other way to feel for a Hillary Clinton supporter, a Democratic party supporter, a progressive left supporter. There is no other way to feel but completely broadsided and slammed down to the mat, by a force you didn’t see coming. Its that bad.
I no longer want to analyze the Trump phenomenon, or try to make sense of his election. Candidates make missteps in campaigns, taking states or demographics for granted, overreacting to others, misreading poll numbers, or missing electorate messages entirely. The same held true this cycle. Given all of these repeating factors, most of us on the Left and Right were long convinced of our justifications and character portrayals of both 2016 candidates. Party loyalties are usually predictable. What’s most significant beyond the obvious blow of the Republican party taking power in the Presidency, Senate, and House, is the stark racial and economic makeup of Donald Trump’s strongest supporters. White men, and even more white women, without college, who are (apparently) willing to live with an authoritarian President, not to mention a Republican controlled agenda. Huge swaths of this country’s lower and middle class white populations were/are hell bent on disruptive political change regardless of Supreme Court nominations, gun control, women’s inequality, women’s right to choose, campaign finance reform, lopsided tax breaks for wealthy elites and big businesses, and positively no concrete plan articulated by their candidate to address their needs, or a potential overseas conflict.
If Trump were a different man, or just another Conservative, or Moderate Republican, he might be less scary, or repugnant, but to all but the most blindly in denial (most of his supporters apparently) he clearly shows traits of a racist, misogynistic demagogue. He is also, just as clearly, ill prepared in temperament, instincts, and intelligence about national economics, and of world affairs, to make any methodical and thoughtful decisions about policy or legislation in the U.S., or with potential interventions abroad. Some have said he will surround himself with others who will properly inform his decisions in these areas. But is this the kind of President we want leading this country? A man who has no personal grounding on deeply complicated world and national issues, who will simply drop these decisions to a fleet of advisors and pivot at a moment’s notice?
If our President is incapable of finding his own way in so many complex decisions that will have to be made in office, why should we have confidence that he will surround himself with the right people to advise him to begin with? Observe the choices he has made already of the people who have run and advised his campaign. Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich are a loser’s gallery of has-been, or discredited politicians who have devolved into bizarre talking rage heads, with complimentary indictable scandals. And while we are at it, lets top it off with Steve Bannon, another Trump advisor, who is a certified anarchist bigot white nationalist. No, I don’t feel confident that Trump will find a great group of leaders to fill the White House cabinet. It is truly a horrifying prospect.
Moving on to the evangelicals, and anti abortion advocates. There is no shortage of culpability here. Admittedly, I have not been raised in a religious household. My parents, while they were separately loosely raised Jewish and Catholic, did not feel the need to indoctrinate me and my sister in any faith. Still, I know the strengths of religious and spiritual community, and I understand them. Family cohesion, a shared belief system, a structure of viewing life and meaning through certain respects and values of life. I get it. But, when a religious scepter is used as an immovable object blocking even the most obvious rational decision that might be problematic to a single (politically loaded) component of its belief system, then that belief system is defective, and the blocking is hypocritical. The higher road a truly evolved religion could have taken in this election, would have been to spend genuine time critically thinking about the pros and cons of Donald Trump, and how justified compromise might have been called for, instead of blindly voting for him only because he might create an opening to overturn abortion. If a religious block of voters chooses to support a racist, misogynistic, demagogue candidate who might destabilize the entire country, and perhaps even cause global havoc, just because they “might,” however unlikely, get a shot at restoring laws against abortion, then keep me as far away from that religion as possible. Disgraceful behavior from this group.
The other voting blocks that pushed Trump into office don’t seem to care if he fails, or makes things worse, as long as he got elected.. Their vote was a go-for-broke means to an end. They are driven to blow up the system at all costs with nothing more than a vague notion that it will all turn out good in the end. When exactly is that end? Two years? Three? Four? With the next President? The one after that? Will it happen after a Conservative Supreme Court dismantles and neuters a growing healthcare system insuring 20 million people? After big businesses finally and completely embed themselves into our politics, when the middle class is reduced to ashes? What’s the timeline that makes this giant stink bomb they dropped worth all of the downside in the short run? For those who needed change and optimism in the lives the most, their impulse to vote for this man was recklessly impulsive, and ultimately, self-destructive.
