Jerry Lee Lewis sings “Great Balls of Fire”

Jerry Lee Lewis. One of the best. I love rock and roll.

Advertisements

Evidence of dogs’ sixth-sense: Labrador bolts from U.S. office before earthquake tremors strike building – Video

I looked at this several times and it seems to me that the dog is running towards where the people are running FROM. In other words, into the building rather than out of it. ~ZZ

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 5:04 PM on 13th January 2010

Share

Probably just a dream

Wed, Jan 13, 2010 12:24 AM PST

Several days ago I had a dream that almost, for a very little while, opened a crack into my skepticism and made me consider the possibility of life after the last time we close our mortal eyes.

After my husband died, I never had that feeling that he was here with me. Whenever people say that a departed loved one visited them at the foot of their bed I always consider that to be a function of their hopes and desires and a lack of skepticism. I have heard my departed husband’s voice in my head almost every day, but I always consider that simply me thinking about him and imagining him to be telling me things. I like proof. Not theoretical proof, because theories can be manipulated to yield a desired outcome, but real proof in the physical world.

That’s why the dream I had the other day was so very unusual.

[Continued, I hope. I guess I need to think this through a bit more,]

Affirmationomics: Following the honey trail to what REEEAALLY drives us

Published on January 10, 2010 / Ambigamy

“Every life could be said to be defined by two great love stories. The first —  the story of our quest for sexual love — is well known and well charted. Its vagaries form the staple of music and literature; it is socially accepted and celebrated. The second — the story of our quest for love from the world — is a more secret and shameful tale. If mentioned, it tends to be in caustic, mocking terms, as something of interest chiefly to envious or deficient souls, or else the drive for status is interpreted in an economic sense alone. And yet this second love story is no less intense than the first, it is no less complicated, important, or universal, and its setbacks are no less painful. There is heartbreak here, too.”  ~By Jeremy Sherman, Ph.D.


Alain de Botton “Status Anxiety.”

To be loved by the world–what could that mean?  I think it’s a sense of inner and outer harmony, relief from dissonance within yourself and dissonance between yourself and the outside world.  It’s a sense that you can both be yourself and be successful by the world’s standards. Being loved by the world doesn’t have to mean being adored by the world, but still somehow affirmed, or as the biologist Stuart Kauffman put it, a feeling that you are “at home in the universe.”

This affirmation is not just the thought or realization, “Hey, I’m at home.”  It’s a feeling. I’d go so far as to say it’s the feeling of being well adapted–surmisal of the fittest–a sense, even a false one, that you fit your circumstances. In that respect it’s a direct extension of what organisms have been evolving toward for over 3.5 billion years.

Still, surmisal of the fittest is not just about biological fitness despite what evolutionary psychologists tend to imply.  No, it’s surmisal of the fittest by whatever standards of fitness have emotional resonance for us these days, not all of which are directly or indirectly in the service of biological reproductive success.  Think of how much human behavior is driven by a desire to feel like you’re a good person on the side of righteousness, a person with integrity fighting for greater integrity in the world around.  That feeling may have nothing to do with having children who survive and reproduce. It can be uncorrelated to the biological urge and can even work at cross-purposes to it, for example in a suicide bomber who dies childless feeling that he has acted with supreme integrity in perfect service of what is truest in the universe.

Feeling fitted has both the inner and outer quality–integrated within and integrated with your outside circumstances. The inner feeling is relief from dissonance or doubt, a sense that who you are–your preferences, intentions, and values hold together with simple clarity.  This internal consistency is what in the world of the intellect is called coherence.  But with feelings it’s not necessarily a drive to have a coherent intellect.  The coherence that makes us feel loved by the world is just the gut’s satisfied feeling of relief when ambivalence, confusion and inner conflict has lifted. Indeed, emotional coherence might be achieved at the expense of intellectual coherence. For example George Bush who many of us found intellectually incoherent felt that he was a man of exceptional integrity. And indeed for most of us, most of the time the feeling of being right takes priority over actually being right. Emotional coherence often trumps intellectual coherence.

