Would your life be better without TV?

 

How important is TV in your life? Could you go without it for a day? How about two? Or a whole month, a while year? Television has been blamed for many of societies robles including: the moral decay of society, the weakening of family ties, increased violence, decline in education, obesity, etc.

I myself, got used to not watching TV during my time in the military. After which, I learned how unimportant it was. Like anything one can get used to, you think you need it because you’ve always used it. Or is it like an addiction that we don’t know how to get rid of?

There are definitely good reason to cut the cord. Reasons relating to some of the problems associated with it listed earlier, (or for something as simple as money) we should all seriously consider moving on from our enslavement to the glowing rectangle.

Below the article posted in its entirety:

Want to save some serious green? Stop watching TV.

What to do instead of watching TV

Cutting the cable or ditching the dish can recoup more than just the monthly service fee. Television-free folks say:

• They spend less when they have less exposure to ads and product placement.

• Their children don't continually shriek for treats, trips and toys (see above).

• They feel better physically and emotionally. The hours formerly spent on channel surfing turned into exercise, volunteering, family time and, oh yeah, getting enough sleep.

All that can add up to a healthier and wealthier you -- and you don't necessarily have to give up TV entirely. You just change how (and how much) you watch.

Time to cut the cable?

I haven't owned a television since March 2004. I don't have Netflix, and I've watched approximately five minutes of an episode of "House" on Hulu. (Maybe I'll finish it some other time.) While visiting friends or relatives I sometimes watch TV with them. But back home in Seattle, I don't feel the need to rush to the public library to borrow Season 3 of "The Closer." It's not that I don't like TV. It's that other things have replaced it in my life.

But would it work for you? Read on to find out how others view (or don't view) television to help you decide.

 

'How can you possibly live without a TV?'

Although an estimated 800,000 households have ditched cable over the past two years, people who don't watch TV are still a tiny minority. Some 61 million U.S. households have cable, and about 33 million more have satellite service, according to the National Cable & Telecommunications Association. These numbers don't include people who get TV for free online or with ordinary antennas.

Those who eschew the tube know they're swimming against the tide. Boy, do they know it. Leigh Henderson, a Manhattan management consultant who also teaches at Baruch College, says her students are horrified.

"They look at me like, 'How can you do it? How can you possibly live without a TV?'" says Henderson, who gave away her bulky old television in March 2007 during an apartment renovation.

Her plan was to buy a flat-screen model. But Henderson liked not being "inundated" with advertising and realized that a lot of programming was, well, dumb.

Since then, she's noticed her students often wail that they don't have time to do all that course reading yet can tell her all about the programs she's missing. Henderson has friends who won't go out because a particular show is on. And at a recent family reunion, one relative watched cooking programs rather than interact with people he hadn't seen in years.

"That just reinforced it for me," Henderson says. "(Television) isn't evil. It just shouldn't be the top priority."

Questions to consider: Does TV take away more than it provides? What are you giving up in order to watch "American Idol"?

 

'There's a lot of world out there'

Cincinnati resident Cheryl Besl estimates she saves almost $100 a month by not having cable. "I just choose to do other things with my time," says Besl, 38.

Among them: a public-relations career, involvement with several nonprofits, regular exercise and reading. Besl volunteers with a neighborhood improvement group and served on its board for two years. For the past three years she's mentored a teenage girl.

She also gets eight hours of slumber every night, unlike some acquaintances who are sleep-deprived but up to date on the latest TV shows.

John Holden, a publicist at DePaul University, used to have multiple TV sets chattering in more than one room even when he wasn't watching. When television went digital in 2009, his old sets stopped working. At 48, Holden had never been without television. But within two weeks, he stopped missing it and started realizing how much more time he had.

Holden read. He joined a second board of directors. To hone his work skills, he took university classes in digital media and online marketing.

"Once I shut the TV off, I realized how much of my time was being wasted," Holden says. "There's a lot of world out there beyond the TV screen."

Now his TV watching consists of "Jeopardy!" on Hulu -- sometimes.

P.S. Holden's electric bill has dropped at least 15%.

Question to consider: How would you improve your life (and maybe other people's lives) if you weren't watching TV?

What about the children?

