Europe against GMO crops! Please, sign the Avaaz petition!
I already did. It's us who decide, not Monsanto!!!

Obama-a saviour or a coward?

I'm so sick of seeing all those Obama banners on every second blog I see, I decided to paste something I found long time ago.
It basically shows how the "man of change" backs off on an important social issue on safety of nuclear plants and for a "small" tribute to his campaign lets go of a bill that is essential to people's safety.
The news is from NY Times, you're all encouraged to check the source link at the bottom and read the whole story.
I think it's high time that politicians should be judged not by what they say, but by what they do. Because words are easy, actions are all that matters. (my comment is on the bottom)

Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate

When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause.

Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”

A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.

The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country’s largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money.

Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.

In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues.

The Obama campaign said in written responses to questions that Mr. Obama “never discussed this issue or this bill” with Mr. Axelrod. The campaign acknowledged that Exelon executives had met with Mr. Obama’s staff about the bill, as had concerned residents, environmentalists and regulators. It said the revisions resulted not from any influence by Exelon, but as a necessary response to a legislative roadblock put up by Republicans, who controlled the Senate at the time.

Asked why Mr. Obama had cited it as an accomplishment while campaigning for president, the campaign noted that after the senator introduced his bill, nuclear plants started making such reports on a voluntary basis. The campaign did not directly address the question of why Mr. Obama had told Iowa voters that the legislation had passed.

Nuclear safety advocates are divided on whether Mr. Obama’s efforts yielded any lasting benefits. David A. Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists agreed that “it took the introduction of the bill in the first place to get a reaction from the industry.”

“But of course because it is all voluntary,” Mr. Lochbaum said, “who’s to say where things will be a few years from now?”

Paul Gunter, an activist based in Maryland who assisted neighbors of the Exelon plants, said he was “disappointed in Senator Obama’s lack of follow-through,” which he said weakened the original bill. “The new legislation falls short” by failing to provide for mandatory reporting, said Mr. Gunter, whose group, Beyond Nuclear, opposes nuclear energy.

The episode that prompted Mr. Obama’s legislation began on Dec. 1, 2005, when Exelon issued a news release saying it had discovered tritium, a radioactive byproduct of nuclear power, in monitoring wells at its Braidwood plant, about 60 miles southwest of Chicago. A few days later, tritium was detected in a drinking water well at a home near the plant, although the levels did not exceed federal safety standards.

At least as disturbing for local residents was the revelation that Exelon believed the tritium came from millions of gallons of water that had leaked from the plant years earlier but went unreported at the time. Under nuclear commission rules, plants are required to tell state and local authorities only about radioactive discharges that rise to the level of an emergency.

On March 1, Mr. Obama introduced a bill known as the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006. It stated flatly that nuclear plants “shall immediately” notify federal, state and local officials of any accidental release of radioactive material that exceeded “allowable limits for normal operation.”

To flag systematic problems, it would also have required reporting of repeated accidental leaks that fell below those limits. Illinois’ senior senator, Richard J. Durbin, a fellow Democrat, was a co-sponsor, and three other senators, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, later signed on. But Mr. Obama remained its primary champion.

In public statements, Mr. Obama dismissed the nuclear lobby’s arguments that the tritium leaks posed no health threat.

“This legislation is not about whether tritium is safe, or at what concentration or level it poses a threat,” he said. “This legislation is about ensuring that nearby residents know whether they may have been exposed to any level of radiation generated at a nuclear power plant as a result of an unplanned, accidental or unintentional incident.”

Almost immediately, the nuclear power industry and federal regulators raised objections to the bill.

The Nuclear Energy Institute jumped out in front by announcing its voluntary initiative for plant operators to report even small leaks. An Exelon representative told an industry newsletter, Inside N.R.C., that Exelon was “working with Senator Obama’s office to address some technical issues that will allow us to support the legislation.”

Last week, an Exelon spokesman, Craig Nesbit, said the company sought, among other things, new language to specify what types of leaks should be reported, and assurance that enforcement authority remained with the nuclear commission and not state or local governments.

“We were looking for technical clarity,” Mr. Nesbit said.

Meanwhile, the nuclear commission told Mr. Obama’s staff that the bill would have forced the unnecessary disclosure of leaks that were not serious.

