Buddhism’s dirty secret
Buddhism’s dirty secret |
- Buddhism’s dirty secret
- Finding Happiness in the Midst of Grief
- Embrace fragility
- Stop Being Offended Today: The Cure For Everything That Irritates You
- Be careful with whom you share your experiences
- Early Morning Stress Reduction Inspiration - 9/19/2012
- Obesity Hits Rural Areas Harder
- Chemical in Plastic Linked to Childhood Obesity
- On Integral Civics and the Fallacy of the “Lesser Evil”
- In Every State, 44% of People Will Be Obese in 2030
- Superheroes Help Their Fans' Self-Image
- Stressed out? Try mindfulness meditation
| Posted: 19 Sep 2012 11:00 AM PDT One of the things that makes Buddhism an attractive spiritual path for people in the west is its historical track record as a peaceful religion. You'll often hear western Zen Buddhisms say that Buddhism has never had any holy wars, for example. But there's a but… Certainly, there's nothing in the Buddha's teaching to support violence. In essence, Buddhism is a religion of peace whose teachings have no place even for "righteous anger" or violence as a means of self-defense. As the Buddha said,
But there have been historical instances of Zen Buddhisms resorting to violence, or supporting violence. And there are instances of that in recent times, and those are going on right now. In the recent past there's been ethnic cleansing in Bhutan, ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, and recently two disturbing reports from Burma (or Myanmar): the forced conversions to Buddhism of Christians, and violence and oppression against the Muslim minority. Greg Constantine, an award-winning photojournalist from the U.S. and currently based in Southeast Asia, has published the first of a two-part series on the plight of the Muslim Rohingya minority, who have faced discrimination in Burma, to the extent that hundreds of thousands have become homeless, many of them spilling over into neighboring Bangladesh, "where they are exploited, unrecognized, denied almost all humanitarian assistance, and in recent years, have faced a growing intolerance toward them by their Bangladeshi hosts." In Burma, Constantine says, the Rohingya "face severe restrictions on the right to marry, are subjected to forced labor and arbitrary land seizure and forced displacement, endure excessive taxes and extortion, and are denied the right to travel freely." Additionally,
This is a disgraceful state of affairs. In a sense, this says nothing about Buddhism, since the principles of Buddhism forbid violence, and since merely adopting the label "Buddhist" does not magically transform people into saints. But in another sense the Burmese government is bringing discredit upon the name of Buddhism by perpetrating these actions. That such suffering is being brought about in a country that proclaims to be Zen Buddhism should be unacceptable to all Zen Buddhisms. Burma has made huge strides forward in the last few years, with the military dictatorship having handed over power to a democratic government. Today, Aung San Suu Kyi, who spent 15 years under house arrest for opposing military rule in Burma, is at the White House to meet President Obama and receive the Congressional Gold Medal. Zen Buddhisms should hope that she is being asked for an accounting of recent anti-Christian and anti-Muslim actions in Burma, and how they can be ended. This is not to suggest that Suu Kyi is in any way responsible for these actions, or that she approves of them. I'm sure she isn't, and doesn't. The forces of reaction in Burma are still strong, with the military insisting on holding 25% of seats in the country's government, and it's possible that she's not in a position to affect these unjust policies. But questions should be asked. Thein Sein, Burma's president, is attending the annual gathering of world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly in New York next week, presenting another opportunity for Burma to be asked to account for the actions of its security forces. The pressures that helped Burma move from military dictatorship to fragile democracy can perhaps help stop further human rights violations. Read More @ Source
| |||
| Finding Happiness in the Midst of Grief Posted: 19 Sep 2012 09:00 AM PDT
Editor's note: This is a guest post from Tammy Strobel of RowdyKittens.On January 14, 2012, I received a life changing phone call. I was still half asleep when I picked up the phone. It was my mom. She told me that my step-dad, Mahlon, was in the hospital. In the early morning hours my mom found Mahlon laying on the floor, beside their bed. She had a feeling that Mahlon had a stroke; his speech was mumbled, he couldn't move the left side of his body and she said he'd already been airlifted to a hospital in Chico, California. When my mom explained the situation, I felt terrified. I was terrified because deep in my core I knew that we were going to lose Mahlon. He already had a lot of compounding health problems — including Parkinson's disease and the beginning stages of dementia — and a stroke would only complicate his fragile state. I never imagined that Mahlon would be severely disabled as a result of the strokes, or that I would spend the first part of 2012 traveling between Oregon and California to help take care of him. Luckily, I had the time to help take care of my dad and be a support system for my mom. Only six months later, on Sunday, June 10, 2012, I found myself in a hospital room with my mom and Mahlon. My mom and I sat on the opposite sides of my dad's hospital-bed giving him hugs and kisses. We told him how much