There are people in Trump’s camp, the wealthier groups, perhaps even the loudest voices at times who have all their financial security intact, all their privileges, but still pound the drum to blow up the system, kick over the tables, smash the windows because it just feels cool to them. They want to feel part of something disruptive. What’s sad, and selfish from this group, is they give no real thought to the people who could be tragically victimized by a Trump agenda, Innocent and hard working immigrants, minorities. Any of the twenty-million people benefiting from health care for the first time in their lives. Women, and working families who would have been guaranteed a sincere effort from Hillary Clinton. People who have studied and worked tirelessly to address our planet’s ecological and global warming issues. Businesses of all sizes and individuals who worked hard to create reputable, non-exploitative futures for themselves in fair trade practices. So much more…
The majority of Democrats foresaw a grim fallout of a Trump Presidency and Conservative rule in Washington. I’m bleary and weary from this mess of all messes. What I will do, and suggest to those of you similarly despondent, is to proceed to the next day, and the day after that, living your life, hoping that Donald Trump’s decision making does not adversely affect you within the next four, or possibly more years of your life. I am grateful for any protection and buffer I have in my life that might keep me from being personally victimized too badly from his tenure. I ask those of you who might also be protected somewhat, to be grateful as well. I can’t predict what, who, or how much victimization there will be ahead, but, there will be definite losers.
The people who will lose from this outcome, whether sooner, or later, deserve our empathy, our compassion. Be thankful if you are not one of them, and support those less fortunate as best you can from whatever position you find for yourself in this really stressful future this country is about to face. 🙁 🙁
For some, the decision on making moves towards sex, even the most innocent kiss, can be fraught with fear and awkwardness. Here’s my criteria for working through the early emotions:
First Date: No. Its rushing.
Second Date: Eh, not really. Its impatient.
Third Date: Ok, maybe a kiss goodnight.
Fourth Date: Hmm, maybe, maybe. a little more, but check for signals.
Fifth Date: Alright, are we doing something here or not?
Sixth Date: Ok, Alright. So let’s talk about why you don’t want to have sex yet. Sigh…
Seventh Date: Why haven’t you called me?
Eighth Date: There’s an eighth date?
Anyway…
Explain: IMHO, excluding buffoonish teenager, and twenty something hormone moves, early date sex advances disrespect the woman, or man. They also disrespect the unique moment in time, that you can never get back, once its crossed. The moment, or moments between two people in which physical attraction and sexual curiosity simmer below the surface of a psychological and emotional experience between those same two people. Whether there is an intellectual exchange, or one of less substance, the last moments, hours, or days before a sexual boundary is crossed is a special, memorable place to be, that no one should be overeager to depart.
In the 1960s, I went to bed watching Chiller Theater at 10pm (way past my bedtime), with a craft model of Frankenstein standing atop the black and white TV set in front of the nighttime sky. As much as I prepared for the opening each time I watched, I always got shivers during the opening trumpet blares and Vampyra lurching from the grave.
Chiller Theater was a showcase of black and white horror films of all genres, but not necessarily the bigger studio projects, like Peter Lorre/Boris Karloff/Vincent Price vehicles. Many, if not most of the films shown on Chiller Theater, were made from smaller budget, less well known directors, featuring actors no one would remember today. In their own way, they were as effective a treatment of the macabre story as any other could be. The actors were besides the point. It was all about the atmospheres, the darkness, the slow dialogue and creep of scene after scene until something happened suddenly.
These films, while obscure then and now, were the wellspring that grew the myriad of modern horror genres that came to follow. Few have compared to the often campy plots, but skillfully spare approach of the films from those days. They were under appreciated then, and maybe more so today. I want them back.
Audio: Unparalleled horror theme. Scared the sh*t out of me…
Trivia Challenge: What famously (and atrociously) bad 1959 sci-fi movie featured Vampyra’s famous grave yard scene, as well as the orchestral score above?
