Top 5 ways to stay calm and reduce stress

By: John Halderman

 

Are you looking for more calm satisfying experience with you daily life?
Do you get frustrated with yourself at the end of the day because you've gotten stressed, unfocused or agitated?
 
Are you tired of getting over emotional and worn out.
 
Whether you are experiencing one or all of these feelings here are my 5 best tips on reducing the unwanted feelings so that you will feel calm and satisfied with yourself each day.
 
1. Catch yourself when you exhibit a feeling of behavior that you don't like and change it.At first you may not notice the feeling until after you have gone through it, that's fine.
Think about how you would rather have felt.
Think about how you would rather have handled yourself. Decide how you want to do it next time.
As you continue with this process each day you will find that you will notice more easily what you are doing throughout the day.
You will begin to catch yourself earlier and earlier as you do this.
Eventually, you will be seeing yourself while you are doing it, then stop yourself.
At some point you will be able to notice before you even begin to feel and react in the undesirable way.
Here is where you will actually begin to change the way you react to the situations in your life and change your behavior.
 
2. Stay centered all day by refocusing throughout the day.Develop the habit of paying attention to your mindset as the day goes on.
Several times a day, step away from what you are doing to get re-centered.
Sit down close your eyes and take several long slow deep breaths while imagining the tension washing slowly out of your body.
Notice your breathing getting slower and calmer.
Just think about your breath.
Try to keep from thinking about anything in particular.
It's ok to not be actively thinking for a while!
 
3. Watch out for your expectations.You are setting yourself up for failure, upset and frustration when you set too many standards as to how you think things should be.
Think about what leads you to getting upset?
Why does it upset you?
Notice that you decide how many things should be, based on your own outlook and desire.
The things others do that are not to your liking, even the things you do that don't match your expectations.
Ask yourself, really how important is it that they be exactly that way
Ask, who am I to insist that they are that way?
Does it matter that much?
Is it worth getting myself worked up about?
Choose which expectations are really important for you to hold on to and which ones are not.
Holding on to many expectations just complicates your life, with constant judgment.
Simplify your life and reduce the stress!
 
4. Delegate.This applies to your personal life as well as at work.
Most of us think of delegating as a workplace skill, but it can apply personally as well.
We are all very busy these days with our activities and duties.
Trying to fit it all in and get it all accomplished can lead to tension.
For various reasons, many of us have developed the habit of thinking we must do it all ourselves.
Take a look at your situation.
Think about it, really, how important is it that everything must be done perfectly to your standards?
Are you sure there are not other people who can assist you. Are the other people in your life pulling their weight?
Many times we get into habitual ruts that don't need to be as they are.
Look at what has been, with the eye of reducing the pressure on yourself.
 
5. Accept other people as one.As you think of yourself as different and separate from the rest of mankind, you unknowingly create thinking and behavior that separates you from others.
This kind of separate thinking leads us to think we are superior to others which leads to judgment then selfish thinking and behavior.
We are then having an internal battle with others, which brings on fear, competition and comparison, ending in frustration and anxiety.
Look to discovering how to see yourself as one with all of mankind, not as separate.
Focus on what we have in common rather that the relatively small uniqueness.
 
Author BioJohn Halderman is a writer, speaker and trainer, dedicated to helping people with getting real results with their personal development efforts. He supports strategies, methods, tools and information that actually bridge the gap between information and effective results. Go to www.activepersonaldevelopment.com for free information and newsletter.

Couple caught on video having sex in Toronto subway

As reported by the Toronto Sun

When the young man and young woman began making love on a southbound University line coach around 2:30 p.m. Sunday, a disgusted passenger pressed the yellow emergency strip.

After the train's guard finished putting the brakes to their tryst, the apparently drunken pair moved onto the Spadina station platform and continued the horizontal shuffle on the tile floor — with the man's naked bottom and her naked legs caught on video by a passerby.

There are funny stories, sad stories, exciting stories, mysterious stories, and then there is just plain old dumb.  The story, mentioned above, clearly falls into the dumb category.  Good grief, I've heard of the Mile High Club, escapades in the back row of a nearly empty movie theatre, back seat mumbas, and the like, but 2pm-on Christmas-on the subway??  C'mon, world.  Fun is fun, but this speaks to our new careless sexual natures.  Contain your nasty fantasies to your bedroom, at 1 am or in the shower, like some of us.  LOL... How many children to you think saw those two love birds do the Cupid's Shuttle on the subway (at 2pm).  Does anyone really care about the kids, or do we just like to pretend?

In the U.S., I blame the apparent Hugh Hefner-like mentality of the F.C.C.  Have you noticed the boarder-line R-rated TV commercials that seem to aire during family TV time (such as Football games).  I'm not a prude...Trust me, but I really don't like explaining erectile dysfunction to my nieces and nephews, or stumbling to answer my little girl's questions regarding KY jelly.  Can't a man just watch the Family Guy in peace?  Ooops, bad example.

This is truly having an affect on the world.  We are creating a world of over-sexed, callous, narcissistic hypocrites.  And then, as Americans, we seem to have the nerve to push our dastardly way of life onto other regions.  Are the Muslims sooo wrong for pointing out where America can morally improve?  I saw a twelve year old girl the other day, in a restaurant.  She was with her mom and was wearing make-up, high heels, and had an Iphone attached to her nose.  I must've been the only person to find this odd because no one seemed to notice.  I guess it's all too common place nowadays. High-heels???  Really??   C'mon, mom.  Take a second to stop blaming your Ex for all your problems and teach these little girls how to be young ladies....   I'm just saying.

I'm not trying to fix the world or anything.  What I'm saying isn't any sort attempt at altruism.  I'm just saying, it would be nice to experience kindness and decency whenever I step out in public or watch public television.  But, where do we start?

Facebook Can Lead to Your Doom!!!

   By:  LA Williams

    People, I implore you to not use Facebook as your personal conduit, connecting your egotistical, narcissist, bubble of an existence with the outside world. The old scripture says that "what is done in the dark will come to the light." Today, facebook inhabitors are idiotically turning the light onto their own sins and are shocked at the repercussions they incur. I'm not saying hide your sins. One should acknowledge and deal with their sins accordingly. However, sites like Facebook records your deeds and will force you to deal with these issues publicly and embarassingly.

     Pictures of your life, as it unfolds are nice, but I find it a bit over-zealous for some Facebookers to have the need to post hundreds of random pictures of themselves in the bathroom mirror...mostly for some sort of public acknowledgement. Get over yourself already... "You look good, Girl... How many times do you need us to tell you that?"

     Remember, Facebook records everything. I have a friend who's been with his girlfriend for five years. Through the years, she's always presented herself as the loyal, hardworking, honorable type. The only annoying thing about her is that she tends to pass slight judgements against other people's minor indecretions. But, it was ok because she was the everything she claimed to be--honest, faithful, and eyes for only him. Well, her home computer went down a couple of months ago and recently, my friend decided to try to repair the computer himself. He was, surprisingly, successful. The computer rebooted, with all the bells and whistles. Proud of his accomplishment [guys love to play the role of hero for their girls], he pulled up tabs for her email account file and facebook account file. With pride in his voice, he joyously bellowed through the house for her to come to the computer room. As she entered, he proudly told to look at what he had accomplished for her. "Now, you can handle all your billing and computer needs, baby," he said with a smile. He asked for her email ID and password assuming she probably had hundreds of email messages needing to be addressed. Without hesitation, she gave it to him and the email account appeared. ...Smile. Moving onto the Facebook tab, he asked her for the same info, assuming she may have things and people to catch up with. After an awkward pause, she blurted out for him to just delete the page. "Why would you want to do that," he asked? "Cause Facebook only causes trouble," she replied. "Just delete the damn page," she insisted. At this point, he began to assume his angel might have something to hide. His heart rate tripled, as he insisted she have the account pulled up. Prevailing in this measure, first thing he noticed on her page were the unchecked messages. Clicking the message icon, one message stood like the purverbial red thumb. The last statement from some guy was, "..I'm sitting here whacking my meat." OMG!!! My friend nervously, slightly shouted, "WHAT THE HELL IS THAT!!!" His girlfriend quitely replied that she didn't know what that was. My friend clicked onto the full message. The message went something like this:

 

 

Guy J: so, r u going to be my girl or what?

