Labbler: Does The Music Industry Need A Social Network?

Labbler is a relatively new music industry social network that is now in public beta. It plans to connects "Artists, Labels, Booking Agencies, Venues, Media and Fans as well as providing tools for all business needs of these groups." But though the sites looks nice and these groups of people all do need to connect in various ways, it's unclear why they would use Labbler to do so.

Labbler's website has a nice design that earned it some positive attention over the summer.

Quick Look at Labbler Interface

Labbler's features are straightforward with profiles, activity feeds and networking tools. Music-specific features include SoundCloud track imports, Beatport data imports and track uploads.

The homepage includes an extensive list of features and also the primary roles and business pages that can be included:

• Artist
• Label
• Club
• Media
• Promoter
• Booking

Though their self-description mentions fans there really isn't a clear role for them to play. In addition, the above categories plus Events are featured as navigation tabs across the social network and this also excludes fans as a category so it's currently not really designed for fans.

That may actually be a good thing since business networking and fan contact seem difficult to mix effectively.

As a music industry network the biggest problem facing Labbler is that artists and business people are already networking through a variety of services including LinkedIn and Twitter. But music industry specific networks have failed to break through and no one has been able to become the LinkedIn or Twitter of the music industry.

That means the challenge of giving people a reason to use Labbler looms much larger than effective design and operation of such a website.

Posted via email from Kleerstreem's Posterous

Toxic and Dangerous Foods for Pets

Do you know which foods and beverages might be harmful to your pets – and what to do if your pet ingests something toxic?

By Elizabeth Mason Woods for WebVet

Reviewed by Amy I. Attas, VMD

Poison is a growing concern among pet owners. Household poisons are not the only thing that can harm your pets. Many common household foods and drugs can also be toxic to your pets. The following are foods that can be toxic or poisonous to your pets.

Avocados. Avocados contain a toxin known as persin. Persin is found in various parts of the avocado and avocado trees (eg, leaves, rind, etc). This toxin is known mostly to cause vomiting and diarrhea. Birds and small pets seem most affected by the negative side effects of consuming avocado.

Beer. Not just beer ... all alcohol. Depending on how much alcohol your animal ingests, it can lead to vomiting, diarrhea, depression, difficulty breathing, coma, and possible death.

Chocolate. Chocolate contains a compound called theobromine that is toxic to pets. If enough is ingested, your animal can suffer from vomiting, diarrhea, abnormal heart rhythms, tremors, seizures, and possible death. Cocoa mulch contains theobromine; the ASPCA advises dog owners to avoid using this fertilizer around unsupervised dogs, and dogs with indiscriminate eating habits since it can be toxic if ingested.

Candy. Chocolate is the most common candy that is toxic to pets, especially to dogs, cats, and ferrets. Any candy containing the sweetener xylitol can also be toxic to pets.

Caffeine. Caffeine is generally highly toxic to pets, having negative effects on both the cardiac and nervous systems. Side effects can include vomiting, diarrhea, abnormal heart rhythms, tremors, seizures, and possible death.

Grapes and raisins. An unknown toxin in grapes and raisins can cause kidney failure and ultimately lead to death. Symptoms of this poisoning can include hyperactivity, vomiting, diarrhea, and irregular heartbeat.

Nuts. An unknown toxin in nuts can have negative effects on the nervous, digestive, and muscular systems of your pet. Symptoms can include muscle tremors, weakness, an upset stomach, vomiting, depression, inactivity, and stiffness. Particularly avoid Macadamia nuts.

Onions. Onions, along with garlic and chives, are all part of the same species of plant — the Allium species. Allium species plants contain sulfur compounds that can cause stomach irritation and possibly result in damage to red blood cells causing anemia. This is referred to as Allium poisoning.

Some human medicines. While some human medications are prescribed for pets by veterinarians, others can be highly toxic and fatal. Acetaminophen, which is contained in Tylenol and other similar products, for example, can be fatal to cats. Always consult with your veterinarian before giving human medication to a pet.

Xylitol (artificial sugar). Xylitol is a sweetener used in many products including mouthwash, chewing gum, toothpaste, and various foods. Because it is toxic to pets, products containing xylitol should not be given to your dog or cat.

Lily Plants. All portions of the lily plant are poisonous to cats when ingested. Just a nibble of the leaf, petal, or stem can cause irreversible kidney failure despite extensive medical treatment.