The outcries against Hillary Clinton are loud and clear. Excluding the obvious Trump supporter, Hillary’s most vocal detractors are roughly divided amongst three groups, some of which can overlap.
1) Lowly educated voters, “some” of whom, are racists, misogynistic, and/or, isolationist xenophobes, who have next to zero awareness of who she is, and has been, in her life and career, beyond biased media, conspiracy and hate groups.
2) Mainstream Republicans, Democrats, or Independents, who otherwise understand politics, global and national events, and the responsibilities of governing.
3) Disgruntled Bernie Sanders supporters, and all other truly uncommitted voters, who may, or may not, overlap into categories #1, or #2, who do not like any major candidate.
Category 1 speaks for itself. Category 2 has shown a tendency to coalesce in Hillary’s direction, as either a full supporter, or a begrudging one in choosing the lesser of two evils. Category 3 is in play. This group in Category 3 may either sit out the election, or vote for the Libertarian or Green Party candidate who will appear on the ballot.
On Not Voting:
I’m not interested in bullying people to vote if they are so turned off of a candidate they can’t possibly fathom him/her in public office. But, that does not preclude you, the registered voter, and citizen of your country, from doing all you can do to understand what is going in your country politically, should you decide you can’t vote. Speak out. Shout out. Create a group. Build support for your case, instead of musing, or fuming about it to one or two people in your tight circles. In short, if you don’t want to vote, and hate everyone who is running, then try and do something about it. That’s what our forefathers did. That’s how its done. It is not done by not doing anything. It is not done by waiting for someone else to do something. It is done by doing something on your own. Something to demonstrate that you care enough to put some work into your beliefs that you believe are threatened. If you don’t think you have the capacity, nor time to do something like this, and you still do not vote, then I am sorry to tell you that you are shirking your duty, and your obligation, as a citizen of this country.
If you do not vote, you need to do something to make a meaningful step towards changing whatever it is that keeps you from voting. Organizing and speaking out to groups is one of the most effective ways. Politics is the same thing. Its nothing more than a structure of presenting ideas to the masses. The loudest voices, and the boldest ideas, get attention. If you believe in something, this is what you do. If you wait around for somebody else to throw their voice and weight around, and you don’t vote, and you don’t speak out to groups and try to build your own case, your own coalition, you have to accept that you are part of the reason someone else gets there.
Two hundred thousand people died in the American Revolution. Tens of millions more have died since defending it, and fighting what they believed in. Died. They gave their lives. If you don’t like things now, and you don’t want to vote, how about putting in an effort to create a community group to discuss ideas to improve your neighborhood. your town, or city? Put your ideas on paper. Develop your own political ideas platform, and garner support amongst friends, neighbors, and most importantly, doing this outside your immediate comfort zones, and geography. Do something that shows you care about being an American, a citizen of life around you, more than just benefitting from the work of the others.
Political activism need not describe a special category of individual that only pursues aggressive activity in the name of a cause, if you do vote. Voting in itself is a form of activism. Its a minimum, but the mere act of voting says something about you. It says you think about the process, about the candidate, and have made a decision about political leadership, as it relates to who you are, and your values. It may be that you have done this on a bare minimum level, for better or worse, but it does show you care enough to calculate the net result of choosing a particular person for office, to take the time to go to the polls and vote.
On Protest Voting:
This year there are four candidates on the Presidential ballot. Two from one of the major parties who will take power and run the presidency. And two from fringe parties, Libertarian, and Green.
The concept of an expanded party system, whether Independent, Green, Libertarian, or some other, is interesting, and as shown with Bernie Sanders’ successful movement, has measurable potential to affect the national political conversation, and subsequent policy decisions. Conversely, once the nomination process is complete, the idea of voting for a candidate running for public office who has no chance of being elected, as a protest against the other candidates, has to be one of the most boneheaded meaningless moves of any nation’s citizens. I’ll go further. It’s lazy, thoughtless, and irresponsible. It is better to not vote at all, and become a real activist to change the system, if that’s your point. But, if you do that, be prepared to work extra hard as an activist in order to legitimize your stated position, and also live with the potential consequences of having a very poor candidate take office due to your refusal to vote.