 

 

My friend's girl: Gosh, can't we EVER just have a normal conversation. I don't know yet. Let's wait and see.

Guy J: I'll leave you alone.

 

 

My friend's girl: No, wait. I didn't say that. So, what are you doing?

 

 

Guy J: sitting here whacking my meat.

 

 

My friend, nearly in tears, asked his girl how she could do such a thing. Flipping the script, she yelled that she didn't feel like dealing with this and that he shouldn't read more into this than what is there.

Now, I'm not going to go into their insuing argument because my point is clear. Facebook records one's dastardly deeds. If not on the up-and-up, late night chats and imaginative photos can be the doom to Facebook users and their love ones. Use Facebook wisely.

Report: Rams Ready To Part Ways With Spagnuolo, McDaniels After The Season

by Ryan Van Bibber on Dec 19, 2011 3:53 PM CST

SB*NATION.NEWSLETTER

At 2-11 with each loss blurring together with the last one, the odds do not favor Steve Spagnuolo keeping his job as head coach of the St. Louis Rams. A report from the San Diego Union Tribune in November noted that team owner Stan Kroenke was already planning make changes at head coach and general manager. Today, Jason LaCanfora of the NFL Network noted something similar, saying on the air that sources told him the Rams plan to "blow things up" after the season ends.

Whether you blame the injuries, the personnel decisions, or the weather, it's pretty tough to stand by what the Rams have done this season.
Lots more after the jump...

There's no shortage of head scratching decisions with this team. Bernie Miklasz noted this morning the coaching staff's stubborn refusal to adapt the game for Sam Bradford similar to what they did with Kellen Clemens and A.J. Feeley. Not hiring a quarterbacks coach looked like a poor decision at the time because of the lockout and a new system. The defense is playing better, after 12 games, but it's notable that last year's group of outside linebackers made for a better unit than this year's group.
Other teams have handled similar injury situations, the Seattle Seahawks for instance, with aplomb. Add in the anecdotal stuff you hear about the coaching staff - e.g. Mike Karney's interview in which he noted Spags barely talks to the players during halftime, telling considering how poorly the team plays after the half - and it's pretty tough sell to keep the coach.

Finally, whether Spagnuolo's a good guy or not, it would be pretty tough to try and sell season tickets, much less get a new stadium, by bringing the same bunch back to lead the team in 2012.
Opinions aside, this is the second high profile report claiming that the Rams will make coaching changes ahead of the 2012 season.

LaCanfora's news does conflict with a report from Adam Schefter over the weekend that the Rams would like to keep McDaniels. With the changes coming in Kansas City, there's plenty of talk that McDaniels could be brought in as the offensive coordinator, where he'd be working for Scott Pioli and with Kyle Orton and Matt Cassel.

As for Spagnuolo, he could probably have his pick of defensive coordinator jobs. Many still believe he could go back to Philly, where Andy Reid once saw him as the eventual successor to Jim Johnson.
For the Rams, it's yet another coaching change, and it's more important than ever that they get it right this time.

Our friendless society!!!

By: Mike Fletcher

 

Here's an important question to answer: right now, if you really needed some help, how many friends do you have that you could call who you know would immediately be there for you?

Still thinking?

This is not good!

You were not made to go it alone.

God created us for relationships with others.

Have you ever realized that four of the Ten Commandments deal with our relationship to God while the remaining six deal with our relationship to each other. All 10 are about relationships.
The most important relationship is a personal relationship with our heavenly Father through His Son Jesus Christ . But we are also supposed to be connected to others.

"Bowling Alone "is the title of a popular book from a few years ago that talked about how we in the United States have become a nation of loners.

This is not good. Doctors tell us that loneliness is a major health problem. A Boston Globe story on the issue reported recently that people who are socially isolated like this but otherwise healthy are twice as likely to die as those who have friends. A similar study fund that isolated men are up to 25% more likely to die of all causes at any age versus non -isolated men. The odds for women are 33%.

George Callup's organization says Americans are among the loneliest people on earth, with more than a third saying they fell isolated and alone.

But George Gallup tells us something else, something he personally discovered that he says is "profoundly good news." Let me quote him:

"I want to report to you now on a trend that may be contributing to a transformation of America. You will not read about this trend in our daily newspapers or on television, yet it is a powerful undercurrent in our society that, I believe, gives us cause for encouragement about the future! This trend could be described as a sociological and spiritual phenomenon: Americans on a massive scale are rediscovering each other, and coming together regularly in small nourishing support groups, many with a spiritual dimension."

The news Gallup discovered is so profound that he has now basically retired from his survey company's day-to-day leadership and has devoted the remaining part of his life to the development and encouragement of small groups. George Gallup, in case you didn't know, is a devout Christian.

Small groups are all about relationships. And that's something that Jesus teaches in the Bible that we are to develop and nurture.
Jesus said our love for each other is to be our witness to the world.

There is nothing intimidating about a Christian small group. They're a lot like families. Think of them as a group of friends who meet regularly to support and encourage one another and to grow in knowledge of the Lord through Bible study, prayer and application.

For most, application means reaching out and helping others, beyond their immediate circule of friends. Many groups have regular outreach projects during the year. There is no shortage of needs. Working at a food pantry, babysitting for single Moms, mentoring school kids and visiting the sick in hospitals are just a few ideas.

Interpersonal relationships bring balance to life. And the best such relationships are when we make connect with others in a basic Christian community.

That's the small group.

If you were to count them all up, the New Testament has over 50 references to how Christians are to be connected in friendship and fellowship. Bible scholars call them the "one another" passages. For example, we're commanded to "love one another", to "pray for one another" and to "build up one another".

It's clear from the Bible that God wants us to be in regular, close fellowship with each other. But such relationships are often the first to be sacrificed to our busy schedules.

This doesn't make sense. For relationships, not wealth or prestige or the accumulation of material things, are what matters most in life.
Now listen. That is just plain wrong. That is sinful. And I say this on the authority of the Bible.

In Matthew 22:36-40. "Jesus said, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart...soul...and mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and Prophets hang on these two commandments.' "

That's called the Great Commandment.

In Matthew 28:19-20. "Jesus said, 'Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.' "

That's called the Great Commission.

Both of those commandments emphasize relationships.

Here's the bottom line: You cannot be the mature believer God intend unless you get involved with people. You will stagnate. It is unbiblical not to be connected with others. Pastor Rick Warren in big Purpose Driven Life Book said it this way: "If you are too busy to be connected you are too busy."

Clearly, we must make friends a priority if we are going to be obedient to God.

This isn't just an idea. It's a command from jesus, who says we are to join together with others and be friends, loving and praying and supporing one another.

What are you waiting for? Join or start a small group today.
Author BioThe author is the publisher of the Online Christian Shopper (www.onlinechristianshopper.com), a shopping site specializing in Christian T-Shirts and Christian jewelry. He also writes the Share Your Testimony evangelism Website (www.sharetestimony.com).

Spiritual Secrets of Concentration

By: Arthur Regis

For most of the time, we are barely conscious of what we are about, because there are so many projects, memories, words and images chasing each other rapidly through our brains, overlapping and interlacing in a totally free and chaotic manner.

There are not many people who can decide to devote their attention exclusively to something if only for an hour, and then keep their thoughts on track without getting confused or distracted.

There's right! We disperse and dissipate our mental energy all the time. Sometimes it's possible to concentrate hard in the heat of the moment perhaps when influenced by a powerful emotions or an urgent necessity. But even then, you are sumitting to the situation rather than controlling it.

This is not the deliberate, calm and active kind of concentration Maria Duval wants to discuss with you here - the kind that opens the doors to success and achievement.

In this world, there are students who in two hours flat can produce works that their comrades would find it difficult to accomplish in four hours.

There are people who when presented with a problem to solve, give it about fifteen minutes' thought and them come up with the answer.

There are attorneys or lawyers who only start to study their case files an hour before attending a hearing.