Other foods that can be toxic to your pet:

• Apple Seeds

• Chives (see "onions," above)

• Fruit pits, especially those of apricots, peaches, plums, nectarines, and cherries

• Garlic (see "onions" above)

• Moldy foods

• Mustard seeds

• Potato leaves and stems

• Rhubarb leaves

• Salt

• Tea

• Tomato leaves and stems

Toxic Household Items

• Antifreeze

• Liquid potpourri

• Polyurethane glue

• Pennies

• Pine-oil cleaners

A study by the pet health insurance company VPI found that these were the top 10 foods and plants involved in pet poisoning claims:

1. Raisins/Grapes

2. Mushrooms

3. Marijuana

4. Lily flowers

5. Walnuts

6. Onion

7. Sago Palm

8. Macadamia nuts

9. Azalea flowers

10. Hydrangea flowers

Posted via email from Kleerstreem's Posterous

The Undeniable Link Between Psychotropic Drugs and School Shootings

The real culprit in school shootings, is our over medicating with psychotropic pills with their causal link to violent enacting behavior. The immediate ban on psychotropic’s would do more to stem the tide of school violence than any other factor, outside of having armed guards in the schools. However, this would not serve the agenda of those who an ulterior motive for this country and its citizens.

Our nation has been riddled with mass shootings in our schools dating over two decades. The correlation between psychotropic drugs and violent enacting behavior are unmistakable. Here is a partial list of psycho-tropically drugged individuals who have perpetrated gun violence in our public schools:

• Patrick Purdy, 25, in 1989 opened fire on a school yard filled with children in Stockton,Calif. Five kids were killed and 30 wounded. He had been treated with Thorazine and Amitriptyline.
• Steve Lieth of Chelsea, Mich., in 1993 walked into a school meeting and shot and killed the school superintendent, wounding two others, while on Prozac.
• In Springfield, Oregon, on May 21, 1998, 15-year-old Kip Kinkel murdered his parents and then proceeded to school where he killed two and wounded 25. Kinkel had been taking the antidepressant Prozac. Kinkel had been attending anger management classes and was also under the care of a psychologist.
• In April of 1999, near Notus, Idaho, 15-year-old Shawn Cooper fired two shotgun rounds in his school, narrowly missing students. He was taking a prescribed SSRI antidepressant and Ritalin. He also had been seeing a psychiatrist.
• On the infamous date of April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, 18-year-old Eric Harris and his accomplice, Dylan Klebold, killed 12 students and a teacher and also wounded 26 others before killing themselves. Harris was on the antidepressant Luvox. Klebold’s was probably on psychotropic medication but his medical records remain sealed, leaving the public to wonder what the government was hiding. Both shooters had been in anger-management classes and had undergone counseling. In the same familiar pattern, Harris had also been seeing a psychiatrist before the shooting.
• In Conyers, Georgia, on May 20, 1999, 15-year-old T.J. Solomon was being treated with the stimulant Ritalin when he opened fire on and wounded six of his classmates. Ritalin is meth, pure and simple. How could any reasonable person expect a different result?
• On March 7, 2001, in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, 14-year-old Elizabeth Bush was taking the antidepressant Prozac when she shot at fellow students, wounding one.
• On March 22, 2001, at El Cajon, California, 18-year-old Jason Hoffman, while taking the antidepressants Celexa and Effexor, wounded three students and two teachers at his High School. He, too, had been seeing a psychiatrist before the shooting.
• At Wahluke, Washington, on April 10, 2001, Sixteen-year-old Cory Baadsgaard held 23 classmates and a teacher hostage. He had been taking the antidepressant Effexor.
• In Greenbush, New York, on February 10, 2004, a 16-year-old, Jon Romano, strolled into his high school in east Greenbush and opened fire with a shotgun. Romano had been taking medication for depression. He had also been seeing a psychiatrist.
• At Red Lake, Minnesota,  in March 2005, 16-year-old Jeff Weise, while prescribed Prozac, shot and killed his grandparents, then went to his school where he killed seven students,  a teacher, and wounded seven before killing himself.
• At Huntsville, Alabama, on  February 5, 2010, 15-year-old Hammad Memon shot and killed another Discover Middle School student Todd Brown. Memon had a history for being treated for both ADHD and depression. He was taking the antidepressant Zoloft. He, too, had been seeing a psychiatrist as well as a  psychologist.
• In 2007, 18-year-old Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School in southern Finland, then committed suicide.
• In Cleveland, Ohio, on October 10, 2007, 14-year-old Asa Coon stormed through his school and shot and wounded four students before taking his life. Coon had been placed on the antidepressant Trazodone.
• In Finland, in 2008, 22-year-old culinary student Matti Saari shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazapine. Interestingly, he was also seeing a psychologist.
• At Dekalb, IL., in 2008, 27-year-old Steven Kazmierczak shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien.  He had also been seeing a psychiatrist.