Senate correspondence shows that the environment committee chairman at the time, Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma who is a strong supporter of industry in battles over energy and environmental legislation, agreed with many of those points and held up the bill. Mr. Obama pushed back, at one point temporarily blocking approval of President Bush’s nominee to the nuclear commission, Dale E. Klein, who met with Mr. Obama to discuss the leaks.

But eventually, Mr. Obama agreed to rewrite the bill, and when the environment committee approved it in September 2006, he and his co-sponsors hailed it as a victory.

In interviews over the past two weeks, Obama aides insisted that the revisions did not substantively alter the bill. In fact, it was left drastically different.

The rewritten bill also contained the new wording sought by Exelon making it clear that state and local authorities would have no regulatory oversight of nuclear power plants.

In interviews last week, representatives of Exelon and the nuclear commission said they were satisfied with the revised bill. The Nuclear Energy Institute said it no longer opposed it but wanted additional changes.

The revised bill was never taken up in the full Senate, where partisan parliamentary maneuvering resulted in a number of bills being shelved before the 2006 session ended.

Still, the legislation has come in handy on the campaign trail. Last May, in response to questions about his ties to Exelon, Mr. Obama wrote a letter to a Nevada newspaper citing the bill as evidence that he stands up to powerful interests.

“When I learned that radioactive tritium had leaked out of an Exelon nuclear plant in Illinois,” he wrote, “I led an effort in the Senate to require utilities to notify the public of any unplanned release of radioactive substances.”

Last October, Mr. Obama reintroduced the bill, in its rewritten form.source

My comment: Yes, I prefer Hilary than Obama, but this is not the reason why I posted this. I think it's dangerous to put popularity over reality and I wrote it on many occasions. A president should be strong, educated and experienced to handle difficult situation. In this from Obama and Hilary Clinton, Hilary is the better choice. But even if you're a republican or Obama fan, I think the article above will be useful. Just bear in mind that radioactivity is accumulative and that even leakage under the risk levels can be dangerous if repeated often enough. Not to mention that people have the right to know if their environment is being severed and that voluntary basis is not a good way to deal nuclear companies. If they are following the safety regulation in the laws, they have nothing to be worried if they give information about those leaks. If they don't follow the regulations, then they're breaking the law and should be punished. As simply as that. The question is what they have to hide. And whether the fact that a candidate for president has abandoned such important issue after declaring he'll deal with it, and not only that, but using it in his CAMPAIGN as a proof he cares, when he actually didn't do a thing isn't little bit discomforting. Oh, yeah, I'm sure he's the more "politically correct" candidate, after I read that Hilary is the Illuminati choice and the mafia and whatever. I'm just naturally realistic person and I really think that we should decide on reality and not on facts. Vote for whoever YOU want, but vote on facts, not on words or dreams. Because history remembers only facts, not intentions.

Below is a report addressed to EU in which it finds that still a lot of women are underpaid or in other way discriminated.
I simply can't hold my fury on the issue.
I don't see a simple reason why a woman and a man on the same position should get different amount of money! I mean, why? Seriously, why? How do you justify that for yourself. How do you live with that? Why do you do something so irrational? The worst part is that this is real. It's not a feminist myth. It is a REALITY. Women in some countries, in some sectors get less money than the men in the same positions.
I hope, sincerely hope, this changes, and it changes very quickly, because, well, that's unacceptable. I often wonder why so many women marry muslims and abandon their rights. Well, obviously they never had so much of them in the first place. Ok, I'm way too mad! I just want to address anybody who employs people- please, leave a comment and tell us what you think. And in case you do give less money to the women, please, tell us why. I promise I won't jump on anyone. I just want to know why. One rational reason. Because this is simply unbelievable!
The above was written in true anger. Later one person pointed out that the survey doesn't show that women and men in the same positions are differently paid, but rather that women averagely earn less than a man by taking part-time jobs or applying for less paid positions. Which is still unacceptable. A child is not only a mother's care. If he/she has two parents those parents should take equal care of him/her.
That's why, my fury is still in place. That statistic is simply wrong and I believe this world will be a better place if we change it!

EU gender report finds women opting for low-paid sectors

24 January 2008

While increasing numbers of women are working, they remain underrepresented in sectors considered crucial for economic development which are usually better remunerated, notes the Commission's annual report on equality between women and men.

