Recently I received a letter from the Social Security Administration in the mail. In part it said,
"In 2017 we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2041 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 78 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits."
These estimations are based on the intermediate assumptions from the Social Security Trustees' Annual Report to Congress. I wonder if the estimate took into account the next three and half years under a certain administration, but I digress...
How can an agency that collects money out of people's pay checks reach a point where it pays out more than it collects?!
When I hear about the corruption and outrageous stupidity in our national entities it makes me wish that I knew more about what the problems were, how they got that way, what the solution is, and how to put it into action. It seems like such a mess that it overwhelms me to even want to think about it, but I think I do need to think about it. And I think all of us need to think about it. There comes a point where it isn't enough to be complacently ignorant and try and go about our lives minding our own business.
"...All experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." -The Declaration of Independence.
Our representatives seem to have forgotten that they work for us, we don't work for them. I don't pretend to have all of the answers and remedies, but I do think we need to study the Constitution; be more aware of the bills and legislature that are being proposed and passed; make the most informed voting decisions we can make (beginning on a local level and expanding from there); become more educated about what is going on (from a variety of biases); and as Latter Day Saints, do everything we can to fortify our personal righteousness and share those values and principles that bring peace and happiness with the rest of the world.
American citizens have a great responsibility. Brigham Young stated, “Will the Constitution be destroyed? No: it will be held inviolate by this people; and, as Joseph Smith said, 'The time will come when the destiny of this nation will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction.' It will be so.” (Journal of Discourses, 7:15.) I want to do whatever is in my power to "step forth" -- I love my country, and I hope for its future to be more commendable than its present. My sentiments are that of these lines from "America the Beautiful"
"America! America! God mend thine every flaw, Confirm thy soul in self-control, Thy liberty in law."
Pandora.com and Last.fm. Type in titles and artists you like, and these sites will find music that has a similar sound/style and let you listen for free. What a great way to find new music!
Midomi.com If you've ever had a tune in your head and wondered what it was called or who sang it, this site lets you hum or sing part of it and locates matches for you. Nice, eh? (It also works with classical/instrumental pieces.)
(After visiting these sites, you can go to playlist.com and create free playlists and listen music organized the way you want it, for free from your computer!)
Some people have little "shoulder angels" that help guide their decisions. I have a shoulder cow.
Anytime I hear of something that is exciting mass hysteria, I'm a skeptic. For example, when I hear that such and such a book or a movie is "Like, SOOOOOOOO GOOD" my shoulder cow "moo"s loudly in my ear. I think it's the call of the dumb herd. It's not that I don't ever participate in culturally popular trends; it's just that I'd like to think I'm sometimes a little more discriminating than your average consumer. While I was working at the library it was readily apparent which books were being read, a lot. And I'll admit that out of curiosity and objectivity, I put my name on a hold list as long as the phone book, and waited to take home a copy of Twilight. It sat untouched in my room for a time, and then went back to the library, barely browsed through. I just have a low tolerance for cheesy. When the last Twilight book came out, I had heard enough about the plot to be fairly well filled in, so I did the unthinkable to Twilight fanatics. I opened Breaking Dawn to the last page and read it. Curiosity satisfied, I moved on.
Now don't get me wrong, I like reading about unhealthy teenage romances as much as the next person... Oh, wait a minute... No I don't. Hmm...Yeah, the more I've learned about the story, the less I understand why some people love it.
I watched the movie. Heh, heh. That was, uh, socially enlightening, and made me feel happy that I'd only given up two hours of my life to the storyline. My "favorite" scene of the movie was in the woods, where sparkle boy is giving Bella the low-down on just how monstrous he really is. "I've killed people." And she says what any teenager in love for no apparent reason would say, "It doesn't matter." Really? It doesn't matter? I think that would be a definite deal breaker for me. I'm so picky. It's probably why I'm still single. Anyway, I don't get Twilight, but the funniest explanation I've heard about its popularity is an article my friend read me, "Twilight for Men"-- here it is, enjoy. And as an encore, at the end of the post is a "movies in minutes" version of Twilight the movie that is pretty hilarious.