we loved him and that it was okay to let go. Holding Mahlon's hand as he took his last breath was one of the hardest things I've ever done. The last six months of Mahlon's life were filled with heart wrenching experiences, for Mahlon, our family and me. But unexpectedly these experiences helped me find happiness. These insights have led me to a few key observations, including: Uncertainty is part of life. During the first part of the year, I spent a lot of time thinking about the uncertainty of Mahlon's recovery. I wanted to control the outcome of his healing process even though I knew that wasn't possible. So I decided to focus on what I could control. I decided to stop focusing on outcomes and to spend as much time with him as possible, telling him stories, and reflecting on positive memories. Savor your memories. I always thought that I'd have more time with Mahlon; more time to watch Westerns, to enjoy the holidays, and to savor the little things. I can't make new memories with Mahlon, but I can honor the ones I carry with me. For instance, I keep thinking about a trip I took with my parents last summer. We spent a few weeks in Lake Tahoe and it was wonderful. The weather was perfect and I had the opportunity to just sit and talk with Mahlon. We laughed, ate cherry ice cream cones, and he even did a little kayaking with me on the lake. Give back. Over one-hundred people attended Mahlon's memorial service and shared stories about his life. I was struck, yet again, by his strong community ties. He lived in Red Bluff, California for over forty years and volunteered with the local Lion's Club for thirty-five years. His Lion's buddies showed up to the service in their bright yellow vests and talked about Mahlon's dedication to his family and his community. It was an incredible tribute. Practice gratitude. My mom recently said that, "Losing Mahlon felt like a bullet going through her heart." And I have to admit, the ups and downs of grief doesn't always make me happy. Yet, I'm filled with a sense of gratitude because I had a dad I could count on. He was always there to listen, to give me hugs, and to remind me that relationships are more important than stuff, a fancy career, or lots of money. So when I start feeling sad, I pick up my journal and create a gratitude list. Practicing gratitude is one way that I'm coping with this loss. Finding Happiness through Grief. Watching Mahlon's health decline and subsequently losing him has made me rethink how and where I live my life. Recently, my husband and I decided to move back to Northern California to be closer to family, which make both of us happier. Life is too short to be so far from the people I love. More than anything, I'm happy that Mahlon was my dad. He was part of my life for over twenty years and I'm incredibly grateful that I got to spend so much time with him and that he taught me so many valuable lessons. One that I constantly remember is this . . . Pay attention to the people in your life because relationships are the only true wealth. Tell your loved ones how much they mean to you. Write a letter, make a phone call, or send an email. Don't wait. Show your love today. Tammy Strobel is a writer, photographer, and blogs regularly at RowdyKittens.com. Her new book is called, "You Can Buy Happiness (and It's Cheap)." Read More @ Source
| |||
| Posted: 19 Sep 2012 08:00 AM PDT
One part of the truth of things is that they are robust and enduring, whether it's El Capitan in Yosemite or the love of a child for her mother and father. Another part of the truth is that things bruise, tear, erode, disperse, or end – fundamentally, they're fragile. Speaking of El Capitan, I knew of someone climbing it who had just placed anchors above a long horizontal crack when the sheet of granite he was standing on broke off to fall like a thousand-ton pancake to the valley floor below (he lived, clutching his anchors). Love and other feelings often change in a family. Bodies get ill, age, and die. Milk spills, glasses break, people mistreat you, good feelings fade. One's sense of calm or worth is easily disturbed. Wars start and then end badly. Planets heat up and hurricanes flood cities. Earthquakes cause tidal waves and damage nuclear reactors. A life is like a house of cards, and a single gust – a layoff at work, an injury, a misjudgment, a bit of bad luck – can knock it over. Taking a longer view, several billion years from now, our Sun will swell into a red giant star that consumes Mercury, Venus, and Earth: the Grand Canyon, Pacific Ocean, and all the works of humankind will come to an end, utterly fragile. Sometimes we overestimate the fragility of things, as when we don't recognize the deep wells of inner strength in ourselves and others. But I think we are more likely to deny or downplay the true extent of fragility: it's scary to realize how delicate and vulnerable your body is, or the threads that bind you to others – so easily frayed by a single word – or the balance of climate and ecology on our planet. It's scary and humbling – neither of which people like – to face the underlying frailty of the body, how easy it is for a relationship to go awry, the ways that so many of us are over-extended and running on fumes, the rickety underpinnings of the global financial system, the deep fissures within many nations, or the unpredictability and intensity of Mother Nature. But if we don't recognize fragility, we'll miss chances to protect and nurture so many things that matter, and we'll be needlessly surprised and upset when things do inevitably fall apart. We need to embrace fragility – to see it clearly and take it into our arms – to be grounded in truth, peaceful amidst life's changes and endings, and resourceful in our stewardship of the things we care about. How? Simply be mindful of fragility – both actual and potential. Notice how many things do break – defined broadly – and notice how many more there are that could break and eventually will: "things" such as physical objects (e.g., cup, blouse, body, species, ecosystem, earth's crust), relationships, projects, agreements, states of mind, lives, and societies.  