"Overall, despite their better educational attainment, women's careers are shorter, slower and less well-paid: it is clear that we need to do more to make full use of the productive potential of the workforce," said Equal Opportunities Commissioner Vladimír Špidla as he presented the Commission's fifth annual reportPdf external on gender equality on 23 January 2008.

The report, which is the first to cover the EU 27, shows that "major challenges remain" in particular to "boost the qualitative aspect of equality". This is despite a number of measures announced in the Commission's roadmap for equality between women and menexternal and the European Council's pact for gender equalityexternal , which were implemented in 2007.

The report shows that the female employment rate has been steadily increasing since 2000 and that the unemployment rate for women has fallen to its lowest level for ten years. However, the pay gap, labour market segregation, and work/life balance are ongoing challenges that undermine the qualitative aspect of jobs, found the report.

Regarding the employment rate of women, significant differences exist at national level across the EU. In Malta, it was only 34.9% compared to more than 70% in Sweden and Denmark.

As for the pay gap, it has remained steady at 15% since 2003. The biggest differences are found in three of the newest EU member states Estonia (25%), Cyprus and Slovakia, followed by Denmark, the UK, Finland and Austria (all 20% or more). The smallest differences were observed in Malta (3%), Belgium (7%) and Slovenia (8%).

The report also highlights that "women's participation in the labour market is still largely characterised by a high and increasing share of part-time work." In 2007, the share of women employees working part-time was 31.4% in the EU 27, while the corresponding figure for men was only 7.8%.

The fact that some member states face high segregation in occupations as well as sectoral segregation is considered a particular problem as well. "In consequence of segregated labour markets, there is an under-representation of women in sectors crucial for economic development and usually well remunerated. For example, only 29% of scientists and engineers in the EU are women." source

Swine brain hurts human soul

Today's story is NY Times inspired. It involves blowing out the brain of a hog and getting weird immune disease. In short, people blow pig's brain with high pressured air and the brain gets in tiny pieces that could be breath in or to get into human body trough the skin or the eyes. As we know the micro particles from heavy traffic are guilty for hearth and respiratory diseases. But the patients in this factories get severe autoimmune attack and suffer from weakness, pains and impossibility to walk. My speculation? The work is so disgusting and the pigs are genetically very similar to us, I wonder if it could be our souls' revulsion to such job. Because admit it-it's disgusting. More on the bottom of the page.

The Mayo Clinic, famous for diagnosing exotic ailments, owns the local medical center and shares some staff with it. Mayo itself is just 40 miles east in Rochester. And when it comes to investigating mysterious outbreaks, Minnesota has one of the strongest health departments and best-equipped laboratories in the country.

And the disease that confronted doctors at the Austin Medical Center here last fall was strange indeed. Three patients had the same highly unusual set of symptoms: fatigue, pain, weakness, numbness and tingling in the legs and feet.

The patients had something else in common, too: all worked at Quality Pork Processors, a local meatpacking plant.

The disorder seemed to involve nerve damage, but doctors had no idea what was causing it.

Quality Pork is the second biggest employer, with 1,300 employees. Most work eight-hour shifts along a conveyor belt — a disassembly line, basically — carving up a specific part of each carcass. The work is grueling, but the plant is exceptionally clean and the benefits are good, said Richard Morgan, president of the union local. Many of the workers are Hispanic immigrants. Quality Pork’s owner does not allow reporters to enter the plant.

A man whom doctors call the “index case” — the first patient they knew about — got sick in December 2006 and was hospitalized at the Mayo Clinic for about two weeks. His job at Quality Pork was to extract the brains from swine heads.

“He was quite ill and severely affected neurologically, with significant weakness in his legs and loss of function in the lower part of his body,” said Dr. Daniel H. Lachance, a neurologist at Mayo.

Tests showed that the man’s spinal cord was markedly inflamed. The cause seemed to be an autoimmune reaction: his immune system was mistakenly attacking his own nerves as if they were a foreign body or a germ. Doctors could not figure out why it had happened, but the standard treatment for inflammation — a steroid drug — seemed to help.

By spring, he went back to his job. But within weeks, he became ill again. Once more, he recovered after a few months and returned to work — only to get sick all over again.