'Twilight' for men: All men are vampires By Michael De Groote MormonTimes.com writer Tuesday, Mar. 10, 2009
It would be easy for a man to mock "Twilight" by Mormon author Stephenie Meyer. But the novel, which chronicles the swooning and ogling of teenager Bella for her vampire boyfriend Edward, should be required reading for all men.
True, a man might find himself screaming at Edward: "Bite her! Just bite her already!"
True, he might fling the book against the wall a few times in frustration -- especially when (spoiler alert!) the final great vampire showdown takes place while the first-person narrator is unconscious, which means there is no action description of what would have been the best part of the book: vampires fighting vampires.
But if a man can read the book -- which, by the way, might make a great movie someday -- he just might come away with an amazing insight into what women want.
And what do women want?
Edward is described as a "beautiful boy" with "perfect lips" and a "voice like velvet." Edward has a "dazzling face" and, let's mention it again, "flawless lips." Again and again he is described as beautiful and gorgeous. He is strong, dark and beautiful. He is immensely talented and beautiful. He is sensitive and beautiful. He is moody and beautiful. Women and girls love him even though his ever-so-beautiful lips are cold and probably stained with cougar blood.
In other words, Edward is the perfect man. And the good part is, every man is Edward.
"But hold on a second," you may say. "I am not even handsome, let alone 'beautiful with perfect lips' -- I'm not sure I want to have perfect lips, I'm not sure I even want to know what perfect lips look like."
But now I am going to give you the secret for understanding "Twilight" and when you understand Bella and Edward you will thereby understand all women.
"Twilight" came from a woman's real-life, middle-of-the-night dream.
In other words, this novel grew out of a woman's subconscious mind. It is telling us things she does not really want us to know.
This, by the way, is a good place to take a moment to encourage you to never tell another person your dreams. If you are the type of person who has no difficulty figuring out the symbolism in your dreams, you probably aren't going around blabbing about your nightmares. If you can't figure out the symbolism in your dreams then beware -- other people will figure out every embarrassing personally revealing detail for you.
And, true to form, this instance of Stephenie Meyer's dream is also personally revealing.
We've looked at Edward. Let's look at Bella. Bella is good-looking enough. She is smart. She is brave. She has pluck. She is clumsy. And, she smells good -- especially to Edward who wants to drink all her blood, except that he loves her and that would end the relationship.
In the topsy-turvy world of symbolism, Edward is every man and Bella is every woman.
Yes, gentlemen. We are vampires.
In a woman's mind, we are Edward. OK, so we are not perfect in our looks, but remember this is subconscious symbolism. Edward's perfection is symbolic of all the love and good things we represent to the women in our lives. It is the good us.
But we are also vampires -- we have the ability to make life miserable for women. We can give into our own desires without regard of how it would destroy their lives.
We have the power to dazzle or destroy.
I am not going to get into anything deeper than this. There are other aspects, perhaps, to this that are best left for MormonTimes.com columnist Laura Brotherson.
What is it about Edward that Bella and all Meyer's fans love? He controls his vampirish impulses and deep desires because he loves Bella. Bella knows he has these desires and admires him more than she would if he did not have these desires.
Sure, he wants to drink her blood, but even more than that, he wants her to be happy and live.
This is a fun website to visit whenever you get an e-rumor: truthorfiction.com Some of the categories they set the record straight on include: politics, celebrities, medical, warnings, etc.
Yikes! Here's yet another compelling reason to eliminate high-fructose corn syrup from your diet, in spite of the fact that it is an ingredient in so many foods we know and love--or maybe even more so, because it isin so many of the foods we know and love. A study has shown that HFCS contains mercury!
The industry is running scared as people are wising up to how bad for you HFCS really is. The Corn Refiners Association is paying the big bucks for television spots and major magazine ads that claim HFCS is "nutritionally the same as table sugar" (which is also not good for you, but I digress...)
To read the article from Taste For Life Magazine click here or read it below:
Study Finds High-Fructose Corn Syrup Contains Mercury
Almost half of tested samples of commercial high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) contained mercury, which was also found in nearly a third of 55 popular brand-name food and beverage products where HFCS is the first- or second-highest labeled ingredient, according to two new U.S. studies.
HFCS has replaced sugar as the sweetener in many beverages and foods such as breads, cereals, breakfast bars, lunch meats, yogurts, soups and condiments. On average, Americans consume about 12 teaspoons per day of HFCS, but teens and other high consumers can take in 80 percent more HFCS than average.