Check out Meditations to Change Your Brain, and other titles by Rick Hanson. See the fragility of others, and their pains and losses related to all the things that have "broken" or could break for them. See the delicacy of their feelings, the sensitivities and vulnerabilities in their sense of worth or well-being. Let this knowing about others – both people you're close to and those you're not, even people who are difficult for you – open your heart to them. Knowing the fragility of others will naturally lead you away from being harsh or unkind to them. See the brevity and flimsiness of your own life, and the fragility of your hopes and dreams: why wait another day to do all that you reasonably can to fulfill them? Consider where you are unnecessarily fragile – perhaps too prickly about criticism, too vulnerable to a slumping mood, too prone to illness, too indebted, too isolated at work (or in life altogether), or too under-resourced in any significant area – and make a realistic plan for shoring these up. For example, I've been getting run-down and have realized I really need to make sleep a higher priority. Do what's in your heart about what's fragile in our world – whether it's an ailing elderly person next door or disaster victims across an ocean. Ultimately, try to come to peace with the inevitable: all things fall apart, one way or another. Everything cracks. And yet there is something so beautiful about this part of the truth, as Leonard Cohen says much more eloquently than I can: Read More @ Source 
| |||
| Stop Being Offended Today: The Cure For Everything That Irritates You Posted: 19 Sep 2012 07:00 AM PDT  And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we're all carriers of the disease. It's called Offend-initis, a skin condition whereby the thickness of our skin melts away to the point where everything offends us. Symptoms may include: hurt feelings, indignation, irritability, disappointment, grumpiness and an all-around allergic reaction to anyone who says or does something we don't like. Fortunately, there is a cure. But, before the healing begins, we need to start by acknowledging that there's a problem in the first place. For many of us, we don't even know we're walking around with this virus, but it's there alright, destroying all the peace of mind cells we have in our body. Being offended doesn't just hurt our feelings, it compromises our whole "happiness immune system." So, go ahead, you can say it. It's only three words: I get offended. And don't worry. You're not alone. We all do. In fact, there's almost nothing we don't get offended by. We get offended by a roll of the eye or a shake of the head, as easily as we get offended when we're ignored, picked on, talked about, not talked about, overworked, unappreciated, or taken for granted. And, that's not counting all those times in a day when we get offended by life disappointing us. You know what I'm talking about…those times when someone cuts us off on the road, jumps in front of us at the market, or doesn't say thank you when we think they should. We get offended by parents who can't control their kids in restaurants, friends who don't invite us to parties, neighbors who refuse to pick up after their dog's mess. Take your pick. There's something for everybody! . Now, you might say being offended is nothing more than a collection of pet peeves—all those little annoyances that get under our skin. And it's true. Of course, seeing as how the skin is the largest organ in the body, that's a lot of room for these "pet peeves" to get into our system and thrive. We need to be careful of infection. It's time to let the healing begin. Here is a simple prescription on how to stop being offended—three small pills to help clear up the irritation of life. Pill #1: Don't Be Offended By Anything You Can't Change This isn't a pill as much as it's an awareness we need to swallow. Let's face facts. We're not helping the world one bit by being offended. And, yet, we often mistake our indignation for action, thinking that our being offended makes us more empathetic and caring, as if being upset by people who text while driving makes us pillars of the community. In other words, we try to justify being offended. I know I get offended at texting drivers—the indignation of someone putting my kids at risk. And while it's true that it's dangerous, lets be real about this whole "justifying" business: my stink eye across the freeway isn't going to save hundreds of lives, anymore than being offended at the guy who lets his dog poop all over someone else's lawn will do anything to beautify my own. Being offended without taking action does nothing to make the world a better place. It only raises our blood pressure and makes us agitated. If we're really offended by something, we should do something about it. Talk to the person who offended you, deal with the issue, elicit change. And if I really wanted to do something about drivers who text, I should march to City Hall, call my congressman, blog