There are surgeons who examine their patient for only ten minutes before carrying out an operation. And who are capable, during the course of this operation, of modifying their technique each time a new factor comes to light.

The truth is that these people perform well because they know how to focus their mind, quickly and effectively. How do they manage to do this?? That's what Maria Duval is about to explain briefly.

Concentration is the power to focus all your psychic forces on a single point at a time, without allowing yourself to be distracted by any events or situations going on around you, says Maria Duval.

If you get a magnifying glass and allow the sunlight to shine through it, the light will be focused to such a point that it can burn many objects and burst into flames. Likewise, if you concentrate on a single issue as hard as you can, without getting distracted, you will experience a flash of enlightment. So using this technique, problems that creep into your mind can be solved after a few minutes of concentration.

Concentration is the faculty that makes people great. If you want to be successful, to do something worthwhile and reach the highest rungs of the social ladder, Maria Duval says it is important that you must learn to channel your attention, your thoughts, your feelings, your desires and your will by focusing them to a single point like the sun's rays.

Individuals who become high-flyers in absolutely any field of human activity, are people who are capable of concentrating their minds. Let Maria Duval explain the two main aspects of concentration, so that we can better understand the mechanisms involved:

• There is one type of concentration that involves regular practise sessions, performed using specific places, times and body postures, and possibly accompanied by certain breathing techniques;
• The other type is brought to bear on life itself, as it happens, with its obvious repetition, but with all its variations and surprises as well.

Although they can be exercised independently, an esoteric law known as the law of complementarity in fact links these two types of concentration because these practices support and reinforce each other. Understanding and observing this phenomenon is one of the keys to success.

Author BioArthur Regis is a freelance spiritualist. He practises the spiritual laws based on the teachings of psychic Maria Duval. His blog can be found at Maria Duval's Talisman.

Playing with fire: Obama's threat to China - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Playing with fire: Obama's threat to China - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Occupy the classroom? - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Occupy the classroom? - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Does God Exist?

       By:   Margriet Struik

"I don't believe in God. I believe in something, just not in God".

When questioned about their belief in God, a lot people seem to have a very narrow view of what God is supposed to be, inextricably linked to organised religion. When they cannot reconcile that narrow view with their own belief system they state that they do not believe in God and therefore have no relationship with the divine. That relationship may still be desired, as it could bring security, unconditional love, support at times of need and a sense of belonging, but it would constitute a lie to oneself and can therefore not be maintained. Many who claim they are non-believers however, are still left with the feeling that there is something bigger than ourselves, something they would like to connect to at some level, just not within the traditional context of organised religion.
As I see it, there are many ways to approach the concept of God and organised religion is just one of them.

Organised religion generally poses the personal God, usually male, an omnipotent (all powerful) being who rules the world and who, by allowing human beings the freedom of choice, also allows the existence of His Antagonist, the Devil. This God wants His subjects to come to Him of their own free will, but when they don't, they will spend eternity in the flames of Hell. There is only one life and it must be lived by God's rules. Within Christianity, there are ways of purging sins, through confession and true repentance, in which case an officially assigned representative of God can grant you forgiveness and cleanse your soul. If you can not get access to such a representative of God before you die, tough luck, you die and go to Hell whether you are repentant or not. Up until very recently, the Catholic church did not allow stillborn babies into heaven, they had to stay in 'Limbo' for eternity because they were not baptised before death. ('Limbo' is a place just outside Heaven, away from Hell but also away from the presence of God.)

I personally believe that this is a very limited view of God. This God is not omnipotent; there seem to be enormous shortcomings to his power if he is incapable to grant forgiveness to a repenting soul, without an intervening human representative (e.g. priest) acting on his behalf. This God is not omnipresent (present everywhere at the same time) either: he is absent in Limbo, absent in Hell for eternity and absent until access has been granted through baptism, again performed by an officially assigned human representative. Choice is relative, here: 'you do as I say, or you will burn in Hell for eternity'. After death, this God refuses shelter to anyone who has not abided by his rules; the concept of forgiveness is pretty short lived. Access to heaven is, up to a certain point, simply luck of the draw. It is not granted on the basis of your contribution to the world as a caring, loving, non-judgemental human being, who is never afraid of helping out other people, and making right and just decisions, rather than ones driven by personal gain. This may play a part, but not the most important one. Access to heaven is gained mainly by baptism, worship on Sunday, by praying and reading your bible, by telling God you think he's great, you love him and can't live without him. So if you happen to be born in a place that has never heard of this God; if you die alone; if you cannot get access to one of those representatives before you die, who can grant forgiveness for your sins and cleanse your soul; if you die angry with God because you have been hurt and abused, you are not allowed to be with God. You go to Hell.
Life in this context is not a process of growing: it is a cruel and unfair test, with most people in this world seriously disadvantaged, or even incapable of passing, through circumstances beyond their control.

Organised religions are frameworks, encompassing theological theories about the nature of the divine, usually represented as absolute truths, and rules about approaching and incorporating the divine into one's life, usually predicting dire consequences if these rules are not adhered to. The most important thing to understand about organised religions is that they have to keep their institutions alive and as such it is within their best interest to stipulate worship through their facilities, using their people. The need to be needed in order to survive must prevail, because otherwise, they will cease to exist. That is why giving money to religious institutions, in collects or as gifts, is considered a divine duty, why one can only receive true salvation through the institutions and why members are ordered to keep coming back, every morning in the past, and now, as most congregations are waning, at least once a week. Institutions, at their best, do wonderful things. Through them, wonderful people help other people in wonderful ways. But they remain organisations whose belief structures and divine rules are coloured by a need to survive.

I believe that the problem many people seem to have with the concept of God could be due to a failure of organised religions to move with the times, theologically. Many individual representatives of the churches do not subscribe to the idea of hell as they used to, nor to the idea of God as a vengeful, punishing force. Many even acknowledge the possibility of a relationship with God outside the confounds of church and traditional worship, but in essence, the churches still put forward an imposing patriarchal society in all aspects of religious life: a personal male God, benevolent father, head of the household, prescribing a framework of morals and lifestyle rules and restrictions as well as regular worship within religious institutions. The feminine is still entirely absent from the divine. Mary has never been granted divinity; she may be the 'mother of God' but she is still considered human. The archangels are male; Jesus is male. Nobody in this divine family has ever had sex because sex, although quite necessary for the survival of the human race (we can not all achieve 'immaculate conceptions'), is still dirty and, at the heart of it, sinful. At the heart of most religious life is still worship, rather than love for one another in day to day life. Why would God care so much about being worshipped and thanked all the time? Does he have such a big ego?

Monotheism is the existence of a single omnipresent, omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent deity, or God. It is claimed that Christianity is monotheistic, but there are some problems with this claim. In practice we do not see an omnipotent and omnipresent God, as discussed earlier in this article. His omniscience is questionable also. Firstly, his perspective is limited by his sex: he is male and therefore lacks female perspective. (Although in the Old Testament this view of God as solely male is contradicted, e.g. Gen 5.1-2: ... When God created man, he made them in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.) Secondly, there are many occasions in the Old Testament where God asks questions in order to get answers, e.g Job 1.7 (To Satan:) "Whence have you come?" (God does not know where Satan came from) or: Gen 18.26: And the Lord said, "If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake." (God does not know how many righteous people live in Sodom). But even if we are to take the bible as written by fallible people, rather than God himself, it is still hard to sustain the notion that this God is truly monotheistic.

So why is this an issue at all? Well, it is an issue because there is an inherent contradiction in organised religion. We are told on the one hand that this God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, but on the other hand, the entire frameworks prescribed to us by organised religions tell us that he is none of these things. The theology limits God's power, God's understanding, God's knowledge, God's reach. The fact is, that many people who claim they 'don't believe in God but believe in something' believe in God as something much more than that.
True monotheism, which Christianity claims to be but is not, encompasses a God that is truly omniscient, neither male nor female, and at the same time, both; a God that is truly omnipotent, who controls all and yet nothing because the world would run this way because there is no other way; a God that is omnipresent, who is all things and yet, nothing, because the very nature of being is already finite. This God is past, present and future, and all at the same time because this God is time and beyond time. This God is so all encompassing that we cannot escape it, no matter how 'bad' we are or how much we deny its existence. To deny this God would be to deny ourselves. This God does not need or demand worship, nor praise or prayer, because this God has no ego. Rather, we are the ones that need prayer, in order to connect back with what is true. Connecting to this God would mean connecting with what needs to be, to embrace life. Hell is merely an illusion, a state of denial, an absence, rather than an active force of being. Hell does not truly exists because God is omnipresent and therefore a place without God can not exist.