"Mercury is toxic in all its forms. Given how much high-fructose corn syrup is consumed by children, it could be a significant additional source of mercury never before considered. We are calling for immediate changes by industry and the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] to help stop this avoidable mercury contamination of the food supply," the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy's Dr. David Wallinga, a co-author of both studies, said in a prepared statement.
In the first study, published in current issue of Environmental Health, researchers found detectable levels of mercury in nine of 20 samples of commercial HFCS.
And in the second study, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), a non-profit watchdog group, found that nearly one in three of 55 brand-name foods contained mercury. The chemical was found most commonly in HFCS-containing dairy products, dressings and condiments.
But an organization representing the refiners is disputing the results published in Environmental Health.
"This study appears to be based on outdated information of dubious significance," said Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association, in a statement. "Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the two re-agents mentioned in the study, hydrochloric acid and caustic soda, for several years. These mercury-free re-agents perform important functions, including adjusting pH balances."
However, the IATP told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that four plants in Georgia, Tennessee, Ohio and West Virginia still use "mercury-cell" technology that can lead to contamination.
IATP's Ben Lilliston also told HealthDay that the Environmental Health findings were based on information gathered by the FDA in 2005.
And the group's own study, while not peer-reviewed, was based on products "bought off the shelf in the autumn of 2008," Lilliston added.
The use of mercury-contaminated caustic soda in the production of HFCS is common. The contamination occurs when mercury cells are used to produce caustic soda.
"The bad news is that nobody knows whether or not their soda or snack food contains HFCS made from ingredients like caustic soda contaminated with mercury. The good news is that mercury-free HFCS ingredients exist. Food companies just need a good push to only use those ingredients," Wallinga said in his prepared statement.
Little Paula was in the garden filling in a hole when her neighbor peered over the fence. Interested in what the cheeky-faced youngster was doing, he politely asked, "What are you up to there, Paula?" "My goldfish died," replied Paula tearfully, without looking up, "and I've just buried him." The neighbor was concerned. "I am so sorry for your loss but that seems to be an awfully big hole for a little tiny goldfish, isn't it?" Paula nicely patted down the last heap of earth on the grave and then replied, "That's because he's inside your horrible cat."
A wealthy old lady decides to go on a photo safari in Africa, taking her faithful aged poodle named Cuddles, along for the company. One day the poodle starts chasing butterflies and before long, Cuddles discovers that she's lost. Wandering about, she notices a leopard heading rapidly in her direction with the intention of having lunch. The old poodle thinks, "Oh, oh! I'm in trouble now!" Noticing some bones on the ground close by, she immediately settles down to chew on the bones with her back to the approaching cat. Just as the leopard is about to leap, the old poodle exclaims loudly, "Boy, that was one delicious leopard! I wonder if there are any more around here?" Hearing this, the young leopard halts his attack in mid-strike, a look of terror comes over him and he slinks away into the trees. "Whew!", says the leopard, "That was close! That old poodle nearly had me!" Meanwhile, a monkey who had been watching the whole scene from a nearby tree, figures he can put this knowledge to good use and trade it for protection from the leopard. So off he goes, but the old poodle sees him heading after the leopard with great speed, and figures that something must be up. The monkey soon catches up with the leopard, spills the beans and strikes a deal for himself with the leopard. The young leopard is furious at being made a fool of and says, "Here, monkey, hop on my back and see what's going to happen to that conniving canine!" Now, the old poodle sees the leopard coming with the monkey on his back and thinks, "What am I going to do now?", but instead of running, the dog sits down with her back to her attackers, pretending she hasn't seen them yet, and just when they get close enough to hear, the old poodle says: "Where's that blasted monkey? I sent him off an hour ago to bring me another leopard!"
"I have always been impressed with the mentality of the Mormons with respect to the issue of charity. I had a tour of their main charity facilities, and was amazed at what I saw and learned. There are absolutely no handouts – they barter!
Here’s how it works: if you could lose your home, or if you need food, clothing, medicine or toys for your children, the Church takes financial care of your needs. In exchange, you provide services to the very mechanism that rescued you. This means that folks in the bakeries are people who have benefited from the charitable services; those helping in the stores that sell thrift clothing, housewares and food are those who have benefited from the charitable services, and so on.