The Watermans of Mesa, Ariz., have not had television since 1999. "I've read about shows called 'Friends,' 'Seinfeld' and 'Desperate Housewives' but have never seen them," says Pam Waterman.

Her three daughters, now ages 17 to 22, got some pop-culture viewing through rentals, at friends' houses and, for four years, in the cable-wired room their grandmother occupied in their home. Nowadays, they tap into Hulu.

The trade-off: For the past 11 years, the family has bought theater tickets, books, magazine subscriptions and other items with the money that would have gone toward cable. That was $39 a month when they first moved to Mesa. Now it's $57.

The bonus: Waterman figures they've saved thousands of dollars because their daughters saw so few ads. "It was just so nice not to have commercials," she says, "and not to have big issues about whether they could watch a certain show."

Cathi Brese Doebler of the Buffalo, N.Y., area started a part-time consulting business from home after her first child was born. No more full-time salary meant trimming expenses. Expanded cable didn't make the cut.

The family kept the basic cable hookup ($11 a month) so the two boys, now ages 6 and 9, could watch a little public television. Occasionally the parents will watch a do-it-yourself show or a movie from a library. But they prefer family time to involve reading, board games or conversation.

Doebler estimates they've saved $4,000 in cable costs over the past nine years. The kids don't clamor for the latest breakfast cereals or playthings either.

Well, most of the time. "When they went to Grandma's house and watched the Disney Channel, suddenly they were asking for toys I've never heard of," Doebler says.

A policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics suggests capping total noneducational screen time (including the Internet) to no more than two hours a day, partly in order to "limit exposure to advertising of all kinds."

Questions to consider: What behaviors are your kids absorbing, directly or indirectly, and how much does that cost, financially and emotionally? How much of your "family time" is spent staring at a screen?

 

A self-esteem boost to boot

Kids aren't the only ones affected by advertising.

Being ad-free for nearly seven years has made shopping feel like "less of a hobby" for Joann Cohen, a dating coach in the Phoenix area. That doesn't mean she buys less. On the contrary: The $800-plus a year she saves on cable goes toward her professional wardrobe.

Another plus: Cohen's self-esteem went up when the TV went off. Too many shows and ads reflect stereotypes or mixed messages, she says: "It's telling you to eat something or go on a diet. It's telling us that you should be superskinny with fake boobs. It's telling us that women over 40 are a joke."

Cohen can ignore the ads on Hulu, where she sometimes watches "Family Guy," and gets ad-free programming by borrowing DVDs from a library. She figures she logs about 90 minutes of screen time per month.

"Do you want to live life, or do you want to watch other people live it?" Cohen asks. "Turn off the cable for a month. Take the money (you save), and do something fun."

Question to consider: Does your view of the world come through a screen?

 

Tips from the pros

Dr. Jay Winner, the author of "Take the Stress Out of Your Life," isn't completely anti-television. Quality programming does exist, he says, but too often people waste "a ton of time" aimlessly channel surfing.

"They say 'Nothing's on' and go through the 200 channels again," says Winner, the chairman of family medicine for Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital and director of its stress management program.

His home was TV-free for years. These days, the physician and his wife watch an occasional Netflix film with their 9-year-old twin sons. As a stress reduction specialist, he believes that TV can give "a skewed view of life" and that people should limit their viewing.

"If you really love 'Dancing With the Stars,' then watch it. But that's different than having eight hours of television (a day)," Winner says.

Others who've limited or deleted TV offer these tips:

• Go cold turkey. It's not so bad after the first week.

• Or don't. Allow yourself one show or one hour of viewing per day. Gradually reduce viewing over several weeks.

• Try new things. Be ready to fill the hours you once spent watching. The people I interviewed suggested reading, exercising, volunteering, playing board games, taking classes, playing outdoors with the kids, and cooking and savoring nice meals. (And, yeah, going online to watch a little bit of TV now and then.)

• Bank the savings. If you were paying for cable, set aside what you'd be spending. It could go toward a vacation, a special purchase or a college fund.

• Out of sight, out of mind. Move the TV out of the common area. If it's not in your face all the time, you won't automatically move to turn it on.

