Anonymouse

http://www.snotr.com/video/5706

http://www.snotr.com/video/5706

I love this. ------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130897679 Mike Green remembers back in 2005 when his then-wife asked him to add text messages to their cell phone plan. Green, of Mankato, Minn., had no interest, but his wife went ahead and signed up. After that, he says, she seemed to text all the time — when he'd come home from his evening shift for dinner, when they were cruising the shopping mall. "Actually, one of my buddies asked me if it was a big deal she was texting all these people," he says. "I said 'No, I trust her, so why would I even worry?'" Then Green saw a phone bill. He says there were hundreds of texts, a long list of numbers that meant nothing to him. Over time, there was one number more than any other. It was a colleague his wife had started an affair with and for whom she eventually left him. "Because I was gone at nights, she used him as her support system," he says. "She would talk to him about things." It turns out that text messages and social media sites like Facebook and MySpace — so beloved for bringing people together — can also drive a wedge between couples. "We hear this so commonly in our offices that it began to feel like there was a CD player hitting repeat," says Tara Fritsch, a marriage therapist in Edmond, Okla. To be sure, she says, texting doesn't break up a marriage, people do. But opportunity is a key predictor of infidelity, and social media have increased opportunity exponentially. Does something remind you of an old flame? You can reconnect in the few seconds it takes to type the person's name into Facebook. "Twenty years ago," Fritsch says, "if you really thought a co-worker was interesting, and later on that evening you thought of them and wanted to say, 'Hey, how you doing?' Then you would have to ask yourself, 'Is it really appropriate to call them at home? What if their spouse answers? What am I thinking about?' " Today, those stopgaps are gone. Texts and e-mails can be delivered privately. Sending a little message, at least at first, can feel so innocent. In fact, as Lindsay James of Fort Worth, Texas, learned the hard way that a partner can easily carry on an affair in the same house, even the same room. "That's what would upset me more than anything," James says. "It's like, 'Wow, he was sitting right next to me, we were watching a movie, and [he was] talking to someone else — and I had no idea.' The irony, James says, is that her boyfriend admitted he would never have had the nerve to approach other women in person. Green says he was stunned at how quickly his wife's texting relationship turned into an affair. That's typical. Bob Rosenwein of Lehigh University has found that people communicating online often fall for each other in about a week. That's two or three times as fast — on average — as those courting face-to-face. "When you don't have nonverbal communication, the likelihood of being able to disclose at a deeper level is greater, because there's less inhibition," Rosenwein says. "So it's going to feel like a more intimate relationship." Therapist Fritsch says this makes it easier for some with no intention of starting an affair to unwittingly cross a line. Often this leads to a physical affair but even without that, some marriages are damaged. "The emotional loss — the lies that have hidden the emotional connection — is just as painful as if their spouse had actually gone out and met with someone," Fritsch says. After his divorce, Green got his own social media accounts and also started texting. He soon learned how easy and addictive it is. "It's a rush," Green says. "It's a good feeling to have this constant attention poured upon you by anyone that you get to text all the time. And I find myself still loving to get texts from females, and I text, text, text, back and forth." Yet Green says he's wary about another intimate relationship. He wants to trust again. Every time a girlfriend texts someone else, he can't help but feel suspicious.

