Assad the Syrian dictator used chemical weapons 9 times without one response from trump & he even informed the russians of the pending strike therefore assad was told & he evacuated the air base causing this strike to be a 70 million dollar fireworks show. With trump’s approval ratings at historic lows he purported this attack for political reasons only. His new budget & even more devastating new & frightening healthcare act to replace obamacare will undoubtedly result in american deaths & many will be children. He could care less about syrian casualties. Don’t fall for his fake sincerity because there is none. Assad needs to be killed for what he’s done but not by trump whom is under FBI & CIA investigation that will probably result in impeachment & imprisonment for treason. This should be resolved before he harms America further. He has no problem seeing Americans coming home in body bags as long as it furthers his illegal agenda. Syria is a nightmare with many factions fighting for control, it is unwinnable. Trump blocks Syrian war refugees from entering our country but is pretending to care about them now, but still has the same policy. Well I could has summed this article up with a short phrase. “Thanks for the war dickhead”
I don’t know if it’s because i’m turning a year older soon or if i’m just evaluating my life for no good reason, but I do know that life at almost 59 is as awesome as it can get.
I may not have money but i’m wealthy beyond belief. I have a place to live, a few friends, many have died over the last few years, many of them younger than me, but hell that just makes me want to live even more.
I have two daughters that seem to adore me as I them. My wife is the most unbelievable, courageous and loving women i’ve ever meet. We will not survive well without each other, but someday we’ll have to. That’s for another day, not today. She is my entire reason I have made it through the shit I have, and believe in nothing but goodness, did I say goodness, I meant greatness.
Bad things happen, but never believe they will. It will steal your soul right out from under you. None of us live a perfect life but we don’t have to succumb to imperfection. The thoughts in your head can determine your life’s future.
Just because i’m the wealthiest man on the planet does not mean you can’t compete with me. There’s always a reason to love your life. It can be the simplest thing, like a smell you like or maybe just a color. It can be a thousand little things that you normally don’t even notice. Notice them!
Distance yourself from people that make you sad or feel bad about yourself, they are thriving on your insecurities. Don’t give them fuel.
I know i’m extremely lucky to have my family, but it wasn’t always that way, yet here I am the wealthiest man in America.
Find your reason to love your life. There are hundreds of ways to do it. If you can’t find a reason to love your life then the fault only lies within yourself. You can change that and it’s all free. No charge. Just remember that to love your life you first must love yourself and there are so many ways to do that.
Unfortunately to love yourself is a journey that only you can take. It can take sometime and effort but, and i’m not kidding here, it can be done. I know i’ve done it. I’m living the dream. You can too, just believe that you are capable of loving, even something as small as a flower. That’s a damn good start. It will turn into so much more.
So take that leap of faith and realize you are a wealthy person and always have been.
Written by: Mark Kevin Smith
This Is from a Top Strategist that left the Trump Campaign to tell the truth. If you care About America. READ THIS Open Letter:
One of Donald Trump’s top campaign strategists, former communications director Stephanie Cegielski, has resigned from his campaign in protest of Trump’s ridiculous statement that “only he can solve” the bombing in Pakistan (whatever that might mean). She has penned a devastating open letter to his supporters, explaining to us why she originally supported Trump, and how his excess and dishonesty turned her against him.
She issues a stark warning to Trump supporters that the supposed “authenticity” of Trump is nothing but smoke and mirrors, a soap opera character – and that at the end of the day, Donald Trump only cares about himself. A brutal denunciation of Trump as both a candidate and a person, it might be the most complete evisceration of the orange-haired rabble-rouser yet written.
It will be interesting to see if Donald Trump’s supporters will be able to dismiss this evisceration so easily. They can’t cry “liberal media” or establishment bias – this comes from inside his own camp, the people who know him better than any of his supporters. It’s also a significant indication that Trump’s own advisers are becoming increasingly tired of his racist antics and his utter refusal to formulate any kind of substantial policy proposals. They recognize that he is utterly unprepared for the presidency and has no desire to change that.
An Open Letter to Trump Voters from His Top Strategist-Turned-Defector
Even Trump’s most trusted advisors didn’t expect him to fare this well. Almost a year ago, recruited for my public relations and public policy expertise, I sat in Trump Tower being told that the goal was to get The Donald to poll in double digits and come in second in delegate count. That was it. The Trump camp would have been satisfied to see him polling at 12% and taking second place to a candidate who might hold 50%. His candidacy was a protest candidacy.
It pains me to say, but he is the presidential equivalent of Sanjaya on American Idol. President Trump would be President Sanjaya in terms of legitimacy and authority. And I am now taking full responsibility for helping create this monster — and reaching out directly to those voters who, like me, wanted Trump to be the real deal.
My support for Trump began probably like yours did. Similar to so many other Americans, I was tired of the rhetoric in Washington. Negativity and stubbornness were at an all-time high, and the presidential prospects didn’t look promising.
In 2015, I fell in love with the idea of the protest candidate who was not bought by corporations. A man who sat in a Manhattan high-rise he had built, making waves as a straight talker with a business background, full of successes and failures, who wanted America to return to greatness.
I was sold. Last summer, I signed on as the Communications Director of the Make America Great Again Super PAC. It was still early in the Trump campaign, and we hit the ground running. His biggest competitor had more than $100 million in a Super PAC. The Jeb Bush deep pockets looked to be the biggest obstacle we faced. We seemed to be up against a steep challenge, especially since a big part of the appeal of a Trump candidacy was not being influenced by PAC money.
After the first debate, I was more anxious than ever to support Trump. The exchange with Megyn Kelly was like manna from heaven for a communications director. She appeared like yet another reporter trying to kick out the guest who wasn’t invited to the party. At the time, I felt excited for the change to the debate he could bring. I began realizing the man really resonates with the masses and would bring people to the process who had never participated before.
That was inspiring to me. It wasn’t long before every day I awoke to a buzzing phone and a shaking head because Trump had said something politically incorrect the night before. I have been around politics long enough to know that the other side will pounce on any and every opportunity to smear a candidate.
But something surprising and absolutely unexpected happened. Every other candidate misestimated the anger and outrage of the “silent majority” of Americans who are not a part of the liberal elite. So with each statement came a jump in the polls. Just when I thought we were finished, The Donald gained more popularity.
I don’t think even Trump thought he would get this far. And I don’t even know that he wanted to, which is perhaps the scariest prospect of all.
He certainly was never prepared or equipped to go all the way to the White House, but his ego has now taken over the driver’s seat, and nothing else matters. The Donald does not fail. The Donald does not have any weakness. The Donald is his own biggest enemy. A devastating terrorist attack in Pakistan targeting Christians occurred on Easter Sunday, and Trump’s response was to tweet, “Another radical Islamic attack, this time in Pakistan, targeting Christian women & children. At least 67 dead, 400 injured. I alone can solve.”
Ignoring the fact that at the time Trump tweeted this (time-stamped 4:37 p.m.) the latest news reports had already placed the number differently at 70 dead, 300 injured, take a moment to appreciate the ridiculous, cartoonish, almost childish arrogance of saying that he alone can solve. Does Trump think that he is making a cameo on Wrestlemania (yes, one of his actual credits)?
This is not how foreign policy works. For anyone. Ever. Superhero powers where “I alone can solve” problems are not real. They do not exist for Batman, for Superman, for Wrestlemania and definitely not for Donald Trump.
What was once Trump’s desire to rank second place to send a message to America and to increase his power as a businessman has nightmarishly morphed into a charade that is poised to do irreparable damage to this country if we do not stop this campaign in its tracks.
I’ll say it again: Trump never intended to be the candidate. But his pride is too out of control to stop him now. You can give Trump the biggest gift possible if you are a Trump supporter: stop supporting him.
He doesn’t want the White House. He just wants to be able to say that he could have run the White House. He’s achieved that already and then some. If there is any question, take it from someone who was recruited to help the candidate succeed, and initially very much wanted him to do so.
The hard truth is: Trump only cares about Trump. And if you are one of the disaffected voters — one of the silent majority like me — who wanted a candidate who could be your voice, I want to speak directly to you as one of his biggest advocates and supporters.
He is not that voice. He is not your voice. He is only Trump’s voice. Trump is about Trump. Not one of his many wives. Not one of his many “pieces of ass.” He is, at heart, a self-preservationist.
In fact, many people are not aware of the Trump campaign’s internal slogan, but I will tell you. It is stolen from a make-believe television presidency onThe West Wing where Martin Sheen portrayed President Bartlet. The slogan on the show amongst the idealistic group of Bartlet’s staff was “Let Bartlet Be Bartlet.”