The basic concept is to preserve a sense of dignity and pride in those who have temporary need by giving them an opportunity to use their skills in the service of others. Walking around the premises, I felt the uplifted attitude of all who were there: smiles, waves, and straight backs.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints provides for people all over the world – not only with goods and goodwill, but with the opportunity to not lose a sense of self when “things” are lost.
I probably sound like an advertisement for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I am not a member of their religion, but I am impressed with their charitable philosophy, because I believe it teaches our children their real value, while motivating and uplifting them at the same time.
Their young people who graduate high school are expected to go on two-year “missions,” reminiscent of the Peace Corps. These young people come back much more mature, as they’ve experienced the pain and need of others, and have sacrificed two years of their own comfort to be of service to others. Other youngsters just don’t want to skip a beat in their acquisition of iPods, cell phones, and other “Internet in your hand” gadgets.
I believe that the economic disaster our country is in right now is a kind of blessing in disguise with respect to values. Without values, life just provides us with “things,” but not necessarily with any profound meaning."
Can I just say how RUDE I think it is when I am talking to someone, and their significant other stares off into space with a look of utter boredom on their face, as if they are barely tolerating the inconvenience?!
More than once recently, I have seen an old friend with their girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/wife who I don't particularly know. Rather than that person making eye-contact, or listening, or even--gasp--participating in the conversation, they hang on the arm of their other half, and watch the grocery checker ring up customers, instead of talking to me. It's as if they say to themselves, "Oh, it's Schnookem's friend, nobody important, not one of my friends, I guess I'll just have to stand here and wait until they stop talking, I do wish they'd hurry it up." How ungracious is that? In fact, I consider it a sign that my friend is dating/married to an idiot. An immature idiot who is grossly lacking in social graces. By contrast, I'm always delighted to discover a friend whose significant other is friendly and engaging.
Call me old-fashioned, but I actually want to get to know the friends and family of those who I date. Odd, huh? I have really appreciated the in-laws in my family who make an effort to have a relationship with me and find out a little bit about what's going on in my life. The in-laws who are not very friendly are sort of metaphorical drains rather than fountains at family functions. And they too have that expression of detachment, and seem to tug at the sleeves of their spouse, as if to say "Can we pleeease go yet?" They don't seem to have very much fun, and they aren't much fun to be around, which is a pity, because it doesn't have to be that way.
So there you have it! If your honey passes the "I am polite/not self-absorbed enough to converse with my sweetie's friends, family, and acquaintances" test, it doesn't guarantee that you're not dating an unmannered egotist, but if they fail the test, at least I think it's a pretty good indicator that they might be...
When I was a about nine or so, my aunt gave my mom a book called, "Mary's Little Donkey and the Flight to Egypt" by Gunhild Sehlin, a Swedish author. It is a wonderful Christmas story to read to young children! I loved it as a kid, and I just pulled it out again to read to the little boy I tutor-- he loved it as well! This is a great book to add to your collection, or give as a gift. It is a bit difficult to find, since it is a "foreign" book, and the English translation is mostly sold in the UK, but I found several places where it could be ordered online. It's a little late for me to be posting this for Christmas, but it's really a story that could be used at any time of year. The story is interesting and sweet, and it was all I could do not to cry three or four times as I was reading it out loud. (I wonder if my pupil noticed the crack in my voice each time.) I highly, highly recommend it as one of my favorite Children's books.
Short Synopsis from Floris books: "The stubborn, dirty little donkey who is of no use to anyone in Nazareth becomes a quick and willing helper under Mary’s care. The other animals in Mary's stable like him and together they wait for the birth of Mary's child.
But Mary and Joseph have to leave Nazareth obeying Caesar's decree, and the donkey carries Mary to Bethlehem where the child is born. The donkey hopes to carry Mary and her son quickly back to Nazareth but instead they have to flee to far-away Egypt. Willingly, the donkey makes this journey through the desert. Only after a long time could they return home where the other animals in Mary's stable welcome them.
An engaging alternative to the traditional Christmas story, to be read to children age 6-8, or for children age 8-10 to read to themselves."