So in answer to the main question: does God exist, we might say this: the concept of God as an all-encompassing thing, or life itself in all shapes and forms, embraces any view of the world around us. There is no limit to what you can believe or disbelieve. We know so little and we are so little, in this world. One might say that angels and ghosts and fairies do not exist, because there is no 'real' proof. There is even less proof that they don't exist. One might say that reincarnation is just an inability to accept that when we're dead, that's it, we're really not that important. On the other hand, not believing it might just be an excuse not to learn what we need to learn, because if we don't, we will have to in the next life. The existential doubt of the existence of God has always struck me as slightly odd. The sun rises every day, doesn't it? You are breathing, aren't you? Do you deny the existence of the universe, just because we can not measure it, just because we do not understand?

So what about that relationship with God? How can you connect to all these things at the same time, and why would you bother if you don't believe in the grey man on the cloud?
Well, the answer is simple. You don't have a relationship with God for God, that would be ridiculous. You have a relationship with God or 'the divine' for you, in order to find a moment of peace and tranquillity and in order to feel connected and in control in a very demanding, stressful world. Addressing God in those brief moments does not automatically mean you believe God is a man on a cloud. You could pray, you could talk to God when no one can hear you, write a letter to God, do yoga, meditate, take some quiet time of contemplation. You won't be lying to yourself. You can have your theological cake and eat it. And at its best, maybe that is what organised religion manages to offer to some of us: an almostm tangible relationship with something that is ultimately beyond definition.

Author BioMargriet Struik is a regular writer for www.lettertogod.net. Visit Letter to God to leave a Letter to your God, add to the Dream Book, view self help Articles or submit your own articles. helper@lettertogod.net

Reality Show Mania...Tired Yet?

By:  LA Williams

Now that we've moved well into our second decade of reality television, I suppose (perhaps) I should get use to the fact that they are here to stay.

What (exactly) is our enormous fascination with these oversexed, narcissists?  Is it the glamorous lives they pretend to have?  Or, the unfettered manner in which they brazenly hurt others?  Do we secretly wish our lives to be as exciting and drama-filled as the Real Housewives of where-ever? And, why can we not get enough of Jersey Shore or Celebrity Apprentice? 

Well, I think the answer is quit simple.  The reason we love these "tell and show it like it is shows" is they are a latent, passive-aggressive, sub-conscience response to the flowering, everything is perfect images that corporate America inundates us with, while convincing us to spend money we do not have on products we do not need.  I know that was a run-on sentence, but I don't care....this is reality, remember?  So, follow me on this one, please.  If I have to see one more car commercial where the 20's something wife, buys the 20's something husband a NEW CAR for Christmas, I'm going to puke.  I mean, c'mon!  Who the heck has that kind of money sitting around, at the oh-so mature age of 28?  Or, what about the middle-class couple that decides to have a sit-down dinner at McDonald's....pleeeassee..that's drive-thru all the way.  The true McDonald's, sit-down people are the over-stressed, slightly over-weight moms with two too many kids on her hands.

What about the movies?  Every "romantic comedy" portray these people whom possess all the money they'll ever need, and the only problem they have is that they have failed to realize their one true love, all along, is their best friend (of the opposite sex).  Or the dramas, whereby the couple lives in this upscale, middle-income home, while the woman is a stay-at-home mom, and the husband is an account executive.  C'mon, man!!!  "How the hell do they afford that lifestyle on an account exec's salary?"

Do you see where I'm coming from?  Do you see it?  Corporate America works hard to make us long for  certain (mostly unattainable) lifestyles.  This leads to a multitude of personal finance problems that I'll save for another discussion.  But, more to this point, leaves us secretly desiring more raunchy images (i.e. reality television).  I mean, let's face it...it's not like the libraries are flooding with patrons.  Thanks, Ben Franklin, but No thanks, says the American public...lol.

Until, we decide that maybe these cell phone (robots) aren't that important and decide that dinner (for the family) is at six o'clock sharp, our society will continue to spiral into this weird false reality of butterfly days and dragon nights.

Is Charles, the Prince of Wales, fit to be king?

    By: Reed Oxman                     

 
Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor was named at his birth on the 14th of November 1948. Charles, the eldest child and son of Queen Elizabeth II of England, Great Britain, Wales, and all Territories, is the current heir to the British throne. Born to Elizabeth and Prince Philip (Philip Mountbatten of the royal family of Greece) in 1948, a year after the young royals wedding, and four years before Elizabeth became Queen with the unfortunate death of her father, the reigning King of England.
 
Charles was ordained Prince of Wales in 1958, serving as a pilot and commander in the Royal Navy from 1971-76. In 1981 he married Lady Diana Spencer. Diana, known as the "Peoples' Princess", died in 1997 in a high-speed car chase in Paris, France. Prior to Diana's death, Diana was named Princess of Wales and became a royal in her own right. Diana was soon stripped of Her Royal Highness title when the royal couple separated in 1992. They divorced in 1996. The royal union did produce an heir and "a spare", Prince William (Born in 1982) and Prince Henry (also called Harry, Born in 1984).
 
After Diana's death, Charles officially acknowledged having had a lengthy clandestine affair/relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles. Their relationship continued throughout his entire royal marriage to Diana Spencer. Charles and Camilla met in the early 1970s, becoming friends, and later romantic partners. Due to the pressure to marry a woman who could bear him heirs, Charles married Diana, while Camilla (or Dog face as she was affectionately known) married Army Captain Andrew Parker Bowles in 1973.
 
After Diana's death in 1997, Parker-Bowles became recognized as Charles steady companion and partner. Buckingham Palace advisors held many a meeting concerning Parker Bowles eventual role should it become a fact to deal with if, unfortunately, Charles would become king. Amid much public chatter concerning the propriety of their relationship, or the lack of it, the two were married in a civil ceremony in London on the 9th of April 2005. Their non-religious union was blessed the same day in a ceremony at St. George's Chapel in Windsor Castle, attended by only the royal family, relatives, and very close friends from both the groom's and brides families.
 
Queen Elizabeth II gave Parker-Bowles the HRH Title of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall. Why an obscure place like Cornwall? Well, One of Charles's many titles is the Duke of Cornwall. Under no circumstances, according to British Law, will Camilla ever become Queen Camilla. Such a concern has materialized when Charles, the Prince of Wales and the current Heir to the British Throne, married Camilla, the once mistress and now wife of Charles.
 
When you poll the British Citizens on the original Question: Should Charles become King, if Elizabeth II were to step down or, God forbid, suddenly pass away. The various answers that you could potentially hear are as numerous as the number of British Citizens that were polled. Now, having a better understand of the Royal Life of Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor, what might be your opinion if asked?

Author BioReed Oxman, the author of the above, is also creator and owner of the best place to purchase your needed Travel accessories electronics. Born and raised in California, he attended UC Berkeley Undergraduate, UC Los Angeles Medical School of Medicine and became Board Certified in Emergency Medicine and Pain Management.

Is Martial Arts Street Effective??

Is Martial Arts Street Effctive?
        By: Norm Bettencourt

The topic of how effective traditional martial arts is in today's world as a way of protecting oneself is still a very sensitive issue to a lot of martial artists. What is even more sensitive is the issue of how realistic and street effective is the newer styles that have come out since UFC/PRIDE have come into the picture. I am a Registered Black Belt & have nothing against the martial arts and have also studied styles such as Pankration. I know that the techniques I have learned in the dojo should stay in the dojo because they will only work there, that also goes with styles such as the "modern day or reality based systems" they are for sport only.

 I work as a bouncer/bodyguard & also teach tactical self defense. Many of my students are black belts or have trained under reality based systems & have learned the hard way that what they learned in the ring or dojo is not street effective. Their common question is why didn't their system work? Part of the reason is that if a rule or law is applied to a system it will subconsciously hinder you when your adrenaline takes over in combat. There are no rules in the streets your mind should not have to sensor or think can I do this to beat this person? We respond exactly the same way that we train.

There is no time to switch gears from sport to tactical. If you are training and your coach or sensei says can't hit their or no contact to the eyes your mind will remember that and store it for future reference. Your self defense system should take into account your environment as well. Can you kick your attacker in the small space your in? Can you balance yourself while performing a technique on the icy sidewalk?  If you grapple with him what if he has friends coming around, what do you do then? Street fighting or tactical self-defense should be in the simplest form of fighting. You don't have time to play a chess game, like you would see in a UFC match. Time is not on your side in a street confrontation nor are rules or morals. What we can learn from the UFC or mixed martial arts events when it comes to reality fighting is if it has rules of what not to do, do those things in a street fight because its got to be effective.
Norm Bettencourt is the creator of TACT Self Defense which specializes in combat management tactics for mind, body & spirit.

Visit:   "http://www.tactselfdefense.com/%22%3ETact Self Defense

Gingrich: Poor kids don't work, only get cash illegally

Listening to Mr. Gingrich makes me sad.  Don't you love whenever "rich-people" give ridiculous advice to the poor and make it seem like if only the "poor" would get off their lazy asses, they could earn wealth tomorrow?  Oooh, if life were that simple......

Fact of the matter is there seems to be some covert-systematic methodology to maintaining the status-quo, whereby rich people get richer, and poor people must kill each other for scraps.  Or, is it just me? Not to preach to the crowd, but why are corporations reporting record earnings, while unemployment lingers between 9-10%?  Is that the President's fault?  I don't think so.... He can't hire people to work for Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, CitiBank, or any other wealthy corporation. 

Mr. Gingrich seems to be very opinionated when it comes to putting 9 and 10 year old children to work, as janitors (and for a public entity)...  I think he forgot that school janitors are paid by tax payer dollars, and the last time I checked, the republicans were working steadfast to decrease the budgets for education....  Remember?  Remember how they labeled the Department of Education as discretionary spending? So, where is this extra funding for children's salaries going to come from, Mr. Gingrich?  I guess it's ok to pay that poor kid to clean a toilet at school, but not ok for his/her school to have the latest technology or something that exponentiates is education?! 

Let's get real, in America.  Or, is it too late?  If this country were to meet a fate similar to the Great Roman Empire, it won't be as a result of outside, perceived-terrorism....  It will be through a steady rot from the inside-out.

Facebook aims to help prevent suicide

Facebook aims to help prevent suicide

Caught A Friends Wife Cheating

Kindle, Wi-Fi, Graphite, 6" Display with New E Ink Pearl Technology

World War III is Here

Woman Preys on Married Man

Revolt, If You Must...But, Have a Plan!!!

In case you’ve been sleeping under the proverbial rock or wasting away in the magical world of Facebook or, perhaps, dreaming of the fictitious days of old (when the air was sweeter and the water was tastier), you may have noticed the recent uprising in the land of the pharaoh --- the birthplace of Moses, the home of King Tut, the Sphinx, Great Pyramids, and rich Nile River.  Anti-government protesters have taken to the streets of Cairo and bombarded Tahrir Square, with chants and signs demanding the overthrow of their own government and demanding the departure of their thirty year ruler and president Hosni Mubarak.

According to the protesters of the current Egyptian regime, they are vying to rid themselves of a “tyrannical” government and taste the sweet nectar of “true” democracy.    But wait, Egypt is already is a democratic establishment…  Right?  Oh, my bad….the people of the land claim that the election process is a joke, whereby, Mubarak seems to win every time. 

The question, for me, is what exactly are the protesters demanding?  All lasting movements must have a twinge of organization….a platform… a methodology for change.  What is theirs’?  Is it simply the removal of President Mubarak?  Well, he’s agreed to step down in September.  What else are their demands? …a voice in their own governing?  Ok… well, since Mubarak is leaving, perhaps they can establish political parties and develop platforms….and make necessary adjustments to their constitution.

The tenacity and fortitude of the Egyptian proletariat has been both admirable and tragic in its quest for “freedom.”   The movement seems to be a youth driven revolution, whereby, the tech-babies of this era are using the power of speedy connections to excite comrades into “spontaneous-combustible” events.  However, they appear to lack true leadership and organization.  They have weak talking points and no solid goals.  If one were to juxtapose this recent uprising with the successful U.S. civil rights movement of the 1950s & ‘60s, one will notice a stark difference.   The latter was a concerted effort, with several organizations fusing their goals for civil rights into one cohesive goal of achieving specific life changing legislation (e.g. Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965).  The marches, sit-ins, freedom rides, and countless hours of planning all led to a positive end result, as opposed to the unorganized chaos ensuing in Egypt.

As a result of my undying affection for the “peoples” of the world, in their fight for innate freedoms, I want the commoners of Egypt to gain long-term success in their quest.  In doing so, they must take the reins of this movement away from other self-serving onlookers, many of whom want to see chaos in order to slip into a position of power by default.  This is evident with the recent meeting of Egyptian VP Omar Suleiman and the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Muslim Brotherhood had claimed to not be responsible for the uprising and have no interest in replacing the Mubarak regime, however, they did not hesitate to watch kids get their heads bashed in, then unofficially pronounce themselves the representatives of the movement (by taking the meeting with the VP).  Meanwhile, the protesters consistently tell media outlets that their movement is not under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood.   In my opinion, this is why the anti-government protesters should stand down long enough to form committees to formalize a “business” plan in order to be able to intelligently define success and defeat.  If they don’t take control, someone will do it for them.  …and look out world…

Why is this important to Americans?  A stable middle east will always be important to our way of life.  The birthplace of civilization, rich with endless natural resources and marvelous wonders, the middle east/Africa is the heart of the modern world and any damage to it will result in a massive corollary for the rest of us.  Revolutions have a tendency to spread its spirit to other suffering peoples of the world.  Instability in that region will result in the rise in the cost of oil and other imported goods.  It will change the balance of power, which may result in the rise of other units that will be unfriendly to Americans.  One of the young Egyptian protesters told an ABC American report to, “…get out of here, I hate you, I hate Americans, you are not good people.” 

Although Egypt has been an American ally during the Mubarak regime, recent tensions have arisen due to Egypt’s unwillingness to commit troops to Afghanistan and Iraq in peace stabilization missions.  A new regime, under the wrong leadership, may be even more unwilling to assist in peace missions; in fact, they may be coerced into joining opposing forces which will mean the deployment of more of our young troops when the time arrives.  We, Americans, cannot allow ourselves to ignore this issue as some ridiculous event on the other side of the world, unrelated to our way of life, for small winds in African can often become hurricanes by the time they reach our coast.  Stay tuned.         

Egypt: Lessons for US Foreign Policy

Ramez Naam
Ramez Naam
Ethical Technology      

Posted: Jan 30, 2011

Those who help to oppress a people inevitably will be targets of their rage.

---

---

Over the last few days, Egyptians have taken to the streets, demanding that Egyptian president and dictator Hosni Mubarak step down. The protests so far haven’t had a religious or anti-American bent. They’re not Islamist. They are a wave of people – mostly young people – expressing their frustration at corruption, joblessness, economic stagnation, and above all, at the lack of political and personal freedoms that we in the West enjoy.
I am a US citizen, but I was born in Egypt, have returned multiple times, and have family there today. It’s difficult to find fans of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. Mr. Mubarak is the third ‘president’ of Egypt and has held that role for 29 years. While Egypt has elections of a sort, they’re largely charades orchestrated to rubber stamp Mubarak and his National Democratic Party. Egyptians essentially have no say in who governs them. Nor are they allowed to speak out against the government. That alone is an offense for which one may be imprisoned, beaten, or occasionally killed.

Yet Egypt is also a recipient of American aid. Since 1975, the US has sent more than $40 billion in direct military aid to Egypt, out of a grand total of $60 billion in military and economic aid. That aid keeps the totalitarian regime in power.