By then, November 2007, other cases had begun to turn up. Ultimately, there were 12 — 6 men and 6 women, ranging in age from 21 to 51. Doctors and the plant owner, realizing they had an outbreak on their hands, had already called in the Minnesota Department of Health, which, in turn, sought help from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

A survey of the workers confirmed what the plant’s nurses had suspected: those who got sick were employed at or near the “head table,” where workers cut the meat off severed hog heads.

Blowing brains:As each head reached the end of the table, a worker would insert a metal hose into the foramen magnum, the opening that the spinal cord passes through. High-pressure blasts of compressed air then turned the brain into a slurry that squirted out through the same hole in the skull, often spraying brain tissue around and splattering the hose operator in the process.

The brains were pooled, poured into 10-pound containers and shipped to be sold as food — mostly in China and Korea, where cooks stir-fry them, but also in some parts of the American South, where people like them scrambled up with eggs.

The person blowing brains was separated from the other workers by a plexiglass shield that had enough space under it to allow the heads to ride through on a conveyor belt. There was also enough space for brain tissue to splatter nearby employees.

The workers wore hard hats, gloves, lab coats and safety glasses, but many had bare arms, and none had masks or face shields to prevent swallowing or inhaling the mist of brain tissue.

But why should exposure to hog brains cause illness? And why now, when the compressed air system had been in use in Minnesota since 1998?

At first, health officials thought perhaps the pigs had some new infection that was being transmitted to people by the brain tissue. Sometimes, infections can ignite an immune response in humans that flares out of control, like the condition in the workers. But so far, scores of tests for viruses, bacteria and parasites have found no signs of infection.

As a result, Dr. Lynfield said the investigators had begun leaning toward a seemingly bizarre theory: that exposure to the hog brain itself might have touched off an intense reaction by the immune system, something akin to a giant, out-of-control allergic reaction. Some people might be more susceptible than others, perhaps because of their genetic makeup or their past exposures to animal tissue. The aerosolized brain matter might have been inhaled or swallowed, or might have entered through the eyes, the mucous membranes of the nose or mouth, or breaks in the skin.

Dr. Osterholm said. “But it makes biologic sense that what you have here is an inhalation of brain material from these pigs that is eliciting an immunologic reaction.” What may be happening, he said, is “immune mimicry,” meaning that the immune system makes antibodies to fight a foreign substance — something in the hog brains — but the antibodies also attack the person’s nerve tissue because it is so similar to some molecule in hog brains.

Anatomically, pigs are a lot like people. But it is not clear how close a biochemical match there is between pig brain and human nerve tissue.source

My comment: Well, first we know that micro particles are extremely dangerous for human's health. So my guess is that those people were simply getting allergic to the brain. My wilder guess is that human soul is just too disgusted from such kind of work. I can't even picture it. And the numbers of heads they process is amazing. They are thousands. It's unbelievable. I can do that once or twice, but all day, incessantly to disperse the brain of once-living creature? No, thanks. So, maybe, just maybe this is the way the body of those people tell them this work is no good for them. I mean, from spiritual point of view, autoimmune problems are way too weird.

Weight and thoughts

Very enlightening research that I found in Mind Power News:

In fact, a recent study by Harvard psychologist Ellen Langer seems to challenge our basic assumptions about the relationship between the physical body and the mind — and perhaps even our assumptions about the nature of objective reality itself. It certainly challenges our assumptions about the limits of the placebo effect.

Langer is a researcher who has published several important and provocative studies. In this study, she decided to look at whether our perception of how much exercise we are getting has any effect on how our bodies actually look. To do this, she studied hotel maids.

As any casual observer of the hospitality industry knows, hotel maids spend the majority of their days lugging heavy equipment around endless hallways. Basically, almost every moment of their working lives is spent engaged in some kind of physical activity.

But Langer found that most of these women don't see themselves as physically active. She did a survey and found that 67 percent reported they didn't exercise. More than one-third of those reported they didn't get any exercise at all.

What was even more bizarre, she says, was that, despite the fact all of the women in her study far exceeded the U.S. surgeon general's recommendation for daily exercise, the bodies of the women did not seem to benefit from their activity.

Langer and her team measured the maids' body fat, waist-to-hip ratio, blood pressure, weight and body mass index. They found that all of these indicators matched the maids' perceived amount of exercise, rather than their actual amount of exercise.