The feeling of freedom from conflict with your outer circumstances is like what in the world of the intellect we call correspondence.  Correspondence is having your theories match sense data and experiential evidence.  If I said “eggs don’t break when you drop them from second story windows,” you would say that lacks correspondence to the audiovisual sense data that comes the splatting crunching sight and sound of eggs dropped from windows. Again though, here I’m talking not about theories that correspond to fact but rather about a gut feeling that your way of being fits or corresponds with the world. In other words, you feel cool, successful or “in.”  And again you can get that feeling sometimes at the expense of intellectual correspondence.  For example you can ignore inconvenient facts and give yourself the impression that you fit the world well.

Giving ourselves the impression of fit reminds me of what pilots call “flying by instrument”  Pilots can fly even in conditions of very poor visibility by tracking the cockpit’s inner indicators.  In a way, we all do that.  Like pilots we want our internal systems to be working well together, and we want our overall system to fit the outside world.  But the main way we know whether they are is by monitoring the feeling that they fit, our cockpit instruments that measure gut comfort level. I want my ideas to be coherent but the main way I tell whether they are is by the feeling that they are coherent.  I want to make my ideas to correspond to reality but the main way I tell if they do is by the feeling that they do. The trouble is that there are many ways to get the feeling other than by achieving true coherence and correspondence.  Pilots make sure their instruments are well calibrated, but we don’t necessary do the equivalent.  We may even like flying with poorly calibrated instruments so we can get the feeling that we’re on course even if we’re not.

The big news in decision theory these days is that emotions play an enormous role in our decision making. Early in the last century, decision theory started out as mathematical or engineering research into how people ought to reason their way to optimal decisions. In the late 50s the field shifted toward a focus on how people really do make decisions. In the subsequent decades the theme became “bounded rationality,” the idea that, in practice we stop short of reasoning everything out.  Instead we make fast and frugal decisions.  In the last few decades, the focus has shifted to the way emotions guide whatever rationality doesn’t cover, and ultimately to the way emotions control the lion’s share of our choices. It is argued that we don’t weigh costs and benefits so much as we go with what feels right. Studies described in The Political Brain, my current favorite book on the role of emotions in decisions making, suggest that liking or disliking a candidate predicts as much as 85% of how one votes, whereas opinions about the candidate’s policy positions counts for only about three percent. Far more than we tend to think, preferences drive reason, not the other way around.  Rationalization is the norm, not rationality. That’s why candidates who campaign on policy positions just about always lose to candidates who give voters the affirming feeling of inner and outer harmony.

In decision theory we’re only just beginning to see what the emotional drivers are, and a big one beyond the biological and economic is what I’m describing here as the feeling of being loved by the world, that feeling of internal and external integrity or fittedness.  I think a central focus this decade will be what could be called affirmationomics, a topic with many parallels to what we see in straight economics. For example there are questions of supply and demand of affirmation, of affirmation inflation, and ways in which one kind of affirmation can substitute or complement another kind of affirmation–topics I’ll take up in other articles.

Since the focus these days is on how emotions shape decisions, why not call it emotionomics?  Emotions, like dollars are just the currency by which value is measured.  It’s not emotionomics any more than economics is “moneynomics.”  The greater question is for what the emotions flow?

And the distinction between emotions and rationality isn’t quite right either.  Antonio Damasio’s now classic book “Descarte’s error” turned researcher’s attention to how rationality doesn’t even work without the flowing currency of emotion. And besides preferring one emotion to another is also a kind of rationality, at least in that rational means ratio-like, the comparison of one state to another.  It is not irrational to go with one or another gut emotional preference.  It is rational in the sense of comparing or making a ratio between two gut emotional preferences and deciding that one is a stronger preference.

Affirmationomics is a solid and lovely way to bridge the gap between soft-hearted sensitivity and hard-headed systems thinking. Some people don’t trust the gap to be bridge-able and some people seem to be not particularly interested in one or the other side of that bridge.  But if the bridge interests you, start maybe not with the systems-thinking but with your own experience of wanting to be loved by the world as I’ve described it here, the quest for that feeling that made blissed out jazz musicians say “copascetic!” which at least according to some sources is derived from the Yiddish “kol be seder,” or “everything in order”–me and it, me and me–everything in sweet harmony.