(ORIGINAL LINK) Cutting cable TV can save money, improve quality of life - MSN Money

U.N. creates “Ambassador” position to greet extraterrestrials. Seriously?

 

My respect and appreciation for the United Nations knows no bounds. In their great foresight and wisdom, they have created a post that has long been needed. Oh wait, that’s right, this is freaking crazy!!…lol

Some excerpts (Italicized):

In news that's part wacky and part surprising, the United Nations will be appointing, early next week, Earth's official first contact (i.e., an ambassador) for aliens from outer space. (You couldn't make this stuff up. Well, you could ... but why bother?)

The U.N. has chosen a Malaysian astrophysicist by the name of Dr. Mazlan Othman, who happens to be the head of its Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) in Vienna, "to act as Earth's first contact for any aliens that may come visiting."

Apparently, Dr. Othman:

" ... is scheduled next week to tell delegates at a scientific conference at the Royal Society's Kavli conference center in Buckinghamshire "that the recent discovery of hundreds of planets around other stars has made the detection of extraterrestrial life more likely than ever before - and that means the UN must be ready to coordinate humanity's response to any 'first contact'."

Do you know how this will affect the future writing of all the alien movies in the future?..lol… Of all the things the U.N. could be spending their time / money on…

(ORIGINAL LINK) U.N. creates First Contact position to greet extraterrestrials | Blastr

Religious VS Secular: The Battle Of Britain.

 

The battle between the religious and the secular wages right in front of our eyes. In Britain, the Pope made a historic visit to try to strengthen the faith in that country.

Excerpts italicized:

As protest chants go, "What do we want? A secular Europe! When do we want it? Now!" isn't exactly catchy. But it was a message Pope Benedict XVI heard loud and clear during his historic four-day state visit to Britain, the first ever by a Pope. And it was one he had determined to meet head-on by getting his retaliation in first, even before he touched down in Glasgow at the start of the trip.

But Benedict arrived in the U.K. armed with a wider message, making repeated warnings against what he claimed was a growth in "aggressive forms of secularism" in British society. It was that same phenomenon, he suggested, that led to the birth of the Nazis in his native Germany.

But the Pope returned to the theme on a number of occasions during his visit. Alongside the Queen at Holyrood House (her residence in Edinburgh) during his official welcome on Sept. 16, Benedict spoke of the "atheist extremism" of the 20th century, saying, "Even in our own lifetimes, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society." (See "The Trial of Pope Benedict XVI.")

It's a view that did little to placate the demonstrators as they gathered at London's Hyde Park two days later - where they were outnumbered roughly 10 to 1 by those faithful "pilgrims" who had come to join a prayer vigil with the Pope. "That's rich, coming from the leader of a faith that has supported repressive regimes, condemned millions to suffering through its attitude to contraception and equality, and covered up child abuse by its own ministers," said one marcher.

And the fear in the Vatican must be that the clamor surrounding the campaign for more action on abuse will not only continue to undermine the church's authority and credibility but also overshadow the battle against atheism that the Pope just spent four days trying to fight.

It is encouraging to hear how the faithful outnumbered the protesters 10 to 1. It is also sobering to think about how the abuse scandals that have rocked the church these past years is being used as a weapon to attack religion in general. Has society's’ embrace of secularism brought us dangerously close to mentalities that parallel the Nazis’ ? Will we one day have to live in fear for wearing our faith in public? Do we already?

(ORIGINAL LINK) The Pope vs. Britain's Secularists: Who Won? - Yahoo! News

FBI tries to legally get keys for all your encrypted files. So they can potentially spy on you.

 

Do you want the government to have the ability to unlock and computer file you have if they want to? This is not the first time some part of the federal government has tried to do this. This time the FBI is trying.

Some excerpts (Italicized):

The FBI now wants to require all encrypted communications systems to have backdoors for surveillance, according to a New York Times report, and to the nation's top crypto experts it sounds like a battle they've fought before.