A couple of weeks ago I got a World Vision humanitarian catalog in the mail-- they use donations to (among other things) purchase animals for families in poverty-stricken countries. I thought it was a great idea, but was a little disappointed at the prices involved-- and discovered that not all of the money went directly to helping the people in need. A portion of the donations pay for fund-raising and administration costs... certainly it is still a very good cause...but I discovered that perhaps one of the best humanitarian efforts to support is Latter-Day Saint Charities.
I was curious if Latter-day Saint Charities had any similar programs to those of World Vision, or if they were limited to emergency relief, and a few special projects. I was happy to discover that they work with many other agencies to provide a wide range of humanitarian services. To see a list of worldwide projects click the link here. I'd recommend browsing through; it's quite interesting! Because other Church funds pay for administration and fund-raising, 100% of any donations to the Humanitarian Fund go directly to purchasing items or services for the needs of individuals. Through the web-site ldsphilanthropies.org you can donate online, and may even specify which program you would like your contribution to go toward. Neat, eh?
Another interesting web-site to look at is Kiva.org --Rather than giving money, a short-term loan enables people in need to invest in their livelihood and lift themselves out of poverty. For example: a woman could use a small loan to purchase a sewing machine and some fabric--an initial investment that would allow her to sell her work for a profit, repay the loan, and continue to have an income. Loan increments can be as small as $25, and you can chose who will benefit from the loan. When the loan is re-payed (generally within a few months), you can loan again to a different entrepreneur, or you may withdraw your money.
Tagged again! (I admit tags are somewhere between cheesy and fun ;) )
5 Fears: 1. The dark. I have an "active" imagination, and I scare kind of easy. When I was a young teenager I once watched my first and last episode of the X-files; it was so freaky I asked my mom sleep in my room for a couple of weeks. It was a really evil episode-- I'll never watch another one again. Bleeeck!
2. Driving on roads that have a cliff on one side, and shear mountain face on the other. Or cliffs on both sides, or shear mountain on both sides.
3. Deep water. Wind-surfing sounds like fun, but I don't think I'm likely to ever get on a surfboard.
4. Wolves. Ok, well I'm not really afraid of them anymore, but they were my big fear as a kid. Not the boogie man, or a monster in my closet, wolves. (You'd be amazed how much knot holes in a wooden fence can look like glaring wolf eyes.) I blame a few "children's books" for this. (I don't recommend "Lon Po Po" for kids, I don't care if it won a Caldecott.) I still am not especially fond of the animals.
5. Inflation/rising costs.
Collections/Obsessions: 1. Collection: Books-- I have 5 bookcases of various sizes, and they are now all full!
2. Collection: Blue and white pottery. I love that so many countries of the world have a variation of blue and white pottery. I started this collection when I went to Italy. Happily, my treasures all made it home in one piece. Eventually I'd like to visit and bring home pottery from England, Ireland, The Netherlands, China, Denmark, Belgium, etc.
3. Collection: Snoopy stuff.
4. Obsession: Jane Austen.
5. Obsession: British accents and the men who have them.
Surprising facts:
1. I was 22 before I flew for the first time. (In an airplane--I'm not actually Superman's sister.)
2. I was an English major, but I've never read any Harry Potter, or Twilight, in fact, whenever there is anything that excites mass hysteria, I tend to be repelled. I usually go for the stuff off the beaten path-- I don't like most box-office hit movies, and I don't keep up with trends.
3. I don't particularly like shopping, unless I'm just browsing and not looking for anything in particular. Clothes and shoe shopping are the worst! I like cute clothes, but I HATE looking for them.
4. I assisted officers in a marijuana bust.
5. My earliest memory is from a few days after I turned two.
*Some terms and conditions apply, limited-time offer, read blog for details.
I remember when Julia Roberts, the Dixie Chicks, and other celebrity figures said of George W. Bush, "He's not my president." It's easy to feel that way when the candidate you supported was not elected, and when you dislike or disagree with the candidate who won.
Recently on Glenn Beck's conservative talk show, a Georgia man called in to say that he refused to accept Barack Obama as president. I really thought Glenn's response was insightful. He said, "How very un-American of you. He is the American president. ... this is the way our system works."