Share

From Chicago to Oslo: Michelle Obama’s First Year

Posted: 12/10/09 / Politics Daily
By Lynn Sweet

Michelle and Barack Obama in Oslo, Nobel Peace ceremony

First Lady Michelle Obama boarded Air Force One with her husband Wednesday night and flew to Oslo, Norway for her fifth overseas trip this year. She was in the audience when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on Thursday, an improbable award at this early stage of his presidency, but in line with the unlikely journey the couple has undertaken. It was three years ago this December that then-Sen. Barack Obama firmed up his self-described “audacious” bid to make history.

After two years of campaigning at her mate’s side, Mrs. Obama became first lady on Jan. 21, 2009, with a fierce desire not to repeat well-documented mistakes she made on the campaign trail. Once in the White House, she did not want to be a distraction: the campaign flap over her remark about loving America for the “first time” during her husband’s candidacy and being portrayed as an angry liberal taught her a lesson. She was determined to spend time with her young daughters, doing the soccer-mom thing — shielding them as best she could from the inherent un-normalcy of a childhood in the White House.

While President Obama has no choice but to take on a heaping agenda — two lengthy and difficult wars, the Great Recession, a historic legislative battle of attrition over health care, and the U.S. response to global warming — Mrs. Obama’s plate could be as full or light as she chose. So far, Mrs. Obama has charted a careful and calibrated course.

It took awhile for us to discern this. Partly this is because, when it comes to fashion, Mrs. Obama tosses caution aside and is aggressively, if tastefully, flamboyant. Entire blogs have sprung up devoted to charting Mrs. Obama’s iconic clothing. With her tall, thin figure and buff arms on display, whether she’s sporting designer gowns or wearing pedal pushers, Mrs. Obama has followed trends as much as set them. In this way, she reminds us of Jacqueline Kennedy — although her style is all her own. Mrs. Obama loves wide belts and stylish sneakers. In May, she was volunteering at a Washington food bank wearing a J. Crew cardigan and Capri pants, but her $540 tennis shoes became the story. In April, Mrs. Obama went up against Carla Sarkozy, the former model who is the wife of the French president, at the Palais Rohan in Strasbourg, France. It was a draw.

That’s as good as it gets for an American first lady and Mrs. Obama is winding up a successful first year.

Popular With the People
As she enters the stretch run of her first year in the White House, Mrs. Obama’s popularity ratings are higher in public opinion surveys than the president’s. In a Fox News poll conducted Nov. 17-18, some 63 percent of respondents said they had a favorable opinion of Mrs. Obama. That’s down from her high of 73 percent in another Fox News poll taken April 22-23, but it’s still more than 10 points higher than her husband’s rating. Moreover, it shows how that careful calibration is succeeding: a Fox News poll taken in June of 2008 — in the midst of a bruising political campaign — showed Mrs. Obama with only a 44 percent positive rating.

By way of comparison, Mrs. Obama’s favorables are higher than former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton — now the secretary of state — when she was in the White House. Between August 1996 and November 2000, Mrs. Clinton’s favorables ranged from a high of 63 percent in January 1999 (during President Clinton’s impeachment trial) to a low of 43 percent, in October 2000, according to the Fox News tracking polls. (Former First Lady Laura Bush’s favorables ranged from a low of 57 percent in February 2001 to a high of 78 percent in December 2002.)

Mrs. Obama only got out of her lane once, and she crashed. That’s when she took on the job of selling Chicago’s bid for the 2016 summer Olympics to the International Olympics Committee, recruiting her pal Oprah Winfrey to join her in Copenhagen. That occasioned the only press conference of her tenure as first lady, held at the White House prior to her departure with a small group of reporters writing about the Olympics. The president found time to join her in Denmark to help pitch Chicago to the IOC. There, she made a personal, emotional plea for the Summer Games, recounting her girlhood on the South Side of Chicago, not far from some of the proposed Olympic venues. But the Chicagoans were unceremoniously rejected by the IOC. In hindsight, the White House, including the first lady’s staff, were the victims of some very poor intelligence. In truth, Chicago’s bid never stood a chance. It was an embarrassing lesson, and one Mrs. Obama seems unwilling to risk happening again.