In the case of this year’s U.S. Presidential election, a protest vote is outright dangerous because of (pathetic as it is) the possibility of it causing an election of an incompetent, incoherent, inexperienced, lying fraud to the office.
No matter how much you dislike both major candidates who can be elected, if, in the final weeks before election day, all poll results and aggregated information conclude that victory is plausible for a candidate who is considered, by all rational perceptions, if not your own instincts, dangerously unfit for the Presidency, based on an unbiased, verified, current and historical record, you must do everything in your power to prevent that victory.
CLIPPED OUT: Speaking out to groups, or crowds, if you can swing that, as a non voter, has been famously done by George Carlin. George Carlin had a stage, literally, to make his case, but you don’t need to be a celebrity, or a comic to speak out to groups. Still, it takes some effort, just as it did for Carlin to build his career.
Since moving to Connecticut, I have discovered how important it is to take time to escape the stress associated with noise, and unsightly visuals of over-development, sprawl, relentless commercialism, and worst of all, litter, and filth. I discovered the value of nature, hiking trails in the woods, listening to the sounds of animals, trees, the wind, away from the often obnoxious sounds of civilization. Although I may have walked more when I Iived in NYC because the city is built for it, I now walk in nature (unplugged!) with more peace and awareness of life around me, that in many ways, is more magical. I almost can’t go a day without it, and each time it saves another small part of my life.
A newly discovered cache of internal documents reveals that the sugar industry downplayed the risks of sugar in the 1960s. – Luis Ascui/Getty Images
Fifty years of misleading and dishonest research. Imagine how different things might be with public health and education if these bogus research papers weren’t given the credibility they received.
The second to last paragraph from the NPR article below says it all. Funding sources need to be screened for industry research projects and then governed for access to leading journals for publication. It wasn’t done fifty years ago, and it still isn’t done today. Why not? Why don’t leading journal publishers recognize the possibilty of crossing ethically gray territory, and simply refuse to print studies from researchers that are funded from the same industries they are writing about?
The same goes for the researchers. Why do they as individuals fail to exercise any restraint in turning down these projects, based on ethical grounds, even though it’s often so easy to anticipate the dubious results? Are the researchers just too stupid and naiive? I don’t think so. There’s a lot of people who just want to get paid, or make more money, publicize their name on a byline, pad their research dossier, or protect their power, or market position. They may be professionals, but their ethical boundaries often become vague if it means choosing a large research grant. I’m tired of describing this type of human failure. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.
After Trump’s really awkward and 100% phony trip to Mexico, followed by the insufferable speech in Arizona, I have finally reached my personal end point with following the activity of this stunningly incompetent clown! I felt it was important to keep tabs on him just to watch how his mind worked as we get ever closer to the election. Call it due diligence, or the observational journalist in me. No more.
I am so done with this guy. He’s got nothing to say. Nothing but slogans or attacks, and pandering, all day long. “Build the Wall! We’re Gonna Be Great! Crooked Hillary!” Two months from election day, he’s got no substance, or ideas on policy developed on our nation’s issues or challenges, logged online, or distributed to anyone, anywhere. He’s just got nothing.
If he has any ounce of mental forethought, or any sense of awareness of the profound weakness in his political position at this moment in his life, he will do the right thing, and withdraw from the debates, and the race, allowing the RNC to bring in a suitable replacement, before he makes this political year any more embarrassing, than it already is.
I have written here before in posted essays, and in comment threads describing the complexities about how and why this man got nominated. I have given his supporters a break in their judgement due to their exasperated personal situations, and/or, their irreversible cynicism. I have acknowledged that many people in our country are true racists, or bigots, and many of them are Trump people, who will follow him off a cliff, as followers do with a cult leader. I have also stated that many Trump supporters are not these things. It is those people I write to here.