Speaking along a similar vein, Rush Limbaugh said, "Barack Obama is my president of the United States. I couldn't care less where he was born, what his name is, how old he is, or the color of his skin. He's not black. He's not white. He's not Asian-American or Mexican. He's not Chavez's brother or Islamic. I don't see Americans as members of groups. I see individual human beings. It is his ideas I am terrifically, tremendously worried about."
Stu Burguiere is the exec.-producer for the Glenn Beck Program. On Stu's blog, he wrote that he thinks the incoming president ought to be given a chance (a courtesy that wasn't extended eight years ago.)
I agree with Stu's way of thinking, "...Today, I give Barack Obama a 100% approval rating. If and when he screws up, I’ll deduct points. Let’s make it a maximum of 10 points for each individual annoying event. If he does something great—I’ll add points. I’m that kind of guy. Let’s see how long he stays above 50%.
I don’t think Obama will be a good president. But I HOPE for a CHANGE in that opinion. I hope he’s the greatest president in history. I hope the pre-election promises of perfection are realized. [Boy, I'm not sure I'd want the fulfillment of all of his pre-election promises, but that's just me.] I doubt they will be, but I want to at least give him a chance to screw it up before I say he screwed it up.
Regardless, he’ll be my president until he leaves office---even if his nationwide approval rating is zero (which will be impossible unless the on air staff of MSNBC is left out of the sample.)"
Like Stu, I've got my score-card ready, but it's a clean slate.
This would be an instance where a teacher's personal bias went WAY out of control in the classroom. This clip comes from a Finnish made documentary about the American Presidential election. No matter who you voted for, this is an outrage.
I've read about cell phone health hazards for several years. Here are the basics for reducing your risk:
*Don't believe that cell phones "can't hurt" or think that it's hoakey to be concerned. (As a side note, I once held up a cell phone to each of my ears at the same time and immediately felt dizzy and weird-- and I got a bit of a headache. After that experience I was convinced that they could adversely affect health.)
*Don't let children use cell phones (if you must, use an ear piece-- research has shown detrimental effects that children are especially prone to because their brains are developing.
*Use an ear piece or speaker phone yourself.
*Don't carry your cell phone on your person as much as possible. Particularly avoid wearing it on your hip (where bone marrow is produced.) Don't carry your cell phone in your pocket especially if you are a male, as cell phones-- I am not making this up-- can cause the production of abnormally shaped spermatozoa.
*Don't sleep with your cell phone in your bedroom at night. It can interfere with your quality of sleep. Charge your phone in another room of the house.
* Purchase an electromagnetic chaos protection chip for your cell. Purportedly these chips will neutralize the negative emissions from your cell.
*Don't walk around with a bluetooth on your head. Bad for your health. Bad for your social life.
*Pay attention to your body. If you think you feel an unwanted stimulus from your cell phone- don't use it, or switch to a phone model you are less sensitive to.
For further information that reiterates the information I have written, read the following recent article from KSL.com:
New warning about possible link between cell phones and cancer
November 7th, 2008 @ 6:37pm
By John Hollenhorst
The cancer risk from cell phones is unproven, but Dr. Devra Davis, with the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Environmental Oncology, says new studies in Europe are raising fresh concern.
"If these projections are true, we could have a massive global epidemic of brain cancer, and we can't afford for that to happen," Davis says.
She's a leading expert on environmental causes of cancer. She spoke at the University of Utah's Institute of Human Genetics. She said, "Let me be clear about something. I can not tell you that cell phones are dangerous, but I have very good reasons for concern."
A worrisome study by the University's Dr. Om Ghandi found that phone signals are absorbed very deeply into the brain, and they are absorbed much more deeply into the head of a 5-year-old than they are into the brain of an adult.
She asked, "Now, would you allow your child to smoke? Would you allow your child to play Russian roulette?"
She said precautions are in order until science has answers. She said use a speaker phone or an ear-piece and don't keep the phone on your body all the time. She said that keeping the phone on your hip was a concern because that's where bone marrow is made...
She's calling on cell-phone companies to release billing records so scientists can do proper exposure studies but, instead, the companies offer a two word response: trust us.
Davis said, "I trust in God, but all others have to provide data."
She said right now, in this country, there are no studies being done. She says that's unconscionable.
She believes the industry can design safer cell phones but, so far, it hasn't felt enough pressure to do it.