The US has done this for clear reasons. Egypt was the first Arab country to recognize and make peace with Israel. For that, Egypt is rewarded with aid. In addition, Egypt is a key military partner. US and Egyptian forces conduct joint exercises in the area every year. And Egypt is the site of the Suez Canal, a vital shipping lane that connects Europe and the Mediterranean to the Gulf, India, China, Japan, and more. Along with the Panama Canal, it’s one of the most vital and vulnerable sea passages in the world. The US, along with rest of the industrialized world, has a vested interest in keeping the Suez Canal open and under stable management. Egypt provides that.
For those reasons and more, the US has continued to prop up the government of Hosni Mubarak for decades. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have both urged Egypt to embrace free speech and allow more dissent and hold more open elections, but those words ring hollow when the US continues to send $2 billion a year in aid to the country. What’s more, no administration has been willing to mix the issues of US support and domestic political reform.
Vice President Joe Biden said a few days ago that Mubarak is not a dictator and that he should not step down. Mr. Biden knows full well that Mubarak is a dictator – an unelected and unpopular leader who uses torture, summary arrest, and a perpetual ‘state of emergency’ to maintain power.
Ten months ago, in March 2009, Hilary Clinton said that human rights violations shouldn’t interfere with a planned trip by Mubarak to Washington DC, and that she considered Mubarak and his wife friends of the family.
There are good reasons for the United States to want a stable and pro-US government in place in Egypt. Yet the protests on the street today show how supporting convenient dictators can have negative consequences. If those protesters on the street do manage to topple Mubarak, what will a new government in Egypt look like? What will its attitude be to towards the US, given that the US has supported a regime that has oppressed the Egyptian people for the last 30 years?
The reality is that if a new Egyptian government is hostile to the US, that will be in part a natural response to US behavior. For multiple decades, the United States has put dollars into the hands of a dictator who suffers no dissent. The tear gas Egyptian security forces are hurling into crowds was made in the United States. When Egyptian security forces open fire and kill protesters, there’s a case to be made that they’re doing so on American dollars.
The US has a long history of supporting convenient dictators. America did so with the Shah of Iran, who rewarded American patronage with sites for US military bases useful for force projection. America did so with Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, reversing the US stance on the coup that brought him to power and even on his country’s flagrant violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, because Pakistan was a potential ally help in tracking down Al Qaeda. And the US has done so with Hosni Mubarak, helping him suppress democracy in exchange for his support of Israel and of US military and foreign policy aims in the region.
These policies are extremely shortsighted. They belie a lack of faith in one of the founding principles of the United States: that governments are created by the people, for the people. Americans generally believe democracy to be the best form of government ever created, and yet in US foreign policy America often turns its back on freedom and democracy in order to achieve short term goals.

There will always be short term threats. There will always be economic resources the US needs access to. There will always be locations where the US wants to place military bases, or countries to fly over on the way to others. Yet we Americans shouldn’t allow these temptations to distract us from either our long term safety or from the values and principles that have made the United States such a great nation.

Those values and principles center on liberty – on personal freedom of expression, on the right of the governed to choose who governs them, on protection from tyrannical excesses. If we believe that all men and women are endowed with certain inalienable rights, then we should behave that way in our international affairs. Today the US behaves as if only Americans are endowed with those rights. The world sees this behavior, and the trust afforded the United States is diminished by it.

Moreover, all principles aside, it is simply in the long term best interests of the United States and the entire world to encourage democracy, liberty, and widespread prosperity across the whole of the planet. Democracies seldom war with one another. They seldom produce terrorists. They do tend to lower corruption, lower populace frustration, and lift prosperity. More democracies in the world would mean fewer hotspots for the US military planners to worry about. They’d mean fewer potential terrorists in training. They’d mean more natural allies for the United States and other democratic powers to work with to solve global problems.

The coming decades will only increase the extent to which spreading democracy is in the best interest of the United States, and to which supporting dictators, however tempting in the short run, is a threat to American security and global security. The last decade made it clear that highly motivated individuals and small groups can wreak tremendous havoc against vastly superior nation states. Witness 9/11. Yet the continued development of technology makes it possible to imagine terrorist actions that would make 9/11 pale by comparison.

Nuclear terrorism, always a threat, remains on the table. Bioterrorism, until now largely a hypothetical, will become more and more plausible as the basic tools of biotechnology continue their exponential drop in price and their dissemination to hobbyists.  Electronic attacks will become more and more dangerous as industrialized nations built computer-controlled smart grids and increasingly connect physical infrastructure to the global net.

No amount of security can be guaranteed to catch all threats. And as it becomes possible to put together terrorist threats with less money, less expertise, less time, and fewer people, traditional security mechanisms will become less and less effective. That does not mean the US and other democracies should give up on efforts to catch and stop terrorist acts. It does mean that we need a complement to enforcement. Prevention, as they say, is the best medicine. And the best form of prevention is to eliminate or reduce the conditions that lead to the frustration, hopelessness, and anger that help breed terrorists.

John F. Kennedy once said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” I believe Kennedy was correct. I would augment his statement with a corollary: Those who help oppress a people will inevitably be the targets of their rage.

When Iranian students toppled the Shah in 1979, they rightly perceived the United States as the sponsor of the corrupt and unelected dictator who’d oppressed them for decades. That did not help their attitudes towards the US. It stoked their anger and helped build a new regime that fundamentally rejected the US and the western way of life and which has spent the past 30 years training, funding, and arming anti-American terrorists.

If Egyptian protesters do manage to topple Mubarak (which, as an American with roots in Egypt, I hope they do), they will have every reason to be hostile to the US. That hostility is unlikely to translate into better governance or a better ally. American complicity in oppressing democracy produces blow-back in the form of anti-American sentiment and anti-American action.
It’s time to stop thinking short term. It’s time to stop placing military alliances, access to economic resources, or even peace treaties above the spread of the principles of liberty and self-determination. It’s time for America to place its principles above its short term self interests. And if the US does so, I firmly believe that it will enhance its standing in the world, its safety, and the condition of hundreds of millions of men and women.

In the long run, democracies make the best friends and allies. In the long run, encouraging democracy – through free and fair elections, through personal freedom of expression, through the establishment of a free and uncensored press – is the best foreign policy investment any free nation can make.
I look forward to the day when an American administration makes encouraging worldwide liberty and democracy – for both pragmatic and principled reasons – the #1 US foreign policy goal.

---

Ramez Naam, a Fellow of the IEET, is a computer scientist and the author of More than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement. He writes at the Unbridled Speculation blog.

---

House Approves Measure to Test TANF Recipients Suspected of Drug Use

In a move to tighten the scope of citizens on public assistence programs (i.e. people on unemployment benefits, food stamps, public housing assistence, etc) and limit the burden of normal missourians, the republican led MO House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a measure to test recipients suspected of drug use. 

 

 

1/26 – House Approves Measure to Test TANF Recipients Suspected of Drug Use

 

Jefferson City –The Missouri House of Representatives gave initial approval to legislation that would implement a system of drug testing for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families recipients suspected of using illegal controlled substances. The House perfected HB 73, sponsored by Rep. Ellen Brandom, R-Sikeston, by a vote of 121-37. HB 73 would require the Department of Social Services to develop a drug testing program for applicants and recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program benefits. Tests would be given to individuals who the department has reasonable suspicion to believe engage in the illegal use of controlled substances. An applicant or recipient who tests positive would be ineligible for benefits for one year. Household members of an individual who tests positive could continue to receive benefits as protective or vendor payments to a third-party payee. As diligent and honorable as Speaker Steven Tilley-R and the rest are, somehow that fail to answer the one question:  How do they determine who these certain applicants for and recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program benefits to be tested for the illegal use of controlled substances are? Click the audio links below to hear arguments on both sides.  Make a comment and let your representative know your opinion. Listen to Rep. Ellen Brandom speak in support of the bill. Listen to Rep. John McCaherty speak in support of the bill. Listen to Rep. Shalonn “Kiki” Curls speak against the bill. Listen to Rep. Karla May speak against the bill.