Inside the Trump camp, the slogan became “Let Trump Be Trump.”
It is a repurposed slogan that seemed spot-on for the candidate. He is an intelligent, charismatic man who is involved in every aspect of his organization and would rather speak from the cuff than read briefing notes and recite them. I, in fact, admire Trump for this. But saying this qualifies him to be president is like saying that Seth Rogan is suited to be president. Another extraordinary improvisor, not an extraordinary presidential candidate.
Trump has undoubtedly lived up to the slogan, right down to his main public-relations liaison. Rather than go for a focus-group Washington insider, his communications person had previously taken press calls for the Trump Organization and directed them to the appropriate Trump child. She joked that before joining the campaign she thought “Common Core” was a class at Equinox.
The primary problem with this? What I’ve seen the longer I’ve helped prop him up along with the millions who are helping Trump is that we got the slogan wrong. A more accurate internal slogan would read, “Let Trump Help Trump.”
I don’t dismiss any single Trump constituent, which is why I believe it’s important to let you know that the candidate does.
I, too, think our country has gone off track in its values. I, too, think that we need a dramatic change of course. But I am, in my heart, a policy wonk and a believer in coming to the table with necessary knowledge for leading the free world.
The man does not know policy, nor does he have the humility to admit what he does not know — the most frightening position of all.
I remember watching the second Trump debate and thinking, After this, he is going to have to start hammering it home on policy; the country needs substance to make an informed decision.
I wished for it six months ago and am still waiting for it today. He had an opportunity after the terror attacks in Belgium and instead he used the opportunity to talk about closing the borders and what a mess that country had become. I was appalled that he offered no condolences or words of support; he merely gave his “build a wall” stump speech and talked about his greatness.
I felt sad for him at that moment.
And now, with the latest horrifying terror attack in Pakistan, my sadness has turned into anger.
I consider myself a part of the silent majority that led to Trump’s rise, which is why I want you to know that I am with you — I wanted Trump to be real, too.
He is not.
He even says so himself. His misogyny? That’s the character.
His presidential candidacy? That’s a character, too.
The problem with characters is they are the stuff of soap operas and sitcoms and reality competitions — not political legacies.
Trump made me believe. Until I woke up. And he has no problem abusing your support the same way he cheated hard-working men and women out of millions of dollars, for which he is now being sued.
I came into this eager to support a savvy businessman who received little outside funding. I loved Trump’s outsider status. But a year has now passed since I was first approached to become part of Team Trump.
While the pundits pontificated about what type of PR stunt Trump had up his billion-dollar sleeves, I met with people who convinced me he was serious about changing the political conversation. I wanted to raise millions for him. I wanted to contribute to millions of votes.
And as part of that support, in October, I supported the internal decision to close the Super PAC in order to position him as the quintessential non-politician. I still supported him with great passion after that. The decision to close the Super PAC was part of that devotion to his message of outsider change.
But something was shifting.
Without intending to do so, I began to hear and evaluate him more critically and skeptically as a member of the voting public rather than a communications person charged with protecting his positions.
I no longer felt that he was the leader the country was looking for, and I found myself longing — aching, really — for policy substance that went beyond building a wall and making Mexico pay for it. What were once bold — although controversial — statements now seemed to be attempts to please the crowds, not direction to lead this country to a better place. I began to realize his arrogance and isolation had taken over and were now controlling his message.
And here’s what he tapped into: the unprecedented, unbelievable anger.
Because we are all angry — and we all have a right to be. But Trump is not our champion.
He would stab any one of his supporters in the back if it earned him a cent more in his pocket.
Unfortunately, the more vitriolic Trump has become, the more the people responded to him. That drove him to push the boundaries further and further.
I also started seeing a trend of incompetence and deniability.
When there was a tweet that contained an error, he would blame it on an intern; when there was a photo containing a World War II Nazi Germany background, he would blame it on an intern; when he answered questions in an overtly controversial fashion, he would claim that he did not properly hear the question. He refused to take responsibility for his actions while frequently demanding apologies from others.
Imagine Trump wronged you, even in the smallest possible way. He would go to the grave denying he had ever done anything wrong to you — ever.
Trump acts as if he’s a fictional character. But like Hercules, Donald Trump is a work of fiction.
No matter how many times he repeats it, Trump would not be the “best” at being a president, being in shape, fighting terrorism, selling steaks, and whatever other “best” claim he has made in the last 15 minutes.
He would be the best at something, though. He is the best at looking out for Donald Trump — at all costs.
Don’t let our country pay that price!
Open Letter-Stephanie Cegielski
I think a lot of people don’t understand what real romance is. Anyone can buy flowers, candy, and jewelry, there’s no love in that. The true romantic things in life are those little things you do every day to show you care, and that you’re thinking of them.
It’s going out of your way to make them happy. The way you hold her hand when you know she’s scared, or save the last piece of cake for her. The random text in the middle of the day, just to say “I love you” or “I miss you”.
The way she stops to kiss you when she passes by. It’s dedicating her favorite song to her, and letting her eat your fries; telling her she’s beautiful, even when she’s in her sweats; with her hair in a ponytail and no makeup.
It’s putting your favorite show on pause so she can tell you about her day, and laughing at her jokes even the lame ones. It’s slow dancing in the kitchen and kissing in the rain. Romance isn’t about buying, it’s about giving. True romance is in the gestures.
-Quotes n Thoughts
At the end of life, what really matters is not what we bought, but what we built; not what we have, but what we shared; not our competence, but our character; and not our success, but our significance. Live a life that matters. Live a life of love.
-Quotes and Sayings, Author Unknown.
Intimacy is not about sex. It’s about having revealing conversations that last till 4 am. It’s about sharing secrets and fears. It’s about giving someone your attention when 10 others are asking for it. And it’s about that someone special alway being in the back of your mind no matter how busy you are.
If you’re wondering who has the best plan to protect the economy of the country, 170 of the world’s top economists say the answer to that question is Bernie Sanders.
In a letter endorsing Sanders, their reasons were clearly outlined:
In our view, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another “too-big-to-fail” financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted.
Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’ potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis.
Secretary Hillary Clinton’s more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call for a bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they leave intact the titanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking. As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle.
The only way to contain Wall Street’s excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and public they can’t be watered down. That’s why we support Senator Sanders’ plans for busting up the biggest banks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass Steagall.”
The anger over the 2008 collapse is still a major issue with people on both sides of the political fence. The fact that the American people bailed out the banks that caused millions to lose their homes, their life savings and their jobs has not been forgotten. The anger that those banks have grown larger and have the potential to do even worse harm to the economy and, therefore, the lives of average Americans, is a place where Tea Party Republicans, Occupy protesters and the average American converge. The message Sanders delivers speaks to the desire to see the perpetrators punished and the excesses of Wall Street reined in with reforms that have been proven to work in the past. Despite protestations from those who are against reinstating a 21st century version of the law and are putting forth the argument that it would not have prevented the financial meltdown, Glass Steagall performed brilliantly for 60 years before being watered down by the Reagan administration and being abolished by the Clinton administration.
Below are the individuals who signed the letter:
Signers (Institutional listing for identification purposes only):
1. Robert Reich, University of California Berkeley
2. Robert Hockett, Cornell University
3. James K. Galbraith, University of Texas
4. Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research
5. Christine Desan, Harvard Law School
6. Jeff Connaughton, Former Chief of Staff, Senator Ted Kaufman
7. William Darity Jr., Duke University
8. Eileen Appelbaum, Center for Economic and Policy Research
9. Brad Miller, Former U.S. Congressman and Senior Fellow, Roosevelt Institute
10. William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City
11. Lawrence Rufrano, Research, Federal Reserve Board, 2005-2015
12. Darrick Hamilton, New School for Social Research
13. Peter Eaton, University of Missouri-Kansas City
14. Eric Hake, Catawba College
15. Geoff Schneider, Bucknell University
16. Dell Champlin, Oregon State University
17. Antoine Godin, Kingston University, London, UK
18. John P. Watkins, Westminster College
19. Mayo C. Toruño, California State University, San Bernardino
20. Charles K. Wilber, Fellow, Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame
21. Fadhel Kaboub, Denison University
22. Flavia Dantas, Cortland State University
23. Mitchell Green, Binzgar Institute
24. Bruce Collier, Education Management Information Systems
25. Winston H. Griffith, Bucknell University
26. Zdravka Todorova, Wright State University
27. David Barkin, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco
28. Rick Wicks, Göteborg, Sverige (Sweden) & Anchorage, Alaska
29. Philip Arestis, University of Cambridge
30. Amitava Krishna Dutt, University of Notre Dame
31. John F. Henry, Levy Economics Institute
32. James G. Devine, Loyola Marymount University
33. John Davis, Marquette University
34. Gary Mongiovi, St. John’s University
35. Eric Tymoigne, Lewis & Clark College
36. Trevor Roycroft, Ohio University
37. James Sturgeon, University of Missouri-Kansas City
38. Spencer J. Pack, Connecticut College
39. Thomas Kemp, University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire
40. Ronnie Phillips, Colorado State University
41. John Dennis Chasse, SUNY at Brockport
42. Pavlina R. Tcherneva, Bard College
43. Silvio Guaita, Institution, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
44. Glen Atkinson, University of Nevada, Reno
45. William Van Lear, Belmont Abbey College
46. James M. Cypher, Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas
47. Philip Pilkington, Political Economy Research Group, Kingston University
48. Eric Hoyt, PhD candidate, UMass-Amherst
49. Jon D. Wisman, American University
50. James K. Boyce, University of Massachusetts Amherst
51. Hendrik Van den Berg, Professor Emeritus, Universities of Nebraska
52. Thomas E. Lambert, Northern Kentucky University
53. Michael Nuwer, SUNY Potsdam
54. Nikka Lemons, The University of Texas-Arlington
55. Scott T. Fullwiler, Wartburg College
56. Charles M A. Clark, St. John’s University
57. John T. Harvey, Texas Christian University
58. Daphne Greenwood, University of Colorado-Colorado Springs
59. Gerald Epstein, University of Massachusetts Amherst
60. Mohammad Moeini-Feizabadi, PhD candidate, University of Massachusetts
61. Rebecca Todd Peters, Elon University
62. Andres F. Cantillo, University of Missouri-Kansas City
63. Michael Meeropol, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Western New England University
64. Robert H. Scott III, Monmouth University
65. Timothy A Wunder, Department of Economics University of Texas- Arlington
66. Mariano Torras, Adelphi University
67. Gennaro Zezza, Levy Economics Institute
68. Wolfram Elsner, University of Bremen
69. Larry Allen, Lamar University
70. John Miller, Wheaton College
71. Chris Tilly, UCLA
72. Sean Flaherty, Franklin and Marshall College
73. Clifford Poirot, Shawnee State University
74. Anita Dancs, Western New England University
75. Calvin Mudzingiri, University of the Free State
76. Roger Even Bove, West Chester University
77. Andrea Armeni, Transform Finance
78. Anwar Shaikh, New School for Social Research
79. Steven Pressman, Colorado State University
80. Frank Pasquale, University of Maryland, Carey School of Law
81. John Weeks, SOAS, University of London
82. Matías Vernengo, Bucknell University
83. Thomas Masterson, Levy Economics Institute
84. Antonio Callari, Franklin and Marshall College
85. Avraham Baranes, Rollins College
86. Janet Spitz, the College of Saint Rose
87. Nancy Folbre, University of Massachusetts Amherst
88. Jennifer Taub, Vermont Law School
89. Irene van Staveren, Erasmus University
90. Yavuz Yaşar, University of Denver
91. Scott McConnell, Eastern Oregon University
92. Don Goldstein, Allegheny College
93. J. Pérez Oya, Retired UN secretariat (Spain)
94. Elaine McCrate, University of Vermont
95. Thomas E. Weisskopf, University of Michigan
96. Jeffrey Zink, Morningside College
97. Scott Jeffrey, Monmouth University
98. Lourdes Benería, Cornell University
99. Frank Thompson, University of Michigan
100. Baban Hasnat, The College at Brockport, State University of New York
101. Ilene Grabel, University of Denver
102. Tara Natarajan, Saint Michael’s College
103. Leanne Ussher, Queens College, City University of New York
104. Kathleen McAfee, San Francisco State University
105. Victoria Chick, University College London
106. Steve Keen, Kingston University
107. Heidi Mandanis Schooner, The Catholic University of America
108. Louis-Philippe Rochon, Laurentian University
109. Jamee K. Moudud, Professor of Economics, Sarah Lawrence College
110. Timothy A. Canova, Shepard Broad College of Law, Nova Southeastern University
111. Karol Gil Vasquez, Nichols College
112. Mark Haggerty, University of Maine
113. Luis Brunstein University of California, Riverside
114. Cathleen Whiting, Willamette University
115. William Waller, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
116. Kade Finnoff, University of Massachuettes-Boston
117. Maarten de Kadt, Independent Economist
118. Timothy Koechlin, Vassar College
119. Ceren Soylu, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
120. Dorene Isenberg, University of Redlands
121. Barbara Hopkins, Wright State University
122. Matthew Rice, University of Missouri-Kansas City
123. David Gold, The New School for Social Research
124. Cyrus Bina, University of Minnesota
125. Mark Paul, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
126. Xuan Pham, Rockhurst University
127. Erik Dean, Portland Community College
128. Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr., George Washington University Law School
129. Rohan Grey, President, Modern Money Network
130. Tamar Diana Wilson, University of Missouri—St. Louis
131. Radhika Balakrishanan, Rutgers University
132. Alla Semenova, SUNY Potsdam
133. Yeva Nersisyan, Franklin and Marshall College
134. Linwood Tauheed, University of Missouri-Kansas City
135. Michael Perelman, California State University, Chico
136. Janet T. Knoedler, Bucknell University
137. David Laibman, Brooklyn College and Graduate School, City University of New York
138. Ann Pettifor, Director, Policy Research in Macroeconomics, London
139. Steve Schifferes, City University London
140. Al Campbell, University of Utah
141. Faith Stevelman, New York Law School
142. Kathleen C. Engel, Suffolk University Law School
143. Jack Wendland, University of Missouri-Kansas City
144. Ruxandra Pavelchievici, University of Nice Sophia Antipolis
145. Zoe Sherman, Merrimack College
146. Donald St. Clair, CFP, Financial Planning Assoc. of Northern California
147. Carolyn McClanahan, CFP, Life Planning Partners, Inc.
148. Thomas Ferguson, Senior Fellow, Roosevelt Institute
149. Saule T. Omarova, Cornell University
150. Josh Ryan-Collins, City University, London
151. June Zaccone, Hofstra University
152. Alex Binder, Franklin & Marshall College
153. Albena Azmanova, University of Kent, Brussels School of International Studies
154. Hans G. Ehrbar, University of Utah
155. Devin T. Rafferty, St. Peter’s University
156. Reynold F. Nesiba, Augustana University
157. David Zalewski, Providence College
158. Claudia Chaufan, University of California-San Francisco
159. L. Randall Wray, Levy Economics Institute and Bard College
160. Richard B. Wagner, JD, CFP, WorthLiving LLC
161. Joseph Persky, University of Illinois-Chicago
162. Julie Matthaei, Wellesley College
163. Peter Spiegler, University of Massachuetts-Amherst
164. James Ronald Stanfield, Colorado State University
165. William D. Pitney, CFP, Director of Advocacy, FPA of Silicon Valley
166. Ora R. Citron, CFP, Oak Tree Wealth Management
167. Susan Webber, Former Associate at Goldman, Sachs & Co.
168. Richard D. Wolff, Democracy at Work and New School for Social Research
169. Mu-JeongKho, University College London
170. Kevin Furey, Chemeketa Community College Ann Werner is the author of thrillers and other things.
Visit her at Ann Werner on the Web
View her work AnnWerner.info
Dr. Christina Sanchez, a molecular biologist at Complutense University in Madrid, Spain, clearly explaining how THC (the main psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant) completely kills cancer cells.
Not long ago, we published an article examining a case study recently published where doctors used cannabis to treat Leukemia, you can read more about that here. To read more articles and view studies about how cannabis is an effective treatment and cure for cancer, click here.
Cannabinoids refer to any group of related compounds that include cannabinol and the active constituents of cannabis. They activate cannabinoid receptors in the body. The body itself produces compounds called endocannabinoids and they play a role in many processes within the body that help to create a healthy environment. I think it’s also important to note that cannabis has been shown to treat cancer without any psychoactive effects.