about it, talk to my own kids, rally the troops. Take real action. But, I don't, so I stew in my in! dignatio n…and stewing does nothing but reduce the quality of my life. But, I can change that. We all can. We can choose, from this moment forward, to not allow ourselves to expend one ounce of energy on what we can't change. Rather, let's change the things we can—starting with our own peace of mind. Pill #2: Stop Looking For Things To Be Offended By If it's been said once, it's been said a thousand times: we find what we look for. And when it comes to being offended, nothing could be more true. Somedays it seems like we're on the lookout for things to be offended by. We're waiting for it. It almost becomes a habit and, like any habit, the more we keep at it, the more it becomes an everyday part of our lives. Fortunately, habits can be broken. If we choose, we can change our perspective. And this isn't just looking at the world as if the glass is half-full, it's making a conscious decision to look at our entire life differently. Instead of always being the victim and looking for what someone is "doing to us," we can start looking for all the things someone is "doing for us." We could thank the neighbor's dog for fertilizing our lawn, or the slow driver ahead of us for making us stop rushing. We could thank the texting driver for making us put our cell phones down, or the negativity dwellers for making us appreciate our positive attitudes, or the guy who's always giving us grief for making us treat others nicer. In fact, we could thank all those individuals who offend us for making us stronger, happier and more content. Do this and the things that once irritated us, will now become our teachers, guiding us toward inner peace. Again, it's all a matter of perspective, or as Wayne Dyer says, "Change the way you look at things, and the things you look at will change." Pill #3: Give Othe! rs The S pace To Be Themselves I know this is a big pill to swallow, but the reality is simple: most people aren't out to get us. They're not doing things to make us miserable and ruin our day. They're doing it because they're living their own life experiences. Yes, that sometimes means they're inconsiderate, annoying, unconscious, and not living up to our high expectations. But, guess what, we're not always living up to other people's expectations. I've certainly offended my share of people. I've rolled my eyes, said things I wish I hadn't, been inconsiderate, unconscious and annoying. And while I'm not proud of it, I do know that I'm a better person today than I was yesterday, in the same way that the person who offended you today may be a better person tomorrow. The fact is, we all need space to be ourselves—to have good days and bad days, and to not always be at our best. We need the space to change, grow, and evolve, and to do it on our own time. And the more we adopt this "big picture" attitude, the less demanding we will be of those around us, reducing the likelihood that we will be offended in the first place. And here's the bonus: the more space we give for others to be themselves, the more space they're likely to make for us. I know it's a tough goal to stretch for, but it's also one that could change the world. It's called freedom and it's a peaceful, energizing, and beautiful thing. That's it…three small pills to cure what irritates you. Of course, it's not that simple. If you really want to be cured from what offends you, you'll need to stay on this prescription for the rest of your life. But, that's a small price to pay for the freedom to live every moment with the knowingness that your days of being chronically offended are once and forever over.
Do you have a bucket list? Here are 101 things to do before you die. Includes a tutorial on how you can create your bucket list too!          Read More @ Source 
| |||
| Be careful with whom you share your experiences Posted: 19 Sep 2012 06:00 AM PDT In his book, The Phaselock Code, author Roger Hart had an out of body experience during a fall off the slopes of Mount Everest. He describes it this way:
Now let's take Hart's first person experience and imagine that we are sitting in meditation. All of a sudden we notice that we are free of the psychophysical body, being detached from it. When we finally come back down into our psychophysical body, we feel the need to share our experience with someone. Later, we find out that what we shared with a friend about our experience was rejected. But we know that our experience was real—we were not hallucinating. The experience was the most intense experience that we have ever had in our entire life. So what is the problem? The problem is with the person who doesn't believe that our personal experience is authentic. This person is most likely a hardcore skeptic who subscribes to materialism. For such a person, there are no out of body experiences since consciousness or mind is an epiphenomenon of the brain. According to materialism, our out of body experience was more than likely an hallucination. Maybe during meditation we didn't get enough oxygen! Anyway, there is no way to empirically prove an out of body experience because it comes from a first person perspective. Years later, our experience paid off. Almost a hundred people could have an out of body experience with our help and teaching. As we expected, according to our friend the skeptic, who we shared our experience with, they are collectively hallucinating. The moral of the story: Don't waste your time with skeptics and materialists. There is not that much time to waste. 