Posted via email from Global Politics

Guns Save Lives

by Wayne Allyn Root 

Why do liberal politicians and the biased liberal mainstream media (meaning pretty much all media in America but FNC) always come to the wrong conclusion, and usually come up with the wrong solution, in response to every crisis? As an example, we don’t have a “fiscal cliff” crisis because of a tax problem in America. What we have is a spending problem- Obama is the biggest spender of any politician in world history.

The same story holds true with the gun control issue spurred by the tragic Newtown school shooting. The liberal politicians and media are using Rahm Emanuel’s famous saying, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” They are trying to turn a terrible tragedy into a gun problem. Their solution is to try to demonize and ban guns. But the Newtown tragedy wasn’t a gun problem, it was a mental illness problem.

Thank goodness the American public has more common sense than the politicians and media big shots. The latest Rasmussen poll is out following the Newtown tragedy. While 27% think stricter gun control laws are the solution, and 15% want limits on violent movies and video games, a dominant 48% believe the answer is more action to treat mental healthissues.

It is obvious that many Americans feel in their gut what the statistics I’m about to share with you prove- that guns do much more than kill (in the wrong hands). More often than not, they save lives and prevent violence.

Here are a few proven facts that are too often missing from the gun debate (Thanks to Gun Owners of America and ZeroHedge.com for these statistics):

Based on a 2000 study, Americans use guns to defendthemselves from crime and violence 989,883 times annually. Banning guns would leave about 1,000,000 Americans defenseless from criminals who have no problem acquiring guns illegally.

A nationwide survey of almost 5000 households found that over a five-year period 3.5% of households had a member who used a gun to protect themselves, their family, or their property. This also adds up to about the same 1,000,000 incidents annually.

The Clinton Justice Department identified 1.5 million cases per year of citizens using guns to defend themselves.

Another survey found that Americans use guns to frighten intruders away from a home break-in about 500,000 times annually.

Armed citizens shoot criminals more than twice as often as police each year (1527 to 606).

Each year about 200,000 women use a gun to defend themselves from a sexual crime or abuse.

The Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.

Now that we’ve polled the citizens, how about we see what the felons have to say:

A survey of male felons in 11 state prisons across the USA found that 34% had been scared off, wounded or captured by an armed victim of their crime.

40% of felons made a decision not to commit a crime because they feared the potential victim had a gun.

69% of felons knew other fellow criminals who had been scared off or captured by an armed victim.

57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms.

These facts (and many more too voluminous to show here) prove that guns- in the right hands- defend citizens, families and children. In short, guns save lives.

But for me, it’s always been a personal and emotional argument, even more than a factual one. I’m a proud Jewish American. Over six million of my fellow Jews were enslaved, starved, tortured, and then slaughtered by Adolph Hitler. Before it could happen, in 1938, Hitler banned gun ownership for Jews.

That act on November 11, 1938 (one day after the infamous Kristallnacht) was the beginning of the end for Germany's Jews. Millions of Jews were left defenseless from that day forward. Just like the criminals in the studies above, who were far less likely to break into a home or attack a victim, if they feared the victim was armed, Hitler only started his murderous genocide after first ensuring his victims were disarmed, defenseless, and helpless.

Will a conservative NRA (National Rifle Association) and JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) member like me support reasonable gun control? Of course. Should we ensure that mentally ill people cannot purchase guns? Of course. Should we enforce current gun laws? Of course.Should we do more to ensure that all gun owners are licensed, trained, responsible and mentally competent? Of course. Should we take lessons from Israel’s gun laws that require strict mentalevaluation and examinations, as well as rigorous training? Absolutely.

But should we move to ban guns, thereby leaving the law-abiding citizens defenseless and helpless? Never. Not in America.

Should government and law enforcement be the only ones legally able to carry guns? Never. Not in America.

Should government be allowed to take away guns from honest, law-abiding homeowners, business owners, and citizens like me? Only when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

Thomas Jefferson put it best:

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Wayne Allyn Root (W.A.R) is a former Presidential candidate, the 2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, and a Tea Party favorite.

Posted via email from Global Politics

Autism Spectrum Disorders Health Center (From WebMD)

High-Functioning Autism and Asperger's Syndrome

Autism is a brain disorder in which communication and interaction with others are difficult. The symptoms of autism may range from total lack of communication with others to difficulty in understanding others' feelings. Because of the range of symptoms, this condition is now called a utism spectrum disorder (ASD).