So Langer set about changing perceptions.

She divided 84 maids into two groups. With one group, researchers carefully went through each of the tasks they did each day, explaining how many calories those tasks burned. They were informed that the activity already met the surgeon general's definition of an active lifestyle.

The other group was given no information at all.

One month later, Langer and her team returned to take physical measurements of the women and were surprised by what they found. In the group that had been educated, there was a decrease in their systolic blood pressure, weight, and waist-to-hip ratio — and a 10 percent drop in blood pressure.

One possible explanation is that the process of learning about the amount of exercise they were already getting somehow changed the maids' behavior. But Langer says that her team surveyed both the women and their managers and found no indication that the maids had altered their routines in any way. She believes that the change can be explained only by the change in the women's mindset.

Essentially, what Langer is talking about is a placebo effect. She says that if you believe you are exercising, your body may respond as if it is. It's the same as if you believe you are getting medication when you are actually getting a sugar pill — your body can sometimes respond as if a placebo is actually working.

Howard Brody has spent years looking at this issue. He says that a number of relatively new studies challenge the old assumption that the placebo effect alters only subjective perception. He is the director of the Institute for the Medical Humanities at the University of Texas Medical Branch and the author of the book, The Placebo Response.

For example, Brody notes one study where researchers gave asthmatic patients a drug that actually makes asthma worse. When they gave the drug to the patients, they told them that it relieves asthma.

"A significant number of those patients said that my asthma got better when you gave me the drug," Brody says, "and they measured better when you measured the lung findings.

"So the idea that the placebo effect applies only to subjective things is really one that we have to dismiss." source

My comment: As I already said, there research on the maids is very interesting. Of course, it's possible that they changed their lifestyle during the second stage, but I actually doubt it. From personal experience, when I feel I live healthy, I feel great.

Another interesting article that explains why people in Latin America are generally happier than those in other parts of the world (no need to say I completely agree with that, I've seen how much happier are the people on the Mediterranean sea):

Actually, Happiness Isn't Within

Some cultures are simply better at producing happy citizens than others.

Which particular "out there" makes a huge difference in your happiness level. National levels of contentment vary widely, from the morose Moldavians to the chronically cheerful Danes. Happiness, it turns out, is like oil. Some countries are awash in it; others are bone dry.

In fact, psychologists at the University of Leicester in Britain recently produced the world's first map of happiness. Using data from the emerging science of happiness, they created a color-coded atlas of bliss, a topography of the human spirit, from Algeria to Zimbabwe. It's not climate or topography or some mysterious "energy" that is at work here, but national culture. Some cultures are simply better at producing happy citizens than others.

Not surprisingly, democracies tend to fare better than dictatorships, though it's not clear which way the river of causality flows. Perhaps happy count

The map contains more than a few surprises. Latin American countries, for instance, are among the happiest in the world, despite their relative poverty and often shaky political situations. "The Latino bonus" is what some researchers have dubbed this phenomenon. One explanation: the close family ties found in Latin American countries and among many Hispanics in the US.

Jean-Paul Sartre famously declared that "Hell is other people." Sartre got it wrong, or perhaps he was hanging out with the wrong people. The emerging science of happiness has found that the single biggest determinant of our happiness is the quantity and the quality of our relationships.

The way people relate to one another varies tremendously from one nation to another and, to a lesser extent, from one city to another. These differences persist despite the advent of cellphones, the Internet, and other technologies that have supposedly conquered distance. source

The 5 Biggest Neuroscience Discoveries of the Year

By William Saletan

The human brain has spent its evolutionary history learning about everything else in the world. Since last summer, it has learned quite a bit about itself.But five major trends and breakthroughs stand out.

1. The arrival of mind reading.

Scientists in Germany used pattern recognition software to predict, from functional magnetic resonance imaging of people's brains, whether each person had secretly decided to add or subtract two numbers he was looking at. The computer correctly predicted the decision 71 percent of the time. The advertised application of this technology is computers that can discern and execute your will when you want them to—for example, if you're paralyzed or don't want to use a mouse. The feared application is mental surveillance.

2. The neural alteration of morality.

Six people with damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex were presented with moral dilemmas (e.g., would you smother a baby to prevent bad guys from finding and killing people in hiding) and were found to be two to three times more willing to kill than people without brain damage. The advertised conclusion is that such willingness to kill is objectively immoral. The feared conclusion is that if brain design determines what's moral, you can change morality by changing the brain—and once technology manipulates ethics, ethics can no longer judge technology.

3. The medicalization of sexual orientation.

U.S. experiments confirmed that 7 percent to 10 percent of rams are gay. Research suggests brain biology is involved. The advertised application is identification of gay or asexual rams, "thus eliminating their use for general breeding purposes." The feared application is identification of gay male fetuses, leading parents to abort them or alter their orientation through hormone treatment in the womb. Some conservative Christian leaders have already endorsed this idea.

4. The discovery of vegetative consciousness.

For five months after her car crash, an English patient displayed "no reproducible evidence of purposeful behavior" and was declared vegetative. Then she was asked, during an fMRI scan, to imagine playing tennis and walking through her home. The scan lit up with patterns that in healthy brains signify language, movement, and navigation. A follow-up report cited anecdotal cases in which Ambien woke brain-damaged people from prolonged unresponsiveness. The happy implication is that some people we thought were finished may be salvageable. The horrifying corollary is that until we find these people, they're buried alive in their skulls.

5. The progress of artificial intelligence.

Computers completed their rout of humans at chess, as a $137 computer program beat the world chess champ in a six-game match, giving computers a 2-0-2 record (two wins, two ties) against human champs in their last four matches. Computers also improved their ability to adapt and modify themselves, as a robot demonstrated that it could recognize an injury to itself, infer how its limbs worked, and adjust its method of locomotion. However, DARPA scrapped a program to reverse-engineer the brain, leaving scientists to wonder whether the project had lost out to other priorities or had simply failed. source

My comment: I think all of these are absolutely great. I like most the Mind Reading as I find the paralysis and the loss of limb for the most horrifying ways to exist. And this discovery gives hope to all of us, because one never knows.

The other very interesting thing is the vegetative consciousness, though on different perspective. I wonder if 1) all of the people in coma are locked inside and 2) if keeping them alive isn't the worst torture for those people. Meaning, if we keep them alive, because we know parts of their personalities are intact and probably waiting with years to find a way to "raise them from the dead", who are we serving-us or them? If the personality or part of it is alive inside death brain, it means we are not function of our brain. If that's correct, then why stopping those eternal souls from ascending and finding themselves a better bodies? Aren't we making them suffer, because of our ego and "love" by keeping them alive? Yes, if there is a way to give them back their life, i guess it's worthy, but if all we can give them is a life in the hospital, licked inside a body that won't do what they want to, isn't this the ultimate prison? You can't die and escape, because you're totally helpless. There is nothing you can do to change your condition, beside waiting. And waiting isn't the best option, is it?

How to manifest our dreams

The miracle of manifestation as described in this article. I shortened it a little, so please, go to the source and read there if you're interested. The steps are more or less universal, so don't expect anything stunning. It's simple but requires consistency and patience. And creativity. Enjoy! (And because it happened to be the Day of Love, today, i dedicate that to all the love-birds in the air and on the ground. Love and be loved and use this list to create happiness and joy :) )
  • Key #1: Make Sure You Set Your Intention!
  • In any situation you’re either creating what you want or you’re reacting to what is.
    When people pretend they are not responsible for what they’re creating in their lives, they’re really choosing to accept what they DON’T want.The first step in creating your life the way you want it is to accept responsibility for what is.

  • Key #2: Make Your Intention Best For All
  • Many goal-setting methods encourage us to set all kinds of goals without fully considering the consequences. The problem with that is that what’s good for one area of your life may have a negative impact on the rest of your life, others or the planet. I encourage you to consider the consequences and to always check in with your heart before setting an intention. I like to meditate before setting an intention on the bigger issues. Get this key right and you’ll have the inertia of the Universe working with you.

  • Key #3: Your Intention Must Be Positively Stated
  • Negatively framed intentions need to be changed to the positive. What DO you want?

  • Key #4: Your Intention Must Be Clear & Concise
  • Go ahead and write pages of detail about your dreams. Going into lots of detail creates the passion needed to turn your dreams into reality. Just be sure that you also have a statement of intent in the form of a nutshell type statement.By clear and concise I mean one or two sentences at the most.