People! Wake up from your haze! Shake it off, and get the hell off the insane bandwagon you are on. I know you all hate Hillary Clinton, and she deserves to be questioned, but she’s not an incompetent empty vessel, who has the political brain and thinking process of a sixteen year old. Trump’s business acumen has nothing to do with political viability. Even so, his so-called business talent has been many times revealed as mostly an exploitative loudmouth and big risk taker, with no solid values of integrity or fair practices. Do some research on this man outside of the slanted orbit of his surrogates’ propaganda. Listen to others beyond his protective family, who have known him, and have had substantive relationships with him in the past. This is all on the record, if you choose to read up on it.
So you hate Hillary. So hate her. Stay home then. Don’t vote. Or vote for Gary Johnson, if you must. (but know that if you vote for Johnson, you’re betraying your entire Trump rationale, which begs the question, WTF have you been doing all this time?) Wait this term out, and cue up for 2020. The point here is anyone who gives reasonable time to analyze and deeply observe what Donald Trump has been about, and is about, can NOT vote for this man to be President of the Untied States. This man is beyond historically incompetent to hold the Presidency. He is a danger to the national security of our country.
It is my position, that those who are not outright racists, who support Trump, have simply not done their homework, or are living in a sealed bubble with no desire to poke through. They have not studied this man outside of his shallow speeches. It is my belief that the vast majority of his supporters have not listened to any other credible, thoughtful, non-network media associated opinions, nor writers, journalists, nor commentators outside the echo chambers of his own acolyte world and Conservative media. They have claimed not to have the time to do anything but watch one cable news TV station-Fox, one conservative talk radio station. They have claimed that every other media outlet but these, are biased, and part of a liberal or Democratic conspiracy.
People! Political partisanship exists. You think its in the media? DUH! Its everywhere! That’s exactly the reason, you, and we, have no choice but to explore as many news and reporting outlets and sources, from both sides, as we can. If for no other time in our lives, then at least, during important election periods. Our country deserves more investment of our time, as citizens, than an easy, lazy (yes, its lazy.) surrender to one or two, shallow, and yes, “often”, very partisan media sources. You don’t trust media? Fine! I don’t blame you. Don’t trust media. But, that includes Fox News. That includes Rush Limbaugh. So dig deeper! And don’t trust anything, or anybody who is loud and angry before they are anything else. That’s the dead giveaway of bias.If that’s all you want, then reap what you sow. Today, if you’re after more than just echos, you have to work at it more than flipping on a TV or reading the internet’s first search returns.
Truth is out there, if you work the mines to get it out.
As much as I am embarrassed by the support this guy already has, if he goes on to the debates, and stays in this race, he will do nothing but embarrass himself, and this country even more. He will then lose whatever little credibility he still has left. He will get walloped in the election so bad, that even his legendary celebrity status may not recover. I’m actually counting on him to figure this out at the 11th hour, and finally pull out, which ironically, would solidify his mythical stature. That is exactly where he belongs. As a myth. >MB
UPDATE: Trump was elected President. Read more of what happened in future posts.
If you understand just a tiny bit about Brexit, you know its parallel to what’s happening politically in the U.S. Beyond that, trying to dissect the impact, now, and going forward, is a long, certainly stressful, and perhaps unnecessary conversation, until effective UK leadership develops and shows their hand.
I’ve lived through enough profoundly radical events in my life, on our national, and global stages, that witnessing yet another, doesn’t cut much deeper to my bone than any of the others. Not anymore.
What I do feel, is that political and economic systems around the world need to be re-worked to effectively address a global reality that cannot be set aside while constitutional, or parliamentary debates slog along with nothing to show. This imperative doesn’t even include a plan on how to deal (or not deal) with repressive authoritarian regimes, and war torn theocracies. That is another conversation, but no less important.
In relative terms, the world’s more stable governments, and peoples, have a big task on their hands, and lots of work to do. The only way they can do this work, is with unity and a sense of shared mission. The supposed goal of the EU.
I can sit here and paint a bleak picture for the world, or even a single government to start holding hands. It certainly has no hopeful signs from the past. Maybe the process of getting there is exactly what Brexit will turn out to be, what the current craziness in the U.S., and in other countries could turn out to be. I could make this case. I’m not sure I want to make any other.
Tony Blair’s Op-ed below is a good read.