Perhaps I'm the odd one out here, but I don't approve of nor would I every fancy myself in an "intercultural" or "interracial" relationship for the simple fact that they are not Armenian. To the romantics and other idealist types who think with emotions, they think this is obtuse and how could anyone do this if they love someone? If so, why should it matter? Isn't "love blind"? There are many reasons for my choosing to be with an Armenian, racially and culturally similar, as opposed to an otar. 1. I consider maintaining my Armenian roots and genes a higher priority than my potentially prurient interests. I do not agree with the idea that anyone can be Armenian or that Armenian identity is as fungible as play doh. Every time someone has half-breed babies, they create more of a division between that child's Armenianness and non-Armenianness. Essentially, you cannot keep dividing the pie and expecting them to follow the Armenian half. 2. Marriage is not just a union of two individuals. People always tout this as some sort of a wand in the face of critics stating, "Well, if they love each other, why does it matter what the families think?" Unless your life is lived in a complete vacuum and devoid of all family and culture, maybe this is suitable for you. I know that ethnic groups, mostly whites, who have lived in America for generations, have very cold relations with families, very dysfunctional, and often they are very distant from their families. To them, anything beyond what is in the immediate vicinity of their hedonistic ends is incomprehensible. As an Armenian immigrant, born to immigrant parents, this is incomprehensible to me. Marriage is not just a union between two individuals, but also of families. We all, whether consciously or unconsciously, carry the torch of civilization and culture in our hands and influence the generations unborn. 3. Love is a choice. I know this will upset alot of romantics, but love is never about animalistic passions and impulses from without. We have a choice in whom we choose to "fall in love" with. Alot of times people don't understand this. They confuse attraction with love. Attraction is not a choice. You have no control in who you find attractive. It simply is. Hence, when we lust after someone it is due to attraction and not "love". Love, is nothing more and nothing less than "practical politics." You do not love someone because they have washboard abs or they have a curvaceous body. These are attractions. Before we "fall in love", we must make a choice. Even if that choice is so subtle and so nuanced and so small that it eludes most people, we still make that choice. We decide whether we shall choose to allow ourselves to "fall" for this person or not. We choose as to whether we should expose and open up our vulnerabilities to this or that person. At no point do we act like unthinking animals regarding who we choose to love. That which is tied to the heart and mind is always based on thinking and acting. Love is a matter of soul and spirit, it cannot exist without man's cognitive ability to choose and decide that which is good for the heart or bad. Attraction is a reflection of our passions and animality, hence it is not a choice, but instinctual. Most people confuse the two and base their relationships off of attraction and not love and wonder why we have throw-away relationships that never seem to last. Love considers all the faults and flaws of the other individual. Essentially, by choosing to fall for someone, you have presumably done a "cost-benefit analysis" in your heart and mind about this other soul. You have thought to yourself that, despite their woes and flaws, their good outshines the bad and I shall choose to fall. Attraction involves no such thing. It is based on impulse and whim. A split second scent of pheromones, and your a slave to forces from without.

Voting is a pointless and trivial exercise of the simple minded (no offense). The two parties don't represent any fundamental shift one way or the other and it is the same policy of imperialism and socialism with a face lift. If voting really mattered or changed anything, it would be illegal. The two parties are always elected. What a sure fire outcome! The scary thing about Obama however, is the blind messianic devotion he invokes. Very few dictators have been so adept at inducing such a mass trance. Very few have not been swept by the religious fervor over this election.

This is better www.mises.org

The Party is Over by Peter Schiff, Euro Pacific Capital | October 10, 2008 More than just a mere liquidity or credit crisis, the current financial storm represents the death throes of the old global economic order, and perhaps the birth pains of a new one. The sun is setting on the borrow and spend culture that has defined us for a generation. Our long ride on the global gravy train is finally coming to an end, and once it does nothing will be the same. The sooner we come to grips with this the better. Despite the myriad of proposals that are coming from Washington and other world capitals, we must understand that this crisis cannot be cured by governments. In the United States, credit is gone because savings are gone. Our shallow pool of savings has been depleted through bad loans, and we can no longer entice foreigners to lend us their available savings. Given that we are already too loaded up on existing debt they we cannot realistically repay, who can blame them for not wanting to lend us more? As a result, the free market is trying to put an end to our spending spree. Without savings or home equity to fall back on, Americans struggling with rising prices are finally being forced to cut back. This has terrified our leaders and is causing them to dismantle the remaining structure of our free enterprise-based economic system. The intention of all these daily federal interventions is to keep the credit spigots open so Americans can go even deeper into debt to buy more stuff they can't actually afford. This should be clear enough to anyone who listens to what our leaders are actually saying. When speaking about the need for an even larger fiscal stimulus package, Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said, "We have to prop up consumption." He has it backwards. The government has been propping up consumption for far too long, and the best thing they can do now is remove the props so spending can be replaced by savings. The sad reality is that we borrowed and spent our way into this crisis, and we are not going to borrow and spend our way out of it. Legitimate credit can only be supplied if there are genuine savings to finance it. Savings can't be magically concocted into existence by a printing press, but can only be created by consumers who spend less than they earn. Efforts to fool the market will not work and will ultimately lead to a monetary disaster and runaway inflation. Were the government to allow market forces to work, Americans would now have to pay cash for their consumption. That would mean no instant credit for new cars, plasma TVs, appliances, consumer electronics, clothing, furniture, etc. Unless buyers actually had the cash in their checking accounts these purchases would have to be deferred. From an economic perspective this is precisely what the doctor ordered. But for an economy based 72 percent on consumer spending, the medicine will go down hard. Ultimately, a serious reduction in consumer and mortgage credit, combined with an increase in personal savings, would again provide a pool of needed capital for businesses to produce products and provide employment opportunities. However, the danger is that this potential credit could be completely crowded out by massive borrowing by the Federal Government. In addition, prices for such things as houses and college tuition will fall sharply, as the credit artificially propping them up disappears. People would still be able to buy houses and send their kids to college only they would pay much lower prices when they do. However, if the government keeps creating inflation to artificially sustain consumer borrowing and spending, there will be no savings left to fund anything and prices will be so high that despite massive consumer spending there will be few goods that Americans could actually afford to buy. http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editoria.../2008/1010.html