Cannabinoids have been proven to reduce cancer cells as they have a great impact on the rebuilding of the immune system. Although not every strain of cannabis has the same effect, more and more patients are seeing success in cancer reduction in a short period of time by using cannabis. Contrary to popular belief, smoking cannabis does not assist a great deal in treating disease within the body as therapeutic levels cannot be reached through smoking. Creating oil from the plant or eating the plant is the best way to go about getting the necessary ingredients, the cannabinoids.
The world has come a long way with regards to accepting this plant as a medicine rather than a harmful substance. It’s a plant that could benefit the planet in more ways than one. Cannabis is not something offered in the same regard as chemotherapy, but more people are becoming aware if it, which is why it’s so important to continue to spread information like this. Nobody can really deny the tremendous healing power of this plant.
To watch Dr. Cristina Sanchez’s Video, please click here
Credits: Collective Evolution
Video games that are considered first person shooters are a popular video game genre. I’ve played video games in many forms for the majority of my life; much of my recent playing is based on first person games. Due to controversial events like public / school shootings the topic of violence and video games continues to influence debate and psychological research.
Read Part 1 of our series.
Although my history of video game usage is anecdotal recent research has concluded that video games like first person shooters may have the potential to ,”increase skill, including potential lethal weapon use”. Participants who played a videogame with a pistol shaped controller were 33% more likely to shoot a mannequin with a real gun and 99% more likely to shoot the mannequin in the head (Gamboa, 2012). It seems behaviorism may come into play here as it could be stated the visual reinforcements that accompany lethal shots in game may condition similar behaviors in real life shooting scenarios. How many of you play video games where the sole objective is to fire or propel something into an object or person? Could games like Angry Birds really help in understanding physics? Could sports games on the Wii or Xbox Kinect increase skill in the actual sport?
A second article argues that first person shooter games are being used as training and recruitment. Some argue that first person shooters and flight simulators as training may be used as a type of manipulation or desensitization in preparation for killing another individual. The continued reward of the simulation may make the decision to enlist easier as well as influence behavior and decision making during a lethal event like war.
According to Richard Williams, Technical Director of the US Army’s Systems Integration Modeling and Simulation, “The game mechanics of First Person Shooters are now being implemented to create highly specific tutorials that allow recruits to better understand what they were doing, and who they were fighting” (Voakes, 2012). Recent research by Gackenbach, J., Ellerman, E., & Hall, C. (2011) surveyed 335 military personnel, both active and inactive, the research concluded that after filling out an Emotional Reactivity and Numbing Scale as well as Trauma Inventory it was shown that those who reported a high degree of video game play showed, “less threat and war content in their military dreams than the low-end group” (Gackenbach, 2011).
Both of these news articles could be considered a media psychology issue as they both are concerned with videos games and the potential influence on real world decision making, behavior, emotion and skill. I feel that these simulations may influence decision making and skills as the recruits are given visual rewards and points during the simulations for completing tasks. I think the second article is more directly a media psychology issue, it raises the question of how video games like first person shooters may be desensitizing or manipulating perceptions concerning killing another individual, or completing military tasks. The focus is not video game realism or content itself, and also not solely covering desensitization in the military. These articles are concerned with how the media may be influencing real life behaviors, perceptions, decision making and skill.
By Jim Crenshaw Dec. 12 2015
Gackenbach, J., Ellerman, E., & Hall, C. (2011). Video game play as nightmare protection: A preliminary inquiry with military gamers. Dreaming, 21(4), 221-245. doi:10.1037/a0024972
Gamboa, C. (2012, May 21). Violent video games turning gamers into deadly shooters. Retrieved from potential of video games to teach or increase skills, including potentially lethal weapon use.”
Voakes, G. (2012, June 30). How do video games and modern military influence each other?. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregvoakes/2012/05/30/how-do-video-games-and-modern-military-influence-each-other/
As a lifelong “gamer” I know that my opinion about media violence influencing societal violence is somewhat biased. Although this may be true I find it very interesting that the majority of the peer-reviewed articles concerning the influence of media violence are correlational in nature. I’ve heard too many times in my educational career that a correlation does not imply causation, I think as critical thinkers we need to realize that there may be a bias behind the research concerning media violence. I am completely against the assertion that media violence causes violent behavior, much of the research I did find failed to report a conclusive operational definition of violence.
Read Part 2 of our research series.
I had a very hard time finding any articles that have been able to show that after manipulating independent and dependent variables media violence was a statistically significant factor in influencing violent behavior. According to Harris (2010) hundreds of studies have shown some negative psychological effects of media violence, much of these studies were tested in a laboratory and were short term studies. I feel this fact does not allow us to assert that media violence can influence real-world violent behavior, besides the measurements for these conclusions are based on attitudinal reports.
Studies from 1977 and 1984 are in no way related to changes in media we see today. The recent research in this chapter also points to research in 2003 but again it is correlational in nature, furthermore they obtained data on the violent TV they watched. Are we to assume that their definition of violence fully explains violent behavior in itself? Is tapping my pencil or typing on my keyboard too hard considered violence, I feel that virtually any behavior can be labeled violent. Even in my response to this discussion, my feelings about this topic could in some way be construed as violent. I have a very hard time thinking that we are all passive zombies to media, not every individual will be influenced by media or violent media in the same.
Although Harris (2009) states that violent media does have several negative behavioral and attitudinal effects, especially with modeling and desensitization he also states that the effects, “are not uniform and frequently are moderated by others variables” (Harris, 2009). Harris goes on to explain that, “no one but the most strident media bashers seriously argue that violence in media are to blame for all societal violence”. As a scholar practitioner I am more inclined to believe in peer-reviewed research and not rely on “media bashers” for conclusive evidence that media violence causes violent behavior. Research by Ferguson (2010) concluded that there was no link between violent video games and aggressive behavior, the results actually suggested that violent video games reduced depression and hostile feelings through mood management.
Recent research has argued that many of the negative effects of violent are exaggerated by the scientific community (Ferguson, 2010). I feel that we should not assume many of the claims concerning the effects violent media as being statistically significant, reliable or valid. Additional research by Ferguson (2010) has found that many studies are based on unpublished studies; this simple fact shows us that we should not assume every study about violent media is reliable or valid. I think it’s important to note that increases in the use of violent video games have actually been correlated with dramatic decreases in youth violence (r=-.95, an almost perfect correlation), I’m again aware that correlation does not imply causality but this relationship is far stronger than the reported r=.15 estimate of Anderson (2004) who reported that violent video games imply outward violent behavior. The meta-analysis by Anderson (2004) found only weak effects and much of their research overestimated and over interpreted the influence of violent video games on aggression.
Recent research by Ivory (2007) concluded that although violent video games,” increased players’ sense of presence, feelings of involvement, and arousal” they did not significantly affect aggressive thoughts or feelings. Additionally, longitudinal research by Williams (2005) examined changes in aggressive cognitions and behavior in individuals who played violent video games. The results of the study did not support the assertion that a violent game usage causes increases in real-world aggression. Lastly, research by Wei (2007) suggests that the link between aggression and exposure to violent video games was non-significant, concluding that that playing violent video games better explains attitudinal outcomes as opposed to overt violent behavior. I hope this has made you think critically about how media violence “causes” violent behavior.
By Jim Crenshaw
Anderson, C. (2004). An update on the effects of playing violent video
games. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 113–122.
Ferguson, C. J., & Rueda, S. M. (2010). The Hitman study: Violent video game exposure effects on
aggressive behavior, hostile feelings, and depression. European Psychologist, 15(2), 99-108.
Ferguson, C. J., & Kilburn, J. (2010). Much ado about nothing: The misestimation and overinterpretation
of violent video game effects in Eastern and Western nations: Comment on Anderson et al.
(2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 174-178. doi:10.1037/a0018566
Ferguson, C. J. (2010). Blazing angels or resident evil? Can violent video games be a force for
good?. Review Of General Psychology,14(2), 68-81. doi:10.1037/a0018941
Harris, R.J. (2009). A cognitive psychology of mass communication (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Ivory, J. D., & Kalyanaraman, S. (2007). The effects of technological advancement and violent content in
video games on players’ feelings of presence, involvement, physiological arousal, and
aggression. Journal Of Communication, 57(3), 532-555. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00356.x
Wei, R. (2007). Effects of playing violent videogames on Chinese adolescents’ pro-violence attitudes,
attitudes toward others, and aggressive behavior. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10(3), 371-380.
Williams, D., & Skoric, M. (2005). Internet Fantasy Violence: A Test of Aggression in an Online
Game. Communication Monographs,72(2), 217-233. doi:10.1080/03637750500111781