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Tony Blair: Brexit’s Stunning Coup
By Tony Blair
June 24, 2016
10 Downing Street on Friday morning.
I was a British prime minister who believed completely that Britain’s future lay in Europe. I was the prime minister responsible for legislating substantial self-rule in Scotland so that it would remain part of the United Kingdom. I negotiated the Good Friday Agreement so that Northern Ireland could be at peace within Britain. Because the result of the referendum has put so much of this at risk, Friday became a day of great personal, as well as political, sadness.
The immediate impact of the Brexit vote is economic. The fallout has been as swift as it was predictable. At one point on Friday, the pound hit a 30-year low against the dollar, and a leading British stock index had dropped more than 8 percent. The nation’s credit rating is under threat.
The lasting effect, however, may be political, and with global implications. If the economic shocks continue, then the British experiment will serve as a warning. But if they abate, then populist movements in other countries will gain momentum.
How did this happen? The right in British politics found an issue that’s causing palpitations in the body politic the world over: immigration. Part of the Conservative Party, allied with the far-right U.K. Independence Party, took this issue and focused its campaign to leave Europe on it. This strategy could not have succeeded, though, without finding common cause with a significant segment of Labour voters.
These Labour supporters did not get a clear message from their own party, whose leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was lukewarm about remaining in the union. They were drawn by the Leavers’ promise that Brexit would bring an end to the country’s perceived immigration problems. And, worried about their flatlining incomes and cuts in public spending, these Labour voters saw this vote as an opportunity to register an anti-government protest.
The strains within Britain that led to this referendum result are universal, at least in the West. Insurgent movements of left and right, posing as standard-bearers of a popular revolt against the political establishment, can spread and grow at scale and speed. Today’s polarized and fragmented news coverage only encourages such insurgencies — an effect magnified many times by the social media revolution.
It was already clear before the Brexit vote that modern populist movements could take control of political parties. What wasn’t clear was whether they could take over a country like Britain. Now we know they can.
Those in the political center were demonized as out-of-touch elites, as though the people leading the insurgency were ordinary folks — which, in the case of the Brexit campaign, is a laughable proposition. The campaign made the word “expert” virtually a term of abuse, and when experts warned of the economic harm that would follow Brexit, they were castigated as “scaremongers.” Immigrants were described as a bunch of scroungers coming to grab Britons’ jobs and benefits when, in reality, the recent migrants from Eastern Europe contribute far more in taxes than they take in welfare payments. And besides, immigration to Britain from outside the European Union will not be affected by the referendum decision.
The political center has lost its power to persuade and its essential means of connection to the people it seeks to represent. Instead, we are seeing a convergence of the far left and far right. The right attacks immigrants while the left rails at bankers, but the spirit of insurgency, the venting of anger at those in power and the addiction to simple, demagogic answers to complex problems are the same for both extremes. Underlying it all is a shared hostility to globalization.
Britain and Europe now face a protracted period of economic and political uncertainty, as the British government tries to negotiate a future outside the single market where half of Britain’s goods and services are traded. These new arrangements — to be clear about the scale of the challenge — must be negotiated with all the other 27 countries, their individual parliaments and the European Parliament. Some governments may be cooperative; others won’t want to make leaving easy for Britain, in order to discourage similar movements.
Britain is a strong country, with a resilient people and energy and creativity in abundance. I don’t doubt Britons’ capacity to come through, whatever the cost. But the stress on the United Kingdom is already apparent.
Voters in Scotland chose by a large margin to remain in Europe, with the result that there are renewed calls for another referendum on Scottish independence. Northern Ireland has benefited from virtually open borders with the Republic of Ireland. That freedom is at risk because the North’s border with the South now becomes the European Union’s border, a potential threat to the Northern Ireland peace process.
If the people — usually a repository of common sense and practicality — do something that appears neither sensible nor practical, then it forces a period of long and hard reflection. My own politics is waking to this new political landscape. The same dangerous impulses are visible, too, in American politics, but the challenges of globalization cannot be met by isolationism or shutting borders.