In No Rush
While the West Wing got off to a fast start after the inauguration, Mrs. Obama was in no hurry. She wanted to settle daughters Malia and Sasha in their new school, the private and exclusive Sidwell Friends. Her mother, Marian Robinson, moved into the White House to help out. It was billed as temporary at first, but she settled in with the rest of the family and is now a fixture; the day before Thanksgiving, Mrs. Robinson was at a Washington food pantry with the rest of the family handing out groceries.

Mrs. Obama has kept her issue portfolio small, focused on substantive but safe topics. Some of these are cosmic, some are what George W. Bush used to call “small ball.” Mrs. Obama has stressed opening the White House to Washington-area students. She has been making the rounds of federal agencies, giving a pep talk at each visit and giving her props to federal workers. She has also promoted the notions of community service, balancing work and family, and helping veterans and military families, an agenda item she shares with Second Lady Jill Biden. She has hosted a White House music series and, in recent months, added a White House mentoring project for high school girls, taking her act on the road to spread the project to Denver. There, she told girls that, as a kid, she was nervous and anxious when she took tests.
Healthy eating is major piece of Mrs. Obama’s portfolio, with its subsidiary policy elements — childhood obesity and exercise. By now, millions of Americans have heard about Mrs. Obama’s kitchen garden on the South Lawn, a project that let her neatly tie together a variety of her agendas against a photogenic backdrop. The garden provided grist for a variety of storylines, ranging from inviting elementary students over to the White House to championing locally produced food. Mrs. Obama has noted wryly that when she has traveled overseas people invariably inquired about the garden — unless they asked about the family dog, Bo.
She has spoken out in support of the Obama health care proposals, but kept away from any of the controversial elements. For a woman who came out of progressive politics, Michelle Obama has yet to say a word about some of the potential abortion coverage curbs in the pending legislation. That’s because she knows — as does the three-woman press staff that guards her image — that if she said something, it would be news, and news is not what they want to make, unless it is something very safe. She appeared, for example, with Elmo and Big Bird on “Sesame Street.”
Mrs. Obama is so averse to controversy that she goes to what seem to be awkward extremes. Last month, after the murders at Fort Hood, Tex., her comments in response simply did not mention the shooting spree, allegedly carried out by an Army psychiatrist.

In these past months, we’ve gotten to know Mrs. Obama a little bit better. She can be fun — a heck of a hula-hooper, we learned at a White House health fair. She dressed up as a cat lady during Halloween. She took her girls to France and England for a grand summer vacation. She learned, as we did, through a newspaper account about some of her roots. In a much-read interview, the first couple opened up, albeit a bit-guardedly, about some strains in their marriage. Some things have been beyond Mrs. Obama’s control, including a racist picture of her on a Google page (since removed) and unauthorized dolls in her likeness.

One controversy I unwittingly caused. In July on Politics Daily I put together a list of Mrs. Obama’s East Wing staffers and their salaries, triggering a debate in the blogosphere about the size of her staff.

Mrs. Obama’s East Wing oversees social events; the first state dinner last month was crashed by a publicity-hungry couple, throwing a cloud over her friend, Social Secretary Desiree Rogers. I think that will pass.

Mrs. Obama has gotten a few breaks even when she flirted with controversy. When she met the Queen of England, she put her arm around her, a supposed breach of protocol. But the queen warmed to her embrace, as have a majority of Americans — even if that embrace is given with eyes wide open, and a bit guardedly.

Share

I can still hear their screams

Those barbarians need a taste of their own medicine. I have a labrador retriever, and just looking at her brings out all of my protective instincts and I want to smash the faces of those inhumane torturers. And they laugh while they’re doing it. I saw a short clip while a pet s how many years ago. The man skewered a dog and laughed while the dog shrieked in pain. ~Pesky Emotional Republican

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By: Devvy / News With Views / December 14, 2005

The men grabbed each cage off this huge truck and threw them to the ground – as high up as 30′. The cries of these adorable dogs and cats as they hit the ground sent me into shock. Several dogs and cats crammed into each cage, many already bloodied and many whose bones would break upon impact. I can still hear their screams.

As I watched the video progress, I realized that I was crying. The screams of live dogs and cats as they were skinned alive, their big eyes begging for mercy and receiving none, ripped my heart out and brought incredible rage from deep down inside. The next shots of cat pelts laid on the floor with all the dead bodies still twitching in piles cast aside like garbage, would have driven someone with a weak stomach right to the bathroom. It hardened my resolve against trading with barbarians. I can still hear their screams.

More pictures of dogs being chained – the worker jerking and tightening the chain while the eyes of incredible pain stared at the camera – prepared them for skinning, alive. I don’t know what sound you call dogs and cats as they are being choked and then a knife taken to them right then and there and skinned. To me, it was screams so horrific, I can still hear them two days after I watched the video.

This is an everyday operation by “businessmen” who drive their trucks on the street like a produce truck would in the U.S. It’s estimated these barbarians skin millions of dogs and cats every year – while they are alive. As I watched these “workers” go about their barbaric practice, I wondered how Americans could continue supporting them with their consumer dollar? This is Communist China in all its brutality. The skinning of live dogs and cats is done for money. These barbarians sell the pelts and toss the “meat.” These pelts are illegally being intertwined with fake fur for many retail items being sold in the U.S., i.e. doll clothes and into fabric for human garments, i.e. parka hoods and sweaters. That’s right: That Christmas gift sitting under the tree – if it came from Communist China – most likely is made from the fur of a dog or cat skinned alive. The EU refuses to ban this barbaric practice; it is condemned and illegal in the U.S.

A couple of months ago I sent my family and friends a photo of what appeared to be a golden retriever with a huge fish hook through it’s upper snout. This beautiful dog had been rescued and was at the vet so they could operate on this living creature to remove this grotesque hook. You see, the French government refuses to stop their fishing industry as they kidnap dogs off the streets, shove these huge hooks into their upper snout and throw them off the back of their fishing boats – alive – to troll as shark bait. You can view the photo here. Vacation in gay Paree? I’d rather stay home and clean house. Buy a bottle of wine or bottled water from France? I’d rather drink from the garden hose.

I do not belong to PETA or any animal rights groups; as a matter of fact, I belong to no group, organization or political party. I donate regularly to United Animal Nations because I believe they are one of the very best national organizations. I also donate $15.00 each month to the county animal care services here in Sacramento for the SPCA and our animal facilities. It’s never enough. The people of this country are so busy getting their nails polished, getting their bodies buffed, sitting in front of the stupid tube watching crap, addicted to sports, meth, cocaine, porn and other useless past times, they’re too lazy and selfish to get their pets spayed or neutered. The result is the euthanization of roughly nine million cats and dogs every year. Congratulations, America, for a job well done.

Let’s not forget the animal cruelty in this country which I have seen for myself. Helpless living creatures who ask for nothing more than a little love, food and water. Instead, when I lived in Colorado, it was the norm for people to leave their dogs in the back yard while they went snow skiing for the weekend. Animal control would then come pick up the frozen dog from a back yard while the family was out just having fun. Let’s not forget those who kick and beat their dogs while pumped full of booze and drugs and those sickos who burn them alive for kicks. Congratulations, America, for a job well done.

As I said, I do not belong to nor have I ever donated to PETA. Like so many single issue organizations, they become fanatics out of frustration or they’re so brainwashed, they cross the line into illegal activities like the eco terrorists who burn down sub divisions of new homes. PETA’s silliness over eating beef reaches the point of hysteria and it’s a battle they can’t win. My husband eats only free range beef and pork; I consume only free range chicken, turkey, fish, organic milk and eggs. If you really want to see what you and your family are eating, I respectfully direct you to this site. I fully support our family farms and ranchers, but there does need to be some changes made and themeatrix web site will help people understand why I say this.