The main culprit is the banking system itself, starting from the Federal Reserve. After all, it was the Federal Reserve's easy credit policies under Greenspan which fueled both the dot com bubble and then the housing bubble. Artificially low interest rates created this notion among banks that they can lend without impunity, and people who would otherwise not qualify for loans all of a sudden got loans. The Fed got to its printing presses and started printing more money, and thereby devaluing the dollar even further. Republicans borrow and spend, Democrats tax and spend. For years this set up proceeded and the mindless American zombie of a consumer consumed and consumed and the government spent and spent. This is a symptom of something that is an all too American phenomenon. The current frenzy of socialism amid the crisis is indicative of how misinformed and outright ignorant politicians are. Everyone loves and supports capitalism when the benefits are going, but when there are losses then its socialism - bailout, and now the Treasury wants to get a stake in financial institutions and further bringing America's financial system under a more socialized system. People don't realize that the problems of today are the results of regulations and interventions of the past. The interventions and regulations of today will create recessions and even more problems down the line. In order to pass this bailout, the U.S. government had to raise debt on the national debt limit. Thanks to the bailout bill approved last week, the nation's borrowing limit has been raised to $11.3 trillion from $10.6 trillion. As of last Friday, the national debt stood at $10.1 trillion, roughly $33,500 owed by every American. This country is bankrupt. Yet you have the two establishment candidates Obama and McCain talking about all the programs and spending they are going to be doing, from healthcare to social security, not to mention continuing the unjust wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where do you think they will get this money? Will foreigners continue to finance America's excess? I think not. That means we, the people, will pay the price.

Perhaps you aren't familiar with my views or where I stand on things (not to blame), but I must disagree. Lest you believe you are the only enlightened truth seeker and possessor of the esoteric knowledge of the ages that alone has figured out the riddle to life of the pointlessness of it all yet where everyone dabbles in the misanthropy of voting booths thinking they are cute little democrats, let me clarify. I, in no way, believe anyone is 'elected'. I am merely using the word at face value in referring to this shirade of a process. Of course, the 'election' has already been made. Hopefully you can be a bit at east knowing you aren't the only one who knows 'the truth'.

McCain is a nut. God forbid this guy is elected President. He's a nut.

Looks like America got what it paid for with the Revolution of Roses.

You know what you need? You need to get high and lighten up. Everyone in this thread is having fun and joking and you're actually responding all seriously. Not good.

The one, the only, George Carlin, the legend, on the environment We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these ***ing people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the ***ing planet? I'm getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I'm tired of ***ing Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me. Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are ***ed. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun? The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE! We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance. You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room. The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...asshole. So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let's see... Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction. Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while.

This is why environmentalism along with environmentalists should all be shot. What gives? It seems all they care about is regulating the way other people live based on nothing more than ideological fanaticism.

Wow, a quitter. My own philosophy on quitting was that I had gone a significant amount (almost 30 days) and to resort back to it would be pointless. "If I have gone that long without smoking, to do so now, well...it would throw all of that time I withstood the urges down to the gutter and I would have to start all over." I'm lazy. So I figured I better quit once and it better be the first time. It's been 7 months.