If You're Broke, The NAACP Doesn't Want You

Unless one has upfront money, one should not assume that one of the nation's oldest and most prestigious  civil rights organization (the NAACP) wants your membership. ...because they don't. 

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (or, NAACP) makes it perfectly clear that, unless you can donate money to them, you will not have the right to become a member and join their cause in fighting for justice.                                               

Founded in 1909 by W.E.B. DuBois and several other prominent Americans in response to the Springfield Race Riot of 1908 and the need for a movement to secure the voting rights for millions of African Americans and women, the NAACP set out to consolidate the expertise of liberal-minded professionals and mobilize disenfranchised minorities into a force for change. The birth child of the Niagara Movement of 1908, the NAACP found success in growing its membership and influence, ultimately, culminating with the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

During those days, one's willingness for participate (i.e. volunteer time, ideas, and heart) was the only requirement for involvement.  Today, however, one needs to drop down $30 in order to gain membership (for a year).  Recently, I made an attempt to join this storied group.  However, after logging onto www.stlouisnaacp.org, I found that I could only join (as an adult) with a $30 donation.  That was it....no alternative....  My next thought was to learn the local chapter agenda, study its initiatives, and determine whether or not the 30 bucks was worth it.  Well, to my surprise, the local initiatives were nonexistent.  Instead, I found the resumes of the leadership and a "Save the Date" promotion for their 2011 Freedom Fund Dinner.

These revelations made me wonder how this once great organization was able to assist in accomplishing great feats, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with free membership, yet today seem to initiate and accomplish nothing (with their money first strategy).  I don't mean to down the NAACP, for who am I to do so, however the group truly needs to get back to the ground level and return to its purpose of proposing and initiating legislation that will improve the plight of those of us who aren't rich or wealthy.  I want them to make headlines for something other than their opposition to zealous statements made by some Tea Partiers.  There is oodles of work to be done, such as:  grant programs for minority and women construction companies, updating the technology within urban public schools, partnerships with Haitian, Jamaican, and African countries, extending the school year in order to decrease the gap in math and science, gun control improvements, stiffer penalties for violent criminals, greater tax incentives for companies, and so on.

Bottom line, the NAACP has the name recognition to join forces with women groups, Latino groups, church, and LGBT groups in develop real legislation and placing some heat on our elected officials.....  swallow your pride and study the Tea Party, study the Obama campaign of 2008, and study the forefathers of the NAACP itself. 

If the NAACP wants $30 before signing a member, prove to us that it's worth it.  

Go Ahead And Die! (Pirates Of The Health Care-ibean)

Article submitted by:
 Patrick Daniels

Facts About Medicaid And Health Care Reform

The new health care reform has many people up in arms for the most part because they fear that this plan is going to put more people on Medicaid in the past then, but the numbers are provided to Medicaid that the new plan shows a very slight increase in the number of people are being added to this health insurance program of the government.


The new health care reform has many people up in arms for the most part because they fear that this plan is going to put more people on Medicaid in the past then, but the numbers are provided to Medicaid that the new plan shows a very slight increase in the number of people are being added to this health insurance program of the government. In fact all those who are to be added are for the most part going to pay their own way with some poor young and those who work for small businesses the opportunity to obtain vouchers to help pay for their health insurance.

Overall the plan seems like a decent one but the number of people who will be getting insurance for free will not really be increasing even though you will hear people out there talking about the health care reform as being some sort of Robin Hood type plan with the intent to steal from the rich and give to the poor, it is really not quite so extreme. Actually, the thought process seems to be that the more people who are included in the plan the greater the risk pool and this means the less the overall cost of health insurance for all.

Of course, some small business owners are frustrated that they must now ensure all their employees, but they will receive government money to do this if they are not financially strong enough to do them themselves and all this will help reduce the cost structure of healthcare in this country. It is important to ensure that everyone has coverage, because it is the best way to make a difference.

While it may seem that providing these individuals with health care coverage will be too expensive, one of the largest expenses in the health care system currently is the cost of those uninsured patients and the bills that they leave behind. These bills do eventually get paid but they result in larger expenses for those that are insured.

Let's face it, the system is not perfect and the new health care reform is not going to be either but it is important to realize that these changes are being made out of necessity for the entire health care system and for the financial stability of the government as well. It is important to realize this and even though Americans may not want this change it is coming their way like it or not.

Source: Free Articles from ArticlesFactory.com

Campaign Finance Reform Equals True Freedom!!!

Author:  LA Williams

With all this talk of calming the political tones and stemming the tide of vitriolic political fervor in order to nurture a softer, kinder, more pleasant and less violent political climate, one of sound mind must ask the obvious question as to how exactly does America answer this call and promote lasting change? 

We all share this silent fear that once the presidential race ramps up (summer 2011), all that we've learned, in the past few weeks, will be mostly forgotten and both sides will continue the practice of metaphorically assassinating their opponents.  ....the big bucks will storm into each camp, lobbyist organizations will be ejaculating their poison onto the landscape, and we, the people will doze back into our proverbial slumber and digest the contents of this poisonous stew.

What exactly has American democracy morphed into?  Our advanced and complex system of a republican form of government mixed with capitalist values has given birth to a creature that (mostly) doesn't resemble the child that our fore fathers conceived.

The problem:  MONEY (and too much of it); the answer:  CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM.  Far too many companies, organizations and the like care more about the monetary game of politics and less about finding real solutions.  The formula seems to be thrown way out of whack and doesn't seem to lead to a real solution.  Scores and scores of lobbyist groups, ranging from environmental groups, health care groups, insurance groups, union groups, energy groups, second amendment groups, madison avenue groups, wall street groups, education groups, public safety groups, gay rights groups, media groups, deep sea diving groups, minority groups, and many more work year-round raising and contributing millions and millions of dollars to candidate(s) that will vote in favor of their selfish causes. 

To make matters worse, the U.S. Supreme Court only added fuel to this brush fire in their recent 5-4 ruling (Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission) removing all monetary restrictions in donating funds to political candidates.  Gone are the days of One Man, One Vote, a principle enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court (1964) in Reynolds vs. Sims.  In that case, the supreme court ruled that a state's apportionment plans for seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must allocate seats on a population basis so that the voting power of each voter be as equal as possible to that of any other voter. 

How can one citizen's vote be equal to that of any other voter when the chips are stacked on the side of those with the biggest wallets.  Mass media outlets prostitute themselves to whom ever has the most mullah.  Meanwhile, the "huddled masses" are spoon-fed the propaganda that the wealthiest among us serves up.

A true, unadulterated level playing field is the only way for the American people to find and elect viable candidates free to truly serve the public.  The main mantra of our society is the promotion of a system free from tyranny, yet the tyrannical arm of American lobbyist groups keeps us under its thumb of oppression.  Let us level the playing field of ideals.  Let us make true the constitutional promises of yesterday, today.  Let us be unafraid to debate the issues with zero monetary influence from lobbyist.  Let us not be afraid of a government of the people, by the people, and for all the everyday people of this great land.  Let us be that great nation once and for all.

Should Euthanasia Be Legal And Is It Justifiable?

Author:  Charlene Lacandazo

Euthanasia has become a burning social issue in a growing number of countries, with a general societal trend towards greater liberalisation. Is this necessarily a welcome development, though?




Euthanasia comes from the Greek word “eu” which means good, and “thanatos” which means death. It is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her benefit.  Wherever it is permitted, it is for one main reason: to stop suffering and pain.

Euthanasia is a form of murder, but shall we legalize euthanasia in our society? This question has been a dilemma since the beginning of medicine and medical ethics, but until now this issue remains controversial. In some countries like the Netherlands and in the State of Oregon in the U.S.A, euthanasia is legal and accepted. But on the other hand, all countries in Asia as well as institutions like the British Medical Association and Royal College of Nurses are against the legalization of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.

There are two kinds of euthanasia, passive and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is a deliberate withdrawing of medical treatment that causes a patient’s death, while active euthanasia is a direct way to cause a patient’s death through giving a high dosage of painkillers and sleeping pills. But whether passive or active, euthanasia has the same purpose – terminating a human’s life and denying them the right to live longer. This automatically makes it a crime in most jurisdictions.