However, mixed in sometimes, we do find good work and PETA has helped get this atrocity out to the world that is going on everyday in Communist China on film. You can view it here, but let me warn you, it will break your heart. I am one of those who refuse to buy Made in China with the exception of this keyboard, monitor and hard drive. Otherwise, there is nothing made from slave labor in my home, not my TV and I don’t even own a toaster. It’s not just this barbaric practice, but my first awareness of Communist China’s brutal practices was back in 1993 when I actually took the time to research NAFTA and commie China. What I found sickened me. Before 1993, we the people could buy virtually everything we ever needed made by Americans, so buying foreign was a pretty much a non issue for me. Then came NAFTA and the total destruction of our three most important job sectors: ag, industrial and manufacturing because Americans wanted cheap. Well, Americans got “cheap” and have been the driving economic force behind America’s decline. Since then, Americans like me keep our money, buy Made in America (see here for sources of more than 20,000 products and services) or go without. It’s a matter of principle and loyalty to my country, not communist China, communist Hong Kong, communist Viet Nam, India or Macao. I have no problem with fair trade, but free trade has and will further destroy this republic.

People think that communism is just some word. They are wrong. It is a brutal form of totalitarian government. Remember Tienemen Square? The butchers in Beijing murdered their own citizens for daring to speak out against tyranny. These monsters who run communist China continue to enforce their one-child-per-family policy of forced abortions, infanticide and perilously imbalanced boy-girl ratios. During testimony last year before the House International Relations Committee, testimony centered around the case of Mao Hengfeng. In 1998, Mao was fired from her job at a Shanghai soap factory for becoming pregnant with a second child. This poor mother carried her pregnancy to term despite severe pressure from the government to have an abortion. After she became pregnant again, she sued the soap factory for firing her, and the presiding judge told her he would rule in her favor if she aborted her third pregnancy. Mao then aborted her seven-month-gestation pregnancy, but the court ruled against her, saying that because she violated China’s family planning policy, the factory had a right to dismiss her. This broken woman was then sentenced to 18 months in a prison labor camp for refusing to give up her protests of the government’s family planning policy.

Under communism, the people are indoctrinated into this Godless ideology. They believe it, they live it. They are also slaves and the American people are funding such barbarity:

“But Harry Wu saw the Clinton/Beijing relationship from a deeply human perspective: the blue uniforms and shaved heads in Chinese prison camps. For years, he had been one of the estimated 50 million blue uniformed “troublemakers” who had worked in the camps under totally inhumane conditions. Some of them literally worked themselves to death.” Nothing has changed as Bush gleefully embraces such evil. Can anyone hear their cries of misery while they open that Made in China silk blouse or DVD player under the Christmas tree? Are gadgets like I-pods so important that Americans will ignore the human misery that created them?

Do Americans really understand how a communist system really works? Most don’t and quite frankly, they don’t care. Wearing Nike is more important than facing the truth. Those stock dividends in companies that have sold out this great nation and dumped on the workers who made them so prosperous is more important. Who owns all this stock? Americans. Americans funding such barbaric customs and enriching a murdering government. I wouldn’t own stock in any company that trades with commie China for all the tea in China. Those dividend checks from Boeing, Dell and all the rest are dripping with the blood of human slaves and such barbaric practices like skinning dogs and cats alive.

For a list of companies who have sold out this country, click here and see the box ‘Exporting America.’ I will not buy anything from any company that has sold out the American people and/or has plants in commie China. God forgive me that I had to buy this new computer system two years ago so I can get the truth to my fellow Americans. I would gladly have paid an extra $100, $150 or $200 more for my system made by my fellow Americans, but nothing was available. Pat Buchanan called free trade ‘economic treason.’ It is that and more when you see what your consumer dollar is going to fund.

Click here, Part II – The communist Chinese glorify the attacks on America September 11th.

© 2005 Devvy Kidd – All Rights Reserved

 

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

 

 


Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty, which sold close to 2,000,000 copies. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country, ran for Congress and is a highly sought after public speaker. Your complimentary copy of the 32-page report may be obtained from El Dorado Gold. Devvy is a contributing writer for www.NewsWithViews.com.

 

Devvy’s website: www.devvy.com

E-mail is: devvyk@earthlink.net

 


 

Home

Share