The center must regain its political traction, rediscover its capacity to analyze the problems we all face and find solutions that rise above the populist anger. If we do not succeed in beating back the far left and far right before they take the nations of Europe on this reckless experiment, it will end the way such rash action always does in history: at best, in disillusion; at worst, in rancorous division. The center must hold.
Tony Blair was the prime minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from 1997 to 2007.
I interviewed these guys for a “personal project” video doc I produced in the heights of urban cocaine use, 1981. All the years since, I still contain the same mixture of impulses ranging from laughter, puzzlement, confusion, to complete bafflement. This group of audio snippets was made in post, after the more serious video production was completed. I started by just fooling around, but it became its own finished product-a satirical take on public radio pieces of this nature, with my vague impersonation of legendary NY1 news anchor, Lewis Dodley. The sniffing has a value all its own.
When I was a little kid, I used to hear people say the world is not fair, people will screw you over, nice guys finish last, you can’t succeed if you don’t step on other people.
I always had trouble with these statements. I thought they were coming from people who were tremendously insecure burdened with a sad mix of helplessness, low self worth, wavering confidence and no personal identity.
It was impossible for me to believe this reality. I saw a choice in what point of view I could follow. There were other voices I heard who steadfastly stuck to a different path of expectation of human nature. These were people who believed in the spirit of humanity, that fairness and reward comes to all who earn it with honesty, sincere attitude, ethics and a good day’s work. This made startlingly simple sense to me.
From that day on, I never considered the alternative outlook and always tried to persuade someone away from it who chose to believe they were right.
I have since learned that much is correct on both sides. There is unfairness all around and there is also honest reward. There is no simple formula I hoped could brighten a future nor was there any set actions that necessarily spelled doom or retribution. Who benefits or who suffers is not necessarily a result based on anything any of us does, or does not do.
There’s much more luck, timing, history and circumstance involved than anyone could ever possibly predict. Some of it is visible and we take our chances, secure in our personal powers, skills and positive outlook that things will be good. But much of it is hidden.
Much of what works for and against people is beyond anyone’s control, having nothing to do with their deliberate actions or behavior. These things that impact us originate negatively from other people’s insecurities, inabilities to cope, their sense of feeling threatened, paranoia, communication weaknesses and breakdowns. Other individuals impact us positively with inherent, or spontaneous behavior of good will, generosity, gracious acceptance, understanding, or belief in a benevolent power guiding them. All of us, separately, and as a mass are affected in alternating ways by all of these people many times during our lifetimes. This doesn’t even include the quirky twists of fate and fluke events of nature that can divert a life in an unplanned instant.
What is hidden is what we can’t know, can’t control, and can’t prepare for in any amount of expectation or anticipation. No matter what we think, or do in advance.
The concept and vision of “net neutrality” is easily expressed. Its far more difficult to protect, given the manipulative tendencies of corporate behavior, and millions spent on lobbying.
Cell providers and internet giants never do anything without profit, and/or market domination in mind. It is so easy to tempt consumers with immediate gratification bait, like those described below, that the long term consequences to individuals, their personal choice, and freedom, are completely lost to us, as we “opt in”, to yet another fantastic offer that serves up ten more ways to lose ourselves in media and product consumption.
As a T-Mobile customer, I received this announcement in my email, and I plan on disabling it because of what I believe it represents. To be sure, my decision is less difficult than say, a permissive parent’s with two teenagers in the household, but I could go on about how that could be handled better as well. Hint: It’s not the kids fault.
I use my phone first as a communication device. I don’t like spending lengthy time looking at a palm size screen for anything, be it texting, or entertainment. It’s not good for the eyes, neck, mind, attention span, and every other ergonomic rule of good practice imaginable. I also believe the best way to access online data, other than a direct connection, is via WiFi, not through a cell phone data stream.
There are many privacy and security issues we face as digital consumer animals now. It’s going to get even more complicated, and we are going to become more vulnerable before things reach a point that (hopefully) serve us, and the noblest visions, most fairly.
If you’re not a streaming addict that can’t find a way to live without more, more, more video in your life, through your phone service, please disable the T-Mobile Binge On setting on your account. Its a Trojan Horse, and you do not need it.