  • Key #5: State Your Intention In Present Tense Language
  • Frame your intention in present tense language. Framing your intention in the present tense helps you create the feeling of already having created your outcome. This is very important!

  • Key#6: Your Intention Should Be Both Believable & Challenging
  • You must believe and expect your outcome is on it’s way. Nothing gives you more belief than a history of success. If you’ve never had success in some area, it’s better to start smaller - get some successes under your belt and build up.

  • Key #7: Know Your Evidence Procedure
  • Critically important. How will you know when your outcome has happened? Where will you be? What will be your experience? What will you see, hear, feel, say and do etc?Build the evidence procedure into your statement of intent. For example, “It is now 1st January 2010 and I am looking at my brand new Ferrari and I feel great!” Including the evidence procedure makes it easy for the Universe to understand your intention and make it manifest. Finally, some of this may serve as a reminder of what you already know to make sure you’re putting this into practice.

Humans rational creatures?

Here's little article I found today. If you read the whole article, you'll see it treats something very curious-why you'd rather have less money but have the most, than have more money and have less than someone. It looks like it's genetic feature from before the kingdom of monkeys. But anyway, what is interesting for me is that obviously, it's something we simply shouldn't take so seriously. Meaning, if it's pure physiology to feel miserable when you win the second prise, why allowing it at all? Just ignore it and enjoy the life. Well, easier said than done, but it's worth the try. Especially, if doesn't improve our life in any way.

Regret falls under a psychological effect known as loss aversion. Research shows that before we risk an investment, we need to feel assured that the potential gain is twice what the possible loss might be because a loss feels twice as bad as a gain feels good. That's weird and irrational, but it's the way it is.
Human as it sounds, loss aversion appears to be a trait we've inherited genetically because it is found in other primates, such as capuchin monkeys. In a 2006 experiment, these small primates were given 12 tokens that they were allowed to trade with the experimenters for either apple slices or grapes. In a preliminary trial, the monkeys were given the opportunity to trade tokens with one experimenter for a grape and with another experimenter for apple slices. One capuchin monkey in the experiment, for example, traded seven tokens for grapes and five tokens for apple slices. A baseline like this was established for each monkey so that the scientists knew each monkey's preferences.
The experimenters then changed the conditions. In a second trial, the monkeys were given additional tokens to trade for food, only to discover that the price of one of the food items had doubled. According to the law of supply and demand, the monkeys should now purchase more of the relatively cheap food and less of the relatively expensive food, and that is precisely what they did. So far, so rational. But in another trial in which the experimental conditions were manipulated in such a way that the monkeys had a choice of a 50% chance of a bonus or a 50% chance of a loss, the monkeys were twice as averse to the loss as they were motivated by the gain.
Remarkable! Monkeys show the same sensitivity to changes in supply and demand and prices as people do, as well as displaying one of the most powerful effects in all of human behavior: loss aversion. It is extremely unlikely that this common trait would have evolved independently and in parallel between multiple primate species at different times and different places around the world. Instead, there is an early evolutionary origin for such preferences and biases, and these traits evolved in a common ancestor to monkeys, apes and humans and was then passed down through the generations.
If there are behavioral analogies between humans and other primates, the underlying brain mechanism driving the choice preferences most certainly dates back to a common ancestor more than 10 million years ago. Think about that: Millions of years ago, the psychology of relative social ranking, supply and demand and economic loss aversion evolved in the earliest primate traders.
This research goes a long way toward debunking one of the biggest myths in all of psychology and economics, known as "Homo economicus." This is the theory that "economic man" is rational, self-maximizing and efficient in making choices. But why should this be so? Given what we now know about how irrational and emotional people are in all other aspects of life, why would we suddenly become rational and logical when shopping or investing?

The sense of fairness-the moral emotion of "reciprocal altruism," which evolved over the Paleolithic eons to demand fairness on the part of our potential exchange partners. "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine" only works if I know you will respond with something approaching parity. The moral sense of fairness is hard-wired into our brains and is an emotion shared by most people and primates tested for it, including people from non-Western cultures and those living close to how our Paleolithic ancestors lived. source:MindPowerNews

Newer Posts Older Posts Home

Blogger Template by Blogcrowds