In Ancient Greece, , euthanasia was approved by society, and by philosophers such as Aristotle. People could voluntarily refuse the continuation of medical treatment, or they could just decide to remove or stop the main necessities of life such as foods, water and medicine.  But some Christian believers condemned the practice. In Plato’s Phaedo, when Socrates drinks hemlock, a poison, he retains his dignity in death through this act, an action immortalized in the modern pro-euthanasia organization, the Hemlock Society. However, Pythagoras for example expressly prohibited the premature end to any embodied soul, thus in his eyes euthanasia was something of a religious crime.

But should we consider legalizing euthanasia?  Is there a right to die?  And what would be the effect of legalization be on our society?

Religious people state that nobody has the right to take somebody’s life but God. No humans should be allowed to play the role of the creator and so legalizing euthanasia is a way of usurping God’s role. On the other hand, euthanasia proponents will find this reasoning absurd. One convincing argument in favor of euthanasia is that we should not subject another human being to unnecessary mental and physical suffering. Moreover, many arguments arose before and are still arising at the present time about the legalization of euthanasia.  Some people believe that since there is an option to live, there must be an option to die and that further, euthanasia should be legalized precisely because that option of dying can prevent suffering.

As a Christian, it is very difficult for me to accept this kind of way letting go. At the same time,  it is very painful to see somebody that is in agony and suffering. After all, we all value life. Euthanasia evidently disrupts the normal pattern of life. Thinking for instance of the crass abuses of pro-euthanasia arguments by societies such as Nazi Germany, it is easy to see how legalization of euthanasia can lead to a more violent and unjust society.

There is a common saying that in every beginning there is always an ending. I do believe in the great existence of life and that this is the most precious gift to us, and that therefore we must value life even  to the very last breath we take.

Source:  Free Articles from ArticlesFactory.com

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Charlene Lacandazo works for a London translation agency called Rosetta Translation. Its specializations include Dutch translation and interpreting services.

Drink the Tea, Live the Lies

Article submitted
by Mangani 
     libocon.blogspot.com, "The Liberal Conservative"

So, I know it's been a while...                                 

A few weeks ago, Republicans took the house by what many consider a large margin- the largest Midterm gains in history, they say. I have a completely different perspective- more like 14 Million voters aged 18-29 who voted in 2008 not showing up to vote, or the fact that even if they did, that would still only account for about half of eligible voters in that age group compared to over two thirds who show up above aged 60, or how voters in that age group more closely represent the American populace, and how age groups above 44 over-represent whites by as much as 85% (the share of whites among voters above 60), and how whites account for more than two thirds of the Republican electorate... but I digress... That's not what this post is about...

For some reason, America has been drinking this "Tea" of lies. Let me put it simply, and point by point:

1- The "Tea Party", as the "new" "ultra-conservative" "libertarian" "movement" likes to call itself, is named after the Boston Tea Party. We can trace the name back to CNBC's Rick Santelli, who on February 19, 2009, said the following:

(From Infoplease.com)
"Do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages?" he asked. "This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" He went on to suggest that he would organize a Chicago Tea Party in July, where capitalists would dump "some derivative securities into Lake Michigan." The video of his tirade became a YouTube hit, and thus the movement was born. Within weeks, Tea Party protests were sprouting up all over the country. The Tea Party name, a clear reference to the American colonists' dumping of tea into Boston Harbor to protest taxes imposed by King George, stands as an acronym as well: Taxed Enough Already.

Here's the problem- The American colonists weren't protesting the same thing. Santelli was going off about subsidizing mortgages- something that, had it been done fully and with less concern about "Capitalism", would have ended the financial crisis once and for all. I wrote a piece a while back on Blacktino.net that lays out what would have been MY "Stimulus".

What the American Colonists were protesting was a much more complex situation. The corrupt East India Trading Company monopolized all tea imports to the colonies. When local officials in Boston refused to send back to England a shipment of taxed tea, a group of colonists dumped the tea into Boston Harbor. This protest was the culmination of colonial opposition to the Tea Act.

Opposition to the Tea Act was for a variety of reasons, but, basically, the colonists were protesting being taxed by other than their own elected representatives. So you got that? The mantra wasn't "Taxed enough already", as the new "Tea Party" would have you believe, rather "NO taxation without representation". Sound familiar?

2- The "Tea Party" is not a group of revolutionary progressives- like the American colonists who started the Revolutionary War, rather, they are backwards conservatives who want to "take the country back." This is not what the Boston Tea Party represented, and the Revolutionaries are surely turning in their graves.

3- The Boston Tea Party (BTP from now on, ok?) was not "funded" by anyone, nor was it instigated by commercial interests. In fact, the Tea Act favored capitalism, while opposition to the Tea Act favored democracy. For those of you who thought they are one and the same, think again. Democracy is a system of government, usually in the form of a Republic, or other form of democratic government. Capitalism is an economic system. One does not require the other, though we have been led to believe otherwise. But, again, I digress...

Who funds the Tea Party Movement (TPM)?
-Rupert Murdoch via the Fox News Channel:

Karl Frisch of Media Matters wrote that Fox News "frequently aired segments imploring its audience to get involved with tea-party protests across the country."

Glenn Beck, a Fox News host, led the Tea Party in a gathering in Washington, DC on MLK's birthday, of all dates.

Media Matters also noted that "While discussing the April 15 protests on his April 6 program, Glenn Beck suggested that viewers could "[c]elebrate with Fox News" by either attending a protest or watching it on Fox News. Beck stated that in addition to himself, hosts Neil Cavuto, Greta Van Susteren, and Sean Hannity would be "live" at different protests. While Beck spoke, on-screen text labeled those protests as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties."

-David and Charles Koch, Koch Industries: The Cato Institute, Manhattan Institute, and other libertarian/conservative groups were founded by Koch Industries. David Koch ran for President on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1980 (Ron Paul is a staunch libertarian, as well as his son and Tea Party favorite, Rand Paul). Republicans tied to Koch include former attorney general John Ashcroft, President George W. Bush, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Governors Haley Barbour and Bobby Jindal, among others. Koch also runs Americans For Prosperity, a think tank that has, from the beginning, disrupted every Obama Administration policy agenda.

I was going to list Freedom Works (the Tea Party's larges backer, and, arguably, Tea Party, Inc. Headquarters), but I learned that it was formed after a merger of Koch's Citizens for a Sound Economy, and Empower America.

Basically, the TPM is not "grassroots" as they love having the American ignorant populace believe, rather it is a multi-billion corporate backed continuation of 30 years of conservative opposition to common sense policy.

4- TPM candidates have been touting cutting spending, while also cutting taxes. Now, I'm not an economist, but I've played enough real world video games to know this is impossible. Cutting taxes IS RAISING SPENDING. Let me say it again- CUTTING TAXES= RAISING SPENDING!!! AGAIN! IF YOU CUT TAXES, YOU RAISE SPENDING!!! If you don't get it yet, let me explain WHY:

If you save 100 per month, at the end of the year you would have saved $1,200. Now, let's say this is a payment on credit for $1,000 with 5% APR interest. By the end of the year, you would have owed $1,500. You would be $300 in debt by the end of the year. You do this for YEARS, until someone points out, "hey, you're never going to pay this off if you keep ending with a $300 debt every year".

So what do you do? Do you raise your monthly payments (taxes)? Lower your credit limit (spending)? Or do you lower both??? Let's see what happens if you cut spending by 1%, and lower taxes by 4%, as many Tea Partyers like Rand Paul have suggested:

$900 per year with 5% APR= $1350
Annual payment = $1152

Hmmm... that lowers my annual debt by nearly $100, but I'm still in the hole.

Ok, I can play with numbers all day, but I think you get the point. It just doesn't work.


I would love to make this post a lot longer, but I have to go to work :/

Basically, don't drink the Tea. If you did, now bear the intoxication! We need a Liberal Tea Party NOW!!!

liberal conservative tea party liberal tea party boston tea party glenn beck rupert murdoch charles koch david koch