(Overheard almost verbatim in a doctor’s exam room next door.)
Doctor Spencer: So, you have two children now?
Patient Montana: No, Doctor. I have four.
Doctor:You just told me you had two children.
Patient: Those were just the ones living with me.
Doctor:I see. So, let’s start again. How old are your children?
Patient: One is 4. One is 16. Another is 1 yr old, and another is 8. Oh, and another one is on the way.
Doctor:So, you have five children?
Patient:Yeah! I guess if you count the one coming up.
Doctor: Okaay. So, now you’ve decided you want a vasectomy. How old are you, Mr Montana?
Patient:Twenty six.
Long Pause. Silence. (My balls are really hurting now.)
Doctor: Do you understand how serious a decision this is?
Patient: Yeah, well, you know things are getting kind of out of hand. I got too many kids happening.
Doctor: You mean, the pregnancies weren’t planned?
Patient: Well, you know. They kinda were. Some of them were. I mean. You know the way I was brought up. We don’t use no condoms. We feel good. Something good happens. We celebrate. We have a beer. We get our woman. You know? I played some basketball. Watch a game. I feel good. We have some fun. Then, Wham! She get pregnant. What I’m gonna do? I don’t do abortions. She want the kid. So this has to stop now. You know what I’m talking about Doc?
Doctor: You are still very young. I would prefer counseling you on using a condom instead of getting a vasectomy.
Patient: Yeah, well, you know. I think this has to stop now. What about changing it back if I change my mind later, doc?
Doctor: It is possible. Not guaranteed, and, very expensive. And, it is not covered by insurance. It can cost ten thousand dollars. This is not a decision you want to consider reversing in the future. Are you sure you want to go through with this?
Patient: Doc, I don’t really have a problem or anything, but, just between you and me, can you get some of that Viagra?
1) Make sure you meet in a public place, preferably one that has a bathroom with a large window to climb out of.
2) The first chance you get, accidentally drop your can of mace from your purse so he can see it. Then, pick it up and shake it while saying, “Hmm, Not much left”
3) Do NOT make steady fixed eye contact staring deeply at him as if locked into his brain.
4) Keep an eye on your purse or bag at all times, even if it means avoiding all eye contact whatsoever. He doesn’t care. He’s looking at your breasts, legs, butt, hem length, inseam, and mouth diameter.
5) Remember the unconscious signals that tell men you’re ready to have sex: Licking your lips, playing with your hair, tugging your ear, crossing your legs, uncrossing your legs, folding your arms, unfolding your arms, smiling, frowning, crying, screaming, eating, breathing, hitting him with your fists, and just showing up.
6) Do not, under any circumstances, order more than one drink with a man who is sweating from his forehead.
7) Never give your number out to anyone other than a guy who draws cat cartoons.
It’s about time I conquered my demons and finally decided to live my life the way I want to, not the way other people see me, or think I should be. Damnit! Life is too short to waste precious days, hours, minutes, seconds doing anything but what beats within my heart and soul. So deep it brings tears to my eyes. Yes, from now on, my life will be different. My life will be one of depth, of color, joy, and spirit that emanates from inside every cell of my existence. A life of who I am and was always meant to be. From this day on, I will pursue my passion, the reason I was put on this planet, the purpose of my existence. The reason I was put here to share the breath of life. I now see how easy it has always been. I need only open my eyes and see what is right there in front of me. To see my passion. To see, finally, with total recognition, awareness, and connectedness what I was meant to do. What I must do, now and forever more. I will announce to the world who I am with the confidence I lacked until now. My identity will bloom to all who know me. On a stage, in a classroom, an office, on a hilltop, or a street corner. With joy and undeterred commitment, I will live my passion by…uh…uh…where was I…oh, yeah…Fuck this bullshit.
This chart is kind of a joke, but it was inspired by a similar one I saw in an issue of Psychology Today on how to make decisions. I’m wondering if there’s anything on this I should apologize for. Finances? Hm…maybe. Tough one. I’m thinking there’s not.
All sweetened drinks in Philadelphia are taxed, including those with artificial sweeteners.