SARAH PALIN: Before it got to the other side, I shot the chicken, cleaned and dressed it, and had chicken burgers for lunch.
BARACK OBAMA: The chicken crossed the road because it was time for a change! The chicken wanted change!
JOHN MC CAIN: My friends, that chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road.
HILLARY CLINTON: When I was First Lady, I personally helped that little chicken to cross the road. This experience makes me uniquely qualified to ensure right from Day One that every chicken in this country gets the chance it deserves to cross the road. But then, this really isn’t about me.
GEORGE W. BUSH: We don’t really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not. The chicken is either against us, or for us. There is no middle ground here.
DICK CHENEY: Where’s my gun?
COLIN POWELL: Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road.
BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with that chicken. What is your definition of chicken?
AL GORE: I invented the chicken.
JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken’s intentions. I am not for it now and will remain against it.
AL SHARPTON: Why are all the chickens white? We need some black chickens.
DR. PHIL: The problem we have here is that this chicken doesn’t realize that he must first deal with the problem on this side of the road before it goes after the problem on the other side of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he’s acting by not taking on his current problems before adding new problems.
OPRAH: Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross this road so bad. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I’m going to give this chicken a car so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed access to the other side of the road.
NANCY GRACE: That chicken crossed the road because he’s guilty! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.
PAT BUCHANAN: To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.
MARTHA STEWART: No one called me to warn me which way that chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer’s Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information.
DR SEUSS: Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I’ve not been told.
ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die in the rain, alone.
GRANDPA: In my day we didn’t ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough.
BARBARA WALTERS: Isn’t that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heart-warming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its lifelong dream of crossing the road.
ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.
JOHN LENNON: Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together, in peace.
BILL GATES: I have just released eChicken 2008, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your checkbook. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken 2008. This new platform is much more stable and will never crash or need to be rebooted.
ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?
COLONEL SANDERS: Did I miss one?
(I found this on Dr. Laura's Blog; she received it as an e-mail forward)
I don't mean to be insensitive to people with depression, keep that in mind as you read. Lately I've seen magazine and television ads for a new prescription drug called "Abilify." It is a drug to take in addition to an antidepressant such as Zoloft, Prozac, Paxcil CR, etc. Why? Because people who are taking these and other antidepressants are still having symptoms of depression! (No kidding, really?)
Could it be because hormones primarily drive your sense of emotional well-being, and prescription drugs, and a diet of processed, artificial, non-nutritional "food" disrupt your body systems, including your hormones?
The second greatest factor in mood and emotion is brain chemistry-- again, if the chemistry you put into your body isn't good (poor food, drugs, chemicals) then it is to be expected that the internal chemistry will be messed up as well!
Depression is one of the most naturally treatable ailments. To begin to balance the hormones and adrenal system: eat natural, healthy foods; take Omega-3s; exercise-- everyday; get sunlight; look at your life stressors and possible solutions or resources; and do something to feel good about.
When I was sick as a teenager, I had my own bout with depression-- my body was out of whack, including my hormones. The M.D.s didn't know what to do to help me recover from feeling sick and exhausted all the time, but they offered antidepressants to help with the feeling like crap. I'm happy to say (no pun intended) that I never took any. As I started doing healthy things for my body, the depression was alleviated and then gone. I think most people on antidepressants continue to have problems if they stop taking the drug. Obviously taking an antidepressant is not a cure, it's a symptom cover-up. Sometimes it doesn't even treat the symptoms! According to Abilify's own ad, 2 out of 3 people have unresolved symptoms of depression when taking an antidepressant.
I find it ironic that the side effects of antidepressants can include being more depressed, and suicidal. In violent crime cases such as the Columbine High School shootings, the perpetrators were on antidepressants. What most people don't realize is that studies are suggesting that the antidepressants can actually cause these incidents. (See Ann Blake Tracy's book, "Prozac: Panacea or Pandora.") You see, the anti-depressants aren't smart enough to distinguish "good" emotions from "bad" ones. They may block feelings of sadness, but they can also block feelings of joy, love, and empathy for others.
In a 2002 study (Penninx and others) depression patients were told to do aerobic walking exercise, and they were given a tricyclic antidepressant. Another group did aerobic walking exercise only. The study found that the treatment that included the antidepressant was no more effective than exercise alone. And there were no side effects!