High-functioning autism is at one end of the ASD spectrum. Signs and symptoms are less severe than with other forms of autism. In fact, a person with high-functioning autism usually has average or above-average intelligence. The differences from other forms of autism have led many psychiatrists to consider high-functioning autism as similar to or the same as Asperger's syndrome.

Recommended Related to Autism

Autism

Important It is possible that the main title of the report Autism is not the name you expected. Please check the synonyms listing to find the alternate name(s) and disorder subdivision(s) covered by this report.

Read the Autism article > >

Whether it's labeled high-functioning autism or Asperger's syndrome, coping with this condition presents daily challenges -- for those who have it and for their family and friends.

What Are the Symptoms of High-Functioning Autism and Asperger's Syndrome?

People with high-functioning autism or Asperger's syndrome do not have the delayed language development that's typically found in people with autism. In addition, people with high-functioning autism have average or above-average intelligence. However, they may show other behaviors and signs similar to what's seen with other types of autism. These include:

• A delay in motor skills
• A lack of skill in interacting with others
• Little understanding of the abstract uses of language, such as humor or give-and-take in a conversation
• Obsessive interest in specific items or information
• Strong reactions to textures, smells, sounds, sights, or other stimuli that others might not even notice, such as a flickering light

Unlike people with other forms of autism, people with high-functioning autism or Asperger's syndrome want to be involved with others. They simply don't know how to go about it. They may not be able to understand others' emotions. They may not read facial expressions or body language well. As a result, they may be teased and often feel like social outcasts. The unwanted social isolation can lead to anxiety and depression.

Causes of High-Functioning Autism and Asperger's Syndrome

Autism runs in families. The underlying causes, however, are not known. Potential causes under investigation include:

• Inherited genetic conditions
• Other medical problems
• Environmental factors

Diagnosing High-Functioning Autism and Asperger's Syndrome

Children with high-functioning autism or Asperger's syndrome may not be diagnosed as early as children with more severe forms of autism. That's because the symptoms aren't as noticeable. Symptoms may not become a problem until a child is in school. A diagnosis is based on the doctor's assessment of the child's symptoms in three areas:

• Social interactions: symptoms such as lack of eye contact or an inability to understand another person's feelings
• Verbal and non-verbal communication: symptoms such as not speaking or repeating a phrase over and over again
• Interests in activities, objects, or specialized information: symptoms such as playing with only a part of a toy or being obsessed with a particular topic

The doctor may gather information about these areas by:

Recommended Related to Autism

Autism

Important It is possible that the main title of the report Autism is not the name you expected. Please check the synonyms listing to find the alternate name(s) and disorder subdivision(s) covered by this report.

Read the Autism article > >

• Conducting psychological testing
• Establishing the history of the child's development
• Interviewing parents and others who have frequent contact with the child
• Observing the child's behavior
• Requesting physical, neurological, or genetic testing
• Seeking a speech and language assessment

In addition, the doctor may request tests to rule out other causes of the behavior, such as hearing problems.

Treating High-Functioning Autism and Asperger's Syndrome

High-functioning autism and Asperger's syndrome can be treated with a variety of therapies. Behavioral training is the primary method used to help people with high-functioning autism overcome problems with social interaction. Here are therapies that are often used:

Applied behavior analysis (ABA) is a method of rewarding appropriate social behavior and communication skills. This method is based on the theory that rewarding behavior encourages it to continue.

Treatment and Education of Autistic and Related Communication Handicapped Children (TEACCH) is a structured way of teaching communication and coping skills. The system uses the child's strengths in memorization and visual skills.

In addition, other treatments may be recommended, based on the child's needs. These include:

• Medications to treat obsessive behaviors or depression
• Physical or occupational therapy for assistance with motor skills
• Speech and language therapy to help with communication and language development

Living With High-Functioning Autism and Asperger's Syndrome

High-functioning autism and Asperger's syndrome present ongoing challenges from childhood through adulthood.

In children: Young children may have problems at school in areas of behavior and communication. Because the focus in early grades is often on memorization of facts, they may do well academically.

In older children and teens: As children grow older, a lack of social skills and the presence of obsessive interests or behaviors may put the child in the position of being teased. Forming new friendships may become increasingly difficult.

In adults: It may be difficult to live independently as an adult. Work and personal relationships may be hard to establish and maintain.

How Loved Ones Can Help a Child With High-Functioning Autism and Asperger's Syndrome

Family and friends can help if they understand what high-functioning autism is and know the symptoms and treatments associated with the disorder.

How Loved Ones Can Help a Child With High-Functioning Autism and Asperger's Syndrome continued...