Back in the 1990s, in what's remembered as the crypto wars, the FBI and NSA argued that national security would be endangered if they did not have a way to spy on encrypted e-mails, IMs and phone calls. After a long protracted battle, the security community prevailed after mustering detailed technical studies and research that concluded that national security was actually strengthened by wide use of encryption to secure computers and sensitive business and government communications

According to the proposal, any company doing business in the States could not create an encrypted communication system without having a way for the government to order the company to decrypt it, and those who currently do offer that service would have to retool it. It's the equivalent of outlawing whispering in real life.

Cryptographers have long argued that backdoors aren't a feature—they are just a security hole that will inevitably be abused by hackers or adversarial governments.

Should we be worried? Is privacy a right? Is privacy important?

(ORIGINAL LINK) FBI drive for encryption backdoors is déjà vu for security experts

Survey Says Americans Know Little About Their Faith.

 

So many attest to being one faith or another, but how many of us are truly faithful?

Excerpts italicized:

A new survey of Americans' knowledge of religion found that atheists, agnostics, Jews and Mormons outperformed Protestants and Roman Catholics in answering questions about major religions, while many respondents could not correctly give the most basic tenets of their own faiths.

Forty-five percent of Roman Catholics who participated in the study didn't know that, according to church teaching, the bread and wine used in Holy Communion is not just a symbol, but becomes the body and blood of Christ

More than half of Protestants could not identify Martin Luther as the person who inspired the Protestant Reformation. And about four in 10 Jews did not know that Maimonides, one of the greatest rabbis and intellectuals in history, was Jewish.

The survey released Tuesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life aimed to test a broad range of religious knowledge, including understanding of the Bible, core teachings of different faiths and major figures in religious history. The U.S. is one of the most religious countries in the developed world, especially compared to largely secular Western Europe, but faith leaders and educators have long lamented that Americans still know relatively little about religion.

Respondents to the survey were asked 32 questions with a range of difficulty, including whether they could name the Islamic holy book and the first book of the Bible, or say what century the Mormon religion was founded. On average, participants in the survey answered correctly overall for half of the survey questions.

Atheists and agnostics scored highest, with an average of 21 correct answers, while Jews and Mormons followed with about 20 accurate responses. Protestants overall averaged 16 correct answers, while Catholics followed with a score of about 15.

Not surprisingly, those who said they attended worship at least once a week and considered religion important in their lives often performed better on the overall survey. However, level of education was the best predictor of religious knowledge. The top-performing groups on the survey still came out ahead even when controlling for how much schooling they had completed.

On questions about Christianity, Mormons scored the highest, with an average of about eight correct answers out of 12, followed by white evangelicals, with an average of just over seven correct answers. Jews, along with atheists and agnostics, knew the most about other faiths, such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism. Less than half of Americans know that the Dalai Lama is Buddhist, and less than four in 10 know that Vishnu and Shiva are part of Hinduism.

The study also found that many Americans don't understand constitutional restrictions on religion in public schools. While a majority know that public school teachers cannot lead classes in prayer, less than a quarter know that the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that teachers can read from the Bible as an example of literature

How do we measure what is the minimum required to be faithful? Would that not be judgmental? Can knowledge be substituted for ignorance accompanied with love and desire? What can we do to bring people closer to their faiths? What can you do to grow closer in your faith?

(ORIGINAL LINK) FOXNews.com - Survey: Many Americans Know Little About Religion

Weddings dramatically drop in U.S.

 

A perfect storm.

Some using finances as a reason not to. Some seeing it as an archaic tradition of the past. Some wait until their “careers” are at the right place. Some delay it to opt instead to live with the other.

Marriage.

What was once perhaps the greatest gift people had in their earthly lives, has become a commodity to be negotiated. And it is also an institution that is in trouble.

Some excerpts (Italicized):

WASHINGTON – The recession seems to be socking Americans in the heart as well as the wallet: Marriages have hit an all-time low while pleas for food stamps have reached a record high and the gap between rich and poor has grown to its widest ever.

The long recession technically ended in mid-2009, economists say, but U.S. Census data released Tuesday show the painful, lingering effects. The annual survey covers all of last year, when unemployment skyrocketed to 10 percent, and the jobless rate is still a stubbornly high 9.6 percent.

The economic "indicators say we're in recovery, but the impact on families and children will linger on for years," he said.

Take marriage.