As for the side effects of Abilify, it can effect behavior, create uncontrollable movements that may become permanent, cause seizures, and impair judgment and motor skills. It increases the risk of high blood pressure, high blood sugar, stroke, coma and death. More than 10% of Abilify users experienced nausea, vomiting, constipation, headache, dizziness, an inner sense of restlessness, anxiety, and insomnia. Hmm... I mean, this is all in the fine print right on the ad! Somehow we still think this is an ok thing to have on the market? Then again, I guess it's about the same as all other prescription drugs. As a society we've come to accept these effects-- I shouldn't call them side effects, they are effects.
I understand myself the discomfort and fear of being sick, and of having depression. There are times that a prescription drug may be necessary, even life-saving-- but I think that 95% percent of the time, we as a nation are popping pills rather than taking responsibility and doing something for our own health. ("Effort-- waaaahh!") We put our trust in medical doctors who may be well-meaning, but also get a kick-back for each Rx they write up, and seem to either not know or not care about what makes the body function at its best and heal itself.
Illness is not fun whether is is physical, mental, or emotional, but there are things we can do to truly be cured with nature, not just to be "treated" with bad science.
Earlier this week I went to the library to vote early. The line was longer than I've ever waited on election day, so I ended up just coming home. Too bad I couldn't get a sticker that said, "I Tried to Vote." ;) Anyway, whilst I was there contemplating whether or not to stand in a line longer than a wait for a Disneyland ride, a book on the display caught my eye. It was called "Save the World On Your Own Time." Since I'm all about world saving, I thought this might be a clever book about doing good in the world, even with a busy schedule, or something like that.
When I read the inside jacket however, I discovered that it was a full-length complaint about university professors who pontificate their politics or their morality or their pet causes to their students. I have mixed feelings on the subject. While I don't appreciate heavily biased slants in the classroom, I have also appreciated my professors bringing up issues or perspectives that I may not have been previously aware of. Sometimes I have agreed with my professors, and sometimes I have disagreed, but it has interesting to hear their own views. In fact, usually their philosophies would either validate my own, or remind me why I beg to differ. I subscribe to the idea that "those who do not know their opponent's argument do not completely understand their own."
I admit that if I ever become a secondary English teacher, I don't necessarily want to tell my students what to think, but I want to give them some things to think about. Here's a moment of honesty on my part: what is this blog really, if not my soapbox? (After all, I don't have any cute kids to post pictures of just yet.)
Teachers/Professors can go overboard, that's for sure. When their agendas interfere with learning the subject, or threaten to prevent their classroom from being a safe place for different opinions, then there is a real problem. (English classrooms can be an especially interesting platform for indoctrination. I had some English professors who made their tenants especially clear.) I feel cheated as a student when a teacher either presents their ideas too adamantly and too often, or when they don't share them at all. It's a balance. The author of the book I mentioned may or may not have taken the "balance" view, I don't know.
The word "discrimination" has become as filthy as a brown banana peel at the bottom of a smelly dumpster, but it's not always a bad thing! It's also means "the power of making fine distinctions" -- distinctions that are necessary, and help define who we are (and aren't) and what is important to us. It seems to me that we tend to appreciate educators who teach "values" when they are our values, and hate them when they aren't. (Was that grammatically correct? Oh well.) While it is possible (and good) to teach with minimal bias, it would be impossible and even unfortunate to attempt to teach without any bias at all.The politically correct way of thinking is that because we don't all have the same values/ideas, we should avoid teaching or talking about them as much as possible. I disagree. Maybe we should be careful about teaching values, but we should not be so absurdly PC that we are afraid to talk about them. We don't want to teach religion in the classroom, for example; but we should certainly be able to talk about religion. The freedom to talk about moral issues, political issues, values, etc. is a right that is afforded to teachers in law, but many educators still shy away from those discussions out of fear. I think it's unfortunate. If teachers were trained a little to be able to mediate and facilitate meaningful class discussions, etc. with confidence, I think that would be more worthwhile than training teachers to drill their students in cold, unhuman facts and figures.
In some ways I agree with the author who urges "save the world on your own time," but in other ways, I see education as a good venue for "saving the world" if we can appropriately, and openly talk about the concerns and topics that affect us.