Family members can advocate for a child with high-functioning autism or Asperger's by being sure that the child receives medical treatment and any other services available. For example, the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) requires that students with a disability be provided a free and appropriate education, which may include special services.

Other services that may be helpful include:

Recommended Related to Autism

Autism

Important It is possible that the main title of the report Autism is not the name you expected. Please check the synonyms listing to find the alternate name(s) and disorder subdivision(s) covered by this report.

Read the Autism article > >

• Counseling to assist with behavior therapy and coping skills
• Finding a buddy or mentor who can give informal advice on social and communication challenges as they arise
• Occupational therapy for any motor problems that affect daily activities
• Speech and language therapy to address language and communications challenges
• Establishing a 504 plan that allows for necessary classroom modifications and support

 

In addition, family and friends may want to seek out help and support from counselors or others who are also dealing with children who have high-functioning autism or Asperger's syndrome. Many online information and support groups are available.

Many individuals with high-functioning autism or Asperger's syndrome have found support in groups like The Global and Regional Autism Spectrum Partnership (GRASP). GRASP's members and leadership are drawn from people with some form of autism or Asperger's syndrome. Organizations such as GRASP give hope that while challenges are many, people with high-functioning autism can lead healthy, fulfilling lives.

Further Reading:

• Asperger Syndrome and Autism
• High Functioning Autism and Aspergers: Technical Smarts
• Asperger's Syndrome: Secret to Success
• Autism / Asperger Syndrome
• Asperger's Syndrome-Home Treatment
• Asperger's Syndrome-Other Places To Get Help

Posted via email from WellCare

WHY GRAMPS CARRIES A GUN!!!

1. My old grandpa said to me 'Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and usually it's when he becomes too old to take a whoopin.'
2. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
3. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
4. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world. 
5. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
6. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
7. I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
8. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
9. I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.
10. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
11. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate...
12. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
13. Police protection is an oxymoron.Free citizens must protect themselves
14. Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.
15. Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take a whoopin'....

Posted via email from Kleerstreem's Posterous

Unconscious Reactions Separate Liberals and Conservatives

A different look at Conservatives and Liberals......

Psychological insights might tone down the bitter feuding between Democrats and Republicans

By Emily Laber-Warren  | Tuesday, September 4, 2012 | 31

led by psychologist Michael Dodd and political scientist John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln found that when viewing a collage of photographs, conservatives' eyes unconsciously lingered 15 percent longer on repellent images, such as car wrecks and excrement—suggesting that conservatives are more attuned than liberals to assessing potential threats.

Meanwhile examining the contents of 76 college students' bedrooms, as one group did in a 2008 study, revealed that conservatives possessed more cleaning and organizational items, such as ironing boards and calendars, confirmation that they are orderly and self-disciplined. Liberals owned more books and travel-related memorabilia, which conforms with previous research suggesting that they are open and novelty-seeking.

“These are not superficial differences. They are psychologically deep,” says psychologist John Jost of New York University, a co-author of the bedroom study. “My hunch is that the capacity to organize the political world into left or right may be a part of human nature.”

Although conservatives and liberals are fundamentally different, hints are emerging about how to bring them together—or at least help them coexist. In his recent book The Righteous Mind, psychologist Jonathan Haidt of the N.Y.U. Stern School of Business argues that liberals and conservatives need not revile one another as immoral on issues such as birth control, gay marriage or health care reform. Even if these two worldviews clash, they are equally grounded in ethics, he writes. Meanwhile studies by Jost and others suggest that political views reside on a continuum that is mediated in part by universal human emotions such as fear. Under certain circumstances, everyone can shift closer to the middle—or drift further apart.

The Fear Factor

Psychologists have found that conservatives are fundamentally more anxious than liberals, which may be why they typically desire stability, structure and clear answers even to complicated questions. “Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living,” says social psychologist Paul Nail of the University of Central Arkansas. “The fact is we don't live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.”

Anxiety is an emotion that waxes and wanes in all of us, and as it swings up or down our political views can shift in its wake. When people feel safe and secure, they become more liberal; when they feel threatened, they become more conservative. Research conducted by Nail and his colleague in the weeks after September 11, 2001, showed that people of all political persuasions became more conservative in the wake of the terrorist attacks. Meanwhile, in an upcoming study, a team led by Yale University psychologist Jaime Napier found that asking Republicans to imagine that they possessed superpowers and were impermeable to injury made them more liberal. “There is some range within which people can be moved,” Jost says.

More practically, instead of trying to change people's emotional state (an effect that is temporary), astute policy makers might be able to phrase their ideas in a way that appeals to different worldviews. In a 2010 paper Irina Feygina, a social psychology doctoral student at N.Y.U. who works with Jost, found a way to bring conservatives and liberals together on global warming. She and her colleagues wondered whether the impulse to defend the status quo might be driving the conservative pooh-poohing of environmental issues.

In an ingenious experiment, the psychologists reframed climate change not as a challenge to government and industry but as “a threat to the American way of life.” After reading a passage that couched environmental action as patriotic, study participants who displayed traits typical of conservatives were much more likely to sign petitions about preventing oil spills and protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Environmentalism may be an ideal place to find common political ground. “Conservatives who are religious have this mind-set about being good stewards of the earth, to protect God's creation, and that is very compatible with green energy and conservation and other ideas that are usually classified as liberal,” Nail says.

Moral Scorecards

On topics where liberals and conservatives will never see eye to eye, opposing sides can try to cultivate mutual respect. In The Righteous Mind, Haidt identifies several areas of morality. Liberals, he says, tend to value two of them: caring for people who are vulnerable and fairness, which for liberals tends to mean sharing resources equally. Conservatives care about those things, too, but for them fairness means proportionality—that people should get what they deserve based on the amount of effort they have put in. Conservatives also emphasize loyalty and authority>, values helpful for maintaining a stable society.

In a 2009 study Haidt and two of his colleagues presented more than 8,000 people with a series of hypothetical actions. Among them: kick a dog in the head; discard a box of ballots to help your candidate win; publicly bet against a favorite sports team; curse your parents to their faces; and receive a blood transfusion from a child molester. Participants had to say whether they would do these deeds for money and, if so, for how much—$10? $1,000? $100,000? More? Liberals were reluctant to harm a living thing or act unfairly, even for $1 million, but they were willing to betray group loyalty, disrespect authority or do something disgusting, such as eating their own dog after it dies, for cash. Conservatives said they were less willing to compromise on any of the moral categories.

Haidt has a message for both sides. He wants the left to acknowledge that the right's emphasis on laws, institutions, customs and religion is valuable. Conservatives recognize that democracy is a huge achievement and that maintaining the social order requires imposing constraints on people. Liberal values, on the other hand, also serve important roles: ensuring that the rights of weaker members of society are respected; limiting the harmful effects, such as pollution, that corporations sometimes pass on to others; and fostering innovation by supporting diverse ideas and ways of life.

Haidt is not out to change people's deepest moral beliefs. Yet he thinks that if people could see that those they disagree with are not immoral but simply emphasizing different moral principles, some of the antagonism would subside. Intriguingly, Haidt himself has morphed from liberal to centrist over the course of his research. He now finds value in conservative tenets that he used to reject reflexively: “It's yin and yang. Both sides see different threats; both sides are wise to different virtues.”

Posted via email from Global Politics

Ben Stein Thoughts on Christmas and Christmas Trees

My Confession Posted: 18 Dec 2012 08:27 AM PST I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees. I don’t feel threatened. I don’t feel discriminated against. That’s what they are, Christmas trees. It doesn’t bother me a bit when people say, “Merry Christmas” to me. I don’t think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn’t bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a crib, it’s just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away. I don’t like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don’t think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in G-d are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can’t find it in the Constitution and I don’t like it being shoved down my throat. Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren’t allowed to worship G-d? I guess that’s a sign that I’m getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to. In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it’s not funny, it’s intended to get you thinking. Billy Graham’s daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her: “How could G-d let something like this happen?” (regarding Hurricane Katrina). Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said: “I believe G-d is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we’ve been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect G-d to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?” In light of recent events… terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O’Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn’t want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK. Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn’t spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock’s son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he’s talking about. And we said okay. Now we’re asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don’t know right from wrong, and why it doesn’t bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with ‘WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.’ Funny how simple it is for people to trash G-d and then wonder why the world’s going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send ‘jokes’ through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the L-rd, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of G-d is suppressed in the school and workplace. Are you laughing yet? Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you’re not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it. Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what G-d thinks of us. Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not, then just discard it…. no one will know you did. But if you discard this thought process, don’t sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in. My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully, Ben Stein   Merry Christmas! http://www.FeedBurner.com).gif" />

Posted via email from Global Politics

Bill Clinton and His Gun Free School Zone Policy

But have you heard anyone talking about it?  

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Disastrous Gun Law Sparked School Shootings

From 1900 to the late 1990’s, there were no mass shootings in schools. Lest it be thought that guns were uncommon in schools, that was not the case. Guns were commonly brought to school for shooting competitions, hunting after school, for teachers to trade or show to each other or their students, or for show and tell. Guns were even made in shop class under the supervision of the shop teacher. Guns were common in gun racks in pickup trucks in the school parking lot. Even today, many schools provide special dispensation for students to take off from school for deer hunting season.

During the height of gun control fever during the first Bush Presidency, the Congress passed the Gun Free School Zones act of 1990. It was designed to make it impossible for ordinary people to carry guns most places, because it forbid the carrying of guns within a thousand feet of a school. If you overlap the 1000 foot gun free zones that surround schools in most cities and towns, no one can go about their daily business without intersecting one of these zones at some time.

The Gun Free School Zone act was quickly challenged in the courts, and found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court under the interstate commerce clause, in U.S. v. Lopez, 1995. The reasoning was simple: If merely possessing a gun within a thousand feet of a school was interstate commerce, and therefore subject to federal regulation, what could possibly be construed as not interstate commerce? Virtually everything would then be controlled by the federal government. As the Constitution means something, the interstate commerce clause must mean something. If all of life can be controlled by the federal government, the clause means nothing.

President Clinton blew a gasket when the Gun Free School Zone act was found unconstitutional. He fiercely lobbied congress to pass a replica act, slightly modified. He threatened to keep congress from adjourning to go home to run for office if they did not pass the replica act. They passed the new Gun Free School Zone act in 1996. Since then, federal prosecutors have been very careful not to prosecute many cases under the act, not wanting to present the Supreme Court with another test case.

The results of the Gun Free School Zone act’s passage have been devastating. The first mass school shooting occurred in 1997. As prominent researcher John Lott has noted, mass shooters are attracted to defenseless victim zones. While zones that ban armed citizens are a tiny percentage of the nation’s area, according to Lott, only one of the “successful” (four or more victims) mass shootings in the past thirty years occurred outside of a defenseless victim zone (gun free zone).

Why do mass shooters chose defenseless victim zones? Because they want the fame that goes with the media attention that a mass killer gets, and to get the attention, they have to kill a lot of people. If they are stopped by an armed citizen, they lose their chance to make the “record books”, and there is no point in mass killing.

Armed citizens stop about one in ten of mass killings before they become “successful”, but they are rarely mentioned because of this fact. Most of these life saving actions occur outside of defenseless victim zones.

Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens Link

We have a real world counterexample to the Gun Free School Zone act in Israel. Israelis were confronted with a similar problem after the Maalot massacre in the 1970s They responded by allowing teachers, responsible older students, and volunteer parents to be armed in their schools. They have not had a child shot in a school since.

Israeli School Solution Link

Since the Gun Free School Zone act was passed for the second time in 1996, 13 mass school shootings have occurred. This unconstitutional law has been a disaster and should be repealed.

Dean Weingarten

Posted via email from Global Politics

5 Tips For Starting A Successful Business

5 

As LinkedIn is a business that started in a living room, much like Virgin began in a basement, I thought my first blog on the site should be about how to simply start a successful business. Here are five top tips I've picked up over the years.

 

1. Listen more than you talk

We have two ears and one mouth, using them in proportion is not a bad idea! To be a good leader you have to be a great listener. Brilliant ideas can spring from the most unlikely places, so you should always keep your ears open for some shrewd advice. This can mean following online comments as closely as board meeting notes, or asking the frontline staff for their opinions as often as the CEOs. Get out there, listen to people, draw people out and learn from them.

 

2. Keep it simple

You have to do something radically different to stand out in business. But nobody ever said different has to be complex. There are thousands of simple business solutions to problems out there, just waiting to be solved by the next big thing in business. Maintain a focus upon innovation, but don’t try to reinvent the wheel. A simple change for the better is far more effective than five complicated changes for the worse.

 

3. Take pride in your work

Last week I enjoyed my favourite night of the year, the Virgin Stars of the Year Awards, where we celebrated some of those people who have gone the extra mile for us around the Virgin world. With so many different companies, nationalities and personalities represented under one roof, it was interesting to see what qualities they all have in common. One was pride in their work, and in the company they represent. Remember your staff are your biggest brand advocates, and focusing on helping them take pride will shine through in how they treat your customers.

 

4. Have fun, success will follow

If you aren’t having fun, you are doing it wrong. If you feel like getting up in the morning to work on your business is a chore, then it's time to try something else. If you are having a good time, there is a far greater chance a positive, innovative atmosphere will be nurtured and your business will fluorish. A smile and a joke can go a long way, so be quick to see the lighter side of life.

 

5. Rip it up and start again

If you are an entrepreneur and your first venture isn’t a success, welcome to the club! Every successful businessperson has experienced a few failures along the way – the important thing is how you learn from them. Don’t allow yourself to get disheartened by a setback or two, instead dust yourself off and work out what went wrong. Then you can find the positives, analyse where you can improve, rip it up and start again.

Posted via email from Kleerstreem's Posterous

10 Things You May Not Know About the Boston Tea Party

By Christopher Klein

On the night of December 16, 1773, dozens of colonists boarded three ships in Boston Harbor and hurled 342 crates of tea overboard in an act of political protest. While the story of the midnight raid has been often told, here are 10 facts you may not know about the Boston Tea Party.

Getty Images

1. The “tea partiers” were not protesting a tax hike, but a corporate tax break.
The protestors who caffeinated Boston Harbor were railing against the Tea Act, which the British government enacted in the spring of 1773. Rather than inflicting new levies, however, the legislation actually reduced the total tax on tea sold in America by the East India Company and would have allowed colonists to purchase tea at half the price paid by British consumers. The Tea Act, though, did leave in place the hated three-pence-per-pound duty enacted by the Townshend Acts in 1767, and it irked colonists as another instance of taxation legislation being passed by Parliament without their input and consent. The principle of self-governance, not the burden of higher taxes, motivated political opposition to the Tea Act.

2. Commercial interests, perhaps more than political principles, motivated many protestors.
The Tea Act was a government bailout for a company on the brink of financial collapse, the flailing East India Company, which was deemed to be, in modern terms, “too big to fail.” The legislation gave the East India Company a virtual monopoly on the American tea trade, allowing it to bypass colonial merchants as middlemen and to even undercut the price of smuggled Dutch tea, which was widely consumed in the colonies. Thus, the Tea Act directly threatened the vested commercial interests of Boston’s wealthy merchants and smugglers, such as John Hancock, who fomented the revolt.

3. George Washington condemned the Boston Tea Party.
Although America’s foremost Revolutionary figure wrote in June 1774 that “the cause of Boston…ever will be considered as the cause of America,” he strongly voiced his disapproval of “their conduct in destroying the Tea.” Washington, like many other elites, held private property to be sacrosanct and believed the perpetrators should compensate the East India Company for the damages.

4. It was the British reaction to the Boston Tea Party, not the event itself, that rallied Americans. 
Many Americans shared Washington’s sentiment and viewed the Boston Tea Party as an act of vandalism by radicals rather than a heroic patriotic undertaking. There was less division among the colonists, however, about their opposition to the measures passed by the British government in 1774 to punish Boston. The legislation closed the port of Boston until damages were paid, annulled colonial self-government in Massachusetts and expanded the Quartering Act. Colonists referred to the measures as the “Intolerable Acts,” and they led to the formation of the first Continental Congress.

5. For decades, the identities of participants were shrouded in secrecy.
The band of protestors was tight-lipped. Even after American independence, they refused to reveal their identities, fearing they could still face civil and criminal charges as well as condemnation from elites for engaging in mob behavior and the wanton destruction of private property. Even today, only the names of some of the participants are known.

6. The event wasn’t dubbed the “Boston Tea Party” until a half-century later. 
For years, Bostonians blandly referred to the protest as “the destruction of the tea.” The earliest newspaper reference to the “Boston Tea Party” doesn’t appear until 1826. In the 1830s, two books—A Retrospect of the Tea-Party and Traits of the Tea Party—popularized the moniker and cemented it in popular culture.

7. There was a second Boston Tea Party. 
Three months after the Boston Tea Party, Bostonians once again sent tea splashing when 60 disguised men boarded the Fortune in March 1774, forced the crew below deck and dumped tea chests into the harbor. The sequel wasn’t quite as impressive as the original, however, as only 30 chests were sent overboard.

8. Subsequent “tea parties” were held in other colonies.
Tea Act protests spread to other colonies throughout 1774. In cities such as New York, Annapolis and Charleston, South Carolina, patriots dumped tea off ships or burned it in protest.

9. The financial loss was significant.
It’s estimated that the protestors tossed more than 92,000 pounds of tea into Boston Harbor. That’s enough to fill 18.5 million teabags. The present-day value of the destroyed tea has been estimated at around $1 million.

10. One “tea partier” appeared to rise from the dead. 
After being knocked unconscious by a falling tea crate in the hold of a ship, John Crane was reportedly thought to be dead and hidden by his compatriots under a pile of wood shavings in a nearby carpenter’s shop. He awoke hours later, however, and was the only man harmed in the Boston Tea Party.

Posted via email from Global Politics