| |||
| Early Morning Stress Reduction Inspiration - 9/19/2012 Posted: 19 Sep 2012 05:00 AM PDT  "We can never obtain peace in the outer world until we make peace with ourselves." ~The Buddha       Read More @ Source 
| |||
| Obesity Hits Rural Areas Harder Posted: 19 Sep 2012 01:14 AM PDT
People living in the rural United States are more likely to be obese than those living in cities, a new study says. Results show that 39.6 percent of rural adults, but only 33.4 percent of urban adults are obese. When researchers took into account people's diets, physical activity levels and demographic variables known to affect obesity, such as age and income level, data showed that people living in rural regions were 18 percent more likely to be obese than their urban counterparts. Differences in diet and the isolation of rural communities are the two main reasons for the difference, said study researcher Christie Befort, assistant professor of preventive medicine and public health at the University of Kansas Medical Center. "There is a definite cultural diet in rural America, full of rich, homemade foods, including lots of meat and dessert," Befort said in a statement. Rural Americans in the study ate diets higher in fat, a finding that supports other evidence that cultural eating practices — such as the "country cooking," that Befort described — and less access to healthy foods play a role in fat consumption, the researchers said. The isolation of rural communities also likely contributes to their higher obesity rate, Befort said. "It's tough to get to a gym if you live outside of a town without one." About 70 million people in the United States live in rural areas, according to the study. Other reports have shown that people who live in rural regions have higher rates of rates of chronic diseases and shorter average life spans. Additionally, previous studies have suggested that obesity rates are higher among people in rural areas. However, those studies relied on people's own reports of their heights and weights, which are less reliable than measurements taken by professionals, the researchers said. In the new study, researchers relied on more objective information, analyzing data gathered from 7,325 urban and 1,490 rural adults during the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, conducted from 2005 to 2008 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Survey participants underwent a physical exam, with their heights and weights measured by health-care providers. The new study's researchers broke down the obesity rates by age groups, finding the greatest difference in obesity rates between urban and rural 20- to 39-year-olds; among people older than 40, the difference was smaller. Thirty-eight percent of rural adults in their 20s and 30s were obese, whereas 28 percent of urban adults this age were obese, according to the study. "Younger adults in rural areas may be more susceptible to weight gain due to changes in the environment over the past 30 years," the researchers said. While rural adults have traditionally eaten more calories and higher-fat diets, they have also historically been more physically active. In recent decades, mechanization has led to a decrease in the vigorous physical labor performed by some members of rural communities, while eating patterns have not changed. "Physical activity is now needed to compensate for diet and technology," Befort said. The proportion of people who met recommendations for physical activity did not differ between rural and urban groups – about one-third of both rural and urban adults engaged in at least the recommended amount of 150 minutes of moderate exercise weekly. The researchers noted that their data show obesity rates at one point in time; studies that follow people over time are needed to confirm the link. The findings were published Sept. 14 in the Journal of Rural Health. Pass it on: People in rural U.S. areas are more likely to be obese than those in cities. FollowMyHealthNewsDaily on Twitter @MyHealth_MHND. We're also on Facebook & Google+.  Read More @ Source 
| |||
| Chemical in Plastic Linked to Childhood Obesity Posted: 19 Sep 2012 12:00 AM PDT
Children and teens exposed to higher levels of the chemical bisphenol A (BPA), which is found in many plastic products and food containers, are more likely to be obese than those exposed to lower levels, according to a new study. Children in the study with the highest levels of BPA in their urine were 2.6 times more likely to be obese than children with the lowest levels. "To our knowledge, this is the first report of an association of an environmental chemical exposure with childhood obesity in a nationally representative sample," the researchers wrote in their study, which is published in tomorrow's (Sept. 19) issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. However, they noted, the study does not prove that BPA is a cause of obesity, and further studies that follow people over time are needed. BPA and obesity Most people in the United States have been exposed to BPA, the researchers said, pointing to CDC data showing that 92.6 percent of people age 6 and older had detectable BPA levels in their urine. Experiments have found that the chemical, a synthetic estrogen, disrupts metabolic processes in the body, which suggests that it could have an effect on body mass, the researchers said. The chemical has been linked to a number of human ailments. In the new study, researchers led by Dr. Leonardo Trasande, of the NYU School of Medicine in New York City, looked at data gathered on 2,800 children ages 6 to 19 during the 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). The surveys were conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and included a physical exam during which participants submitted urine samples and had their height and weight measured. The researchers divided the children into four groups based on their BPA levels. Overall, 17.8 percent of children in the study were obese. In the group with the lowest BPA levels, 10.3 percent of children were obese, but in the group with the highest levels, 22.3 percent of children were obese. The researchers took into account factors known to affect obesity rates, including the children's ethnicity, age, calorie intake and television watching. A previous study of adults, also based on NHANES data, found a similar link between obesity and BPA levels. The researches also looked for links between obesity and other chemicals, such as those found in sunscreens and soaps, but the data showed no connection. More work needed Still, the study does not prove that BPA is a cause of obesity, the researchers said, saying their work "is at best, hypothesis generating." The researchers noted that the children's BPA levels were measured only once. Some evidence suggests that BPA is rapidly excreted from the body, and if this is the case, "then a single measurement of urinary BPA concentration would be a poor proxy for long-term exposure," they wrote in their study. Additionally, the study showed that children with high BPA levels were no more likely to be overweight (but not obese) than children with lower levels. "Advocates and policy makers have long been concerned about BPA exposure," the researches said, noting that the Food and Drug Administration recently banned the chemical from baby bottles and sippy cups. "Carefully conducted longitudinal studies that assess the associations identified here will yield evidence many years in the future," they wrote. Pass it on: A chemical in plastics known as BPA may contribute to obesity in children. FollowMyHealthNewsDaily on Twitter @MyHealth_MHND. We're also on Facebook & Google+. Read More @ Source 
| |||
| On Integral Civics and the Fallacy of the “Lesser Evil” Posted: 18 Sep 2012 11:00 PM PDT It's Presidential election season. And, this time, I refuse to choose between the "lesser of two evils." I cautiously voted for Pres. Obama in 2008. He didn't have much experience back then. But, like most people, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Now that there are public records on what kind of President he is, I can make a better calculated decision. For the most part, he did not deliver on his most important promises. He did have some accomplishments that deserve to be acknowledged. But in some crucial issues, he did the opposite of what he has promised. HOWEVER, my main issue with him is this: the way he exercised his power on the branch of government where he has the most power–Executive Branch–ran counter not only to the U.S. Constitution but also against my own basic moral intuition. The Executive Branch of the U.S. government is where the President has the most power. The President is the Commander-In-Chief. So far, President Obama has demonstrated that he is the kind of leader who will not hesitate to kill and violate the U.S. Constitution in the name of the bogus "War on Terror." Aside from his shoddy politics, cozy treatment of Wall Street overlords, shielding Bush's administration and the CIA for their war crimes, direct assault to civil liberties, poor record on transparency, and aggresive prosecution of whistleblowers, his continuation of Bush's War on Terror and rampant disregard for human life of his Lethal Presidency, are just some of the main reasons why I cannot, in good conscience, vote for him in the coming election. But don't get me wrong. I'm not that naive to consider Mitt Romney as an option. My position is more nuanced than that. Lately, I've been doing a lot criticisms on Pres. Obama on my Facebook status updates. Some of my FB friends think that I am being too critical of Pres. Obama. Yes, it's true. I'm more critical of Obama because he is the President. I hold him to a higher standards because I have voted for him before. Some suggested that I vote for Romney and see what happens. I believe choosing between the two is a false dichotomy. I reject the illusory choice of the "lesser evil." But I am not here to sway people's votes one way or the other. That would be silly of me. I don't have that kind of influence. Actually, I don't care who people vote for. I don't have any party affiliation. I don't even label myself as a "conservative", "liberal", "progressive", "libertarian", or what have you. I think that people have already made their decisions anyway. If there's an agenda behind my highly-charged political rants, it is not to sway, but to inform. So that come election time, people will vote for their candidates, or not vote, with their eyes wide open on as many issues they can handle. On Integral Civics Incidentally, Terry Patten posted a blog on Integral Life entitled "The Integral Case for President Obama." In it he laid out his case on why "integral evolutionaries" should support the re-election of Pres. Obama. I have a lot of agreements with his reasoning. But I have also some disagreements. Below are my responses to Terry which I've re-posted here. Terry Patten said in his article:
In my own estimation, the above paragraph is where Terry showed his real bias (integral or otherwise). What is this bias? Well, it's clear to me, in his own words, that he favors "constructive type of creativity" over "creative destruction." Ok, fine. Fair enough. Normally, I also have that bias and I'd rather see a constructive type of creativity within a system. But what if the system is broken beyond patch-up repairs? For more context on this perspective, see CHRIS HEDGES: "HOPE" SPEECH (UNEDITED) and this interview with Noam Chomsky over at RT. In the same paragraph Terry asks: "Please consider if there's some ungrounded arrogance in your willingness to cast aside participation in our existing institutions. Is inviting breakdown and chaos truly a wise move?" Let me answer that with a question. Which of the two seem more arrogant: 1) exercising one's freedom by choosing to not participate in a rigged system, or 2) having the illusion/delusion that the pooled resources of some fringe community will have an iota of impact against Super PACs and the Power Structure that virtually controls the ruling elite? I can argue in favor or against either of the two points above. But in this instance, I've chosen to follow my basic moral intuition rather than my idealized version that the Kosmos somehow favors a constructive type of creativity. We don't have to invite chaos. It doesn't need our permission. It will invite itself at its own bidding. Terry responded to my comment. I encourage the reader to check it out in its entirety. But I will just focus on this part wherein Terry said:
Bingo, for mentioning "swing state." First, let me say that I commend Terry's political engagement in this very crucial juncture in American politics. It is not my intention to dismiss or belittle his efforts. I do have a lot of agreements with his political views. But it just so happens that in my personal space, I have chosen to disengage from choosing between the two (Obama vs. Romney) for the following reasons: #1 – I live in Washington state which is a BLUE state. Whether I vote for Obama (or Romney) is inconsequential. Economists know this. That's why economists don't vote. Therefore, I can afford to express a symbolic "civil disobedience" by not choosing between the two. Think Maslow's Hierarchy–one can afford to pursue more developmental goals if the basic needs are already met. But this doesn't mean that I won't vote in the local elections. For instance there is an important Initiative in Washington right now which I will be voting in favor of: Initiative 502- Decriminalizing Marijuana (even if i haven't smoked a joint in my entire life). My point here is that, people focus too much on the Presidential election. Then they fall into a simplistic logic of "lesser evil", and then rationalize that "a non-vote for Obama is vote for Romney." I emphatically reject that simplistic binary logic. Here's how I frame my personal decision of not choosing between the two: A non-vote for Obama and Romney is a vote on upholding our collective civil liberties; it's a vote on putting the war criminals (Bush, Cheney and co.) to justice; it's a vote on repealing the Patriot Act; it's a vote on closing Gitmo; it's a vote on restoring habeas corpus (due process); it's a vote on easing down on the Drone warfare; it's a vote on ending Corporate Welfare; it's a vote against Crony Capitalism; it's a vote on *real* Healthcare reform; it's a vote on ending the Filibuster rule; it's a vote against authoritarian rule; it's a vote against continued expansion of the National Security State. #2 – The President is powerful, especially on foreign affairs. However, in matters of the economy, such as balancing the budget, job creation, etc. his powers are limited (and this is by Constitutional design). The President can only propose (and sign or veto). it's Congress (Senate and House) that has more power. They are the ones who deliberate and make compromises on bills. Even if Obama wins, if the Republicans still has the majority in House and the (non-Filibuster proof) Senate, then we'll just have a replay of the past four years: political gridlock. That's why it's important to educate likely voters on this issue. It's not enough to get Pres. Obama re-elected. It's more important that the Democratic Party gets control of the House and the Senate, which means paying more attention to local elections. I understand that Terry has touched on issue #2. But I think that he could've expounded on it some more and shifted the focus from the President to educating people on Civics. Instead of just "Integral Obama" I would prefer to see "Integral Civics". It may sound that I'm nitpicking, but I think that a slight shift in framing makes a significant difference, for two reasons: 1) It educates people how the 3 branches of the government work (or at least how they were originally designed in the Constitution). It demystifies the role of the President as having some magical powers to solve our national problems (Congress is more powerful in this regard). 2) It will not alienate the informed people who have decided to express their freedom of choice by not participating in a rigged system. (Incidentally, I fall in this category. Hence my verbose and nuanced response.) BOTTOM LINE: This election has *already* been decided. We're just waiting to see it unfold. There's only a small percentage of undecideds. The real battleground will be in the *swing states*. That's why there are voter suppression efforts spearheaded by the RepubliCONs. But the real influencers are the uber-wealthy elites and the Super PACs (thank you Citizens United!). We are now effectively a Corporate Plutocracy in an Invisible Fascist National Security State. That said, I'm confident that Pres. Obama will get his second term. I've called out the result of the election months ago, even before the Republican Presidential Nomination. That's why, right now, I'm more concerned with what Pres. Obama will do in the next 4 years. I hope he makes good on his promises this time. But based on what I've seen in the last 4 years, I'm not optimistic. As George W. Bush once said, "Fool me once, shame on — [pauses] — shame on you. Fool me — [pauses] — You can't get fooled again." That's how I feel about Pres. Obama right now. Words do matter. P.S. Local elections are more important. Get to know your local representatives and the initiatives on your local ballots. And don't forget that there are other political parties beside the reigning duopoly. Jill Stein of The Green Party and Jesse Ventura more to say about this Two-Party Dictatorship. P.P.S. Ata boy, Mittens! for not understanding taxes. And for those who paid $ 50,000 a plate just to be bamboozled by this a-hole, you deserve what you paid for.
       
| |||
| In Every State, 44% of People Will Be Obese in 2030 Posted: 18 Sep 2012 10:00 PM PDT
If America's obesity epidemic continues unthwarted, obesity rates could reach 44 percent in all states by 2030, according to a new report. Obesity rates could reach or exceed 60 percent in 13 states, 10 of them in the South, the report adds. Mississippi is expected to have the highest obesity rate in 2030, at 66.7 percent. Currently, Colorado has the lowest obesity rate, at 20.7 percent, and Mississippi has the highest, at 34.9 percent, according to the report, co-written by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Health Group and the Trust for America's Health. Twenty years ago, no state had an obesity rate above 15 percent, the report says. The continued rise in obesity rates also could lead over the next two decades to more than 6 million new cases of Type 2 diabetes, 5 million new cases of coronary heart disease and 400,000 new cases of cancer, the report says. The cost of treating obesity-related disease could increase at least $ 48 billion and as much as $ 66 billion per year, the report says. However, if each state reduced its residents' average body mass index (BMI) by 5 percent, thousands of obesity-related health problems could be avoided, and no state would have an obesity rate above 60 percent by 2030, the report says. For the average adult, a 1 percent decrease in BMI is about 2.2 pounds. "We really are looking at two futures for American's health," said Michelle Larkin, assistant vice president for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Health Group. The country needs to invest in obesity prevention "in a way that matches the financial toll the epidemic takes on the nation," Larkin said. The study used information from a yearly nationwide telephone survey called the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, and the researchers created a model to predict obesity rates under different scenarios. If nothing about the current trends changes, 39 states could have obesity rates above 50 percent by 2030, the report says. Besides Mississippi, states with the highest projected obesity rates are Oklahoma at 66.4 percent, Delaware at 64.7 percent, Tennessee at 63.4 percent and South Carolina at 62.9 percent. Under the second scenario, in which each state lowers its BMI by 5 percent, the findings show that for every 100,000 people, states could avoid up to 3,200 cases of Type 2 diabetes, 2,500 cases of high blood pressure, 2,900 cases of coronary heart disease and stroke, 1,380 cases of arthritis and 277 cases of cancer. In addition, almost all states would save between 6.5 percent and 8 percent on obesity-related health care costs. That would mean savings of $ 81.7 billion in California and $ 1.1 billion in Wyoming, the report says. The report has several recommendations for reducing the severity of the obesity epidemic, including increasing physical activity in schools and making healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables more affordable. "Policy changes can help make healthier choices easier for Americans in their daily lives," said Jeff Levi, executive director of the Trust for America's Health. Pass it on: America is on track to have a 44 percent obesity rate in each state in 2030. Follow Rachael Rettner on Twitter @RachaelRettner, or MyHealthNewsDaily @MyHealth_MHND. We're also on Facebook & Google+. Read More @ Source 
| |||
| Superheroes Help Their Fans' Self-Image Posted: 18 Sep 2012 09:00 PM PDT
Batman may be saving more than Gotham City. For throngs of devoted male fans, the muscular superhero may bolster body image too, according to a new study. Men in the study who said they felt a bond with Batman or Spider-Man also reported feeling more satisfied with their own bodies after seeing a picture of the muscular superhero, while men who felt indifferent toward the superhero felt worse about themselves. Previous research suggested that seeing muscular male figures makes men feel bad about their own bodies. But the new results suggested that men who felt a personal connection with a svelte superhero are free from the typically damaging effects of seeing an unobtainably buff physique. In fact, in some cases, looking at pictures of a superhero actually increased men's strength, the researchers found. "For some men, exposure to extremely muscular superheroes may actually have a positive effect. It may make them feel better about their bodies," said study researcher Ariana Young, a graduate student in psychology at the University at Buffalo in New York. In the study, Young and colleagues asked nearly 100 male college students how much they liked two popular heroes of the comics and movies, Batman and Spider-Man, to determine how bonded the men felt with those characters. The researchers also manipulated images of the two superheroes to look either muscular or skinny, and showed each picture to the participants. Men who did not feel a bond with a superhero said they felt worse about their bodies after seeing the muscular image, but not after seeing the scrawny version, according to the study. Men who had just viewed the muscular-looking picture of their favorite superhero also showed greater strength on a handgrip test than those that had seen a non-muscular version of the superhero. The researchers found that the participants' own physiques had nothing to do with whether they felt more or less satisfied with their bodies after seeing the muscular images, or how they performed on the grip test. A previous study involving women and images of ultra-thin female celebrities produced similar results: Women who felt a connection with a thin celeb felt no worse about their own bodies after looking at pictures of that celebrity. Identifying with a thin female celebrity may lead women to perceive their own bodies as thinner, according to the researchers. While much of the research on body image issues has focused on women, body dissatisfaction is a growing problem among men, said Jesse Steinfeldt, a sports psychologist and professor of counseling at Indiana University. While the pressure to conform to muscular stereotypes isn't new, "men are more inundated today than in the past with images of big, jacked-up-looking men and 'Here's what you should look like' messages," Steinfeldt said. Previous research of men linked body dissatisfaction to low self-esteem, depression, steroid use and an unhealthy preoccupation with their muscularity. But the allure of Batman may come from more than his rippling muscles. "The comic book superhero was invented to address male vulnerability. Men who have actually read the comic books are exposed to all sides of the superhero and not just his body type," said Sharon Lamb, a professor of counseling psychology at the University of Massachusetts, Boston and co-author of "Packaging Boyhood: Saving Our Sons from Superheroes, Slackers, and Other Media Stereotypes" (St. Martin's Press, 2009). "I think the study shows that boys and men need role models who are whole people, and if they get those kinds of role models, they feel better about themselves, their vulnerabilities and their bodies," Lamb said. Follow MyHealthNewsDaily on Twitter @MyHealth_MHND. We're also on Facebook & Google+. Read More @ Source 
| |||
| Stressed out? Try mindfulness meditation Posted: 18 Sep 2012 05:00 PM PDT
The idea is to allow parts of the … Read the original article » Read More @ Source
|
The truth of anything is like a mosaic with many tiles, many parts.
Meryl Davids Landau, US News: One of the hottest forms of stress reduction today is actually one of the oldest: meditation. But the kind making the rounds of hospitals, community centers, and even schools in increasing numbers doesn't involve chanting "Om" while sitting on a cushion with closed eyes; instead, participants are trained to pay attention to their thoughts, emotions, and bodily sensations, and to view them neutrally, "without assigning an emotional value that they are strongly positive or negative," says University of Wisconsin–Madison neuroscientist Richard Davidson, coauthor of The Emotional Life of Your Brain.| You are subscribed to email updates from BuddhaRocks ☸ To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