In America, marriages fell to a record low in 2009, with just 52 percent of adults 18 and over saying they were joined in wedlock, compared to 57 percent in 2000.

The never-married included 46.3 percent of young adults 25-34, with sharp increases in single people in cities in the Midwest and Southwest, including Cleveland, Phoenix, Los Angeles and Albuquerque, N.M. It was the first time the share of unmarried young adults exceeded those who were married.

Marriages have been declining for years due to rising divorce, more unmarried couples living together and increased job prospects for women. But sociologists say younger people are also now increasingly choosing to delay marriage as they struggle to find work and resist making long-term commitments.

So many of us would claim that marriage is the most important thing. For those that have families, they would attest to giving everything for the sake of their children. Given this, why do we find so many financial reasons to to get married, or have children? For most of human history, mankind has lived in poverty. Of which, during that time, they seemed to do just fine having families without worrying about a flat screen TV or a new dress.

(ORIGINAL LINK) Recession rips at US marriages, expands income gap - Yahoo! News

Health Insurers Stop Selling Child-Only Policies Before Laws Change.

 

Illustrating the continued mess our health care system is in, insurance companies continue the game of chess with the government. This time, we (the pawns) are getting knocked around.

Excerpts italicized:

Major insurance companies are dropping child-only policies just days before the new law requires them to cover sick children, enraging health care advocates who accuse the insurers of abandoning society's most vulnerable.

But the insurers say the new requirement would lead to unexpected and massive costs because parents can wait to buy coverage until their children are sick -- the mandate requiring all Americans to carry insurance doesn't kick in until 2014.

Among the new provisions of the new law that goes into effect Thursday is one that prevents insurers from excluding children under 19 with pre-existing conditions.

But Wellpoint, Cigna, Coventry, Aetna, Humana, United Health and BlueCross BlueShield announced they would no longer offer child-only policies. The move does not affect existing child-only plans, family policies or insurance offered to children through their parents'.

Health insurers said their decision was based on uncertain market conditions

CoventryOne said its decision was driven by "some uncertainties that pose unique challenges that could impact our ability to offer value and meet our continued obligations to existing policyholders," spokesman Matt Eyles said.

But health care advocates are crying foul.

"We're just days away from a new era when insurance companies must stop denying coverage to kids just because they are sick, and now some of the biggest changed their minds and decided to refuse to sell child-only coverage," said Ethan Rome, executive director of the organization.

"The latest announcement by the insurance companies that they won't cover kids is immoral, and to blame their appalling behavior on the new law is patently dishonest .”.

"If the insurance companies can casually turn their backs on sick children now, who will they abandon next?" Rome said. "This offensive behavior by the insurance companies is yet another reminder of why the new law is so important and why the Republicans' call for repeal is so misguided."

Whether it is the government or insurance companies, all I see is people trying to screw over other people. And, of course, it is all in the name of helping people.

(ORIGINAL LINK) FOXNews.com - Do Kids Count? Insurers Stop Selling Child-Only Policies Ahead of ObamaCare Provisions

“8 myths about being single” Touts the joy of being alone.

Leave it to the modern art / science of “ology” to tell us to believe the opposite of everything we hold dear / true. A recent article from Match.com tries to show us how being single is just as good as otherwise.

Excerpts italicized:

Have you heard that single people are miserable and lonely and die alone in their empty apartments where they are eaten by their cats? That’s what I heard, too. So I set out to discover the truth of these matters. Guess what? It is not just the cat thing that’s a myth. All of those insulting claims about the lives of single people are wrong, wrong, wrong! Here’s a rundown of the myths I found while looking at the reality of being unattached today.

Myth #1: Singles are less happy than married people

Boo-hoo, poor you! That’s what friends and family sometimes think of people who are single. They are so wrong! First, most single people are not miserable — not even close. On the average, single people are always on the happy end of the scale; that’s true in every study I know of. Second, getting married hardly changes someone’s happiness at all. Some married people experience a tiny blip in happiness around the time of the wedding. (On an 11-point scale, they are about one-quarter of one point happier.) But that is just a honeymoon effect. They soon go back to being as happy or as unhappy as they were when they were single. Furthermore, only some married people enjoy the honeymoon effect. People who marry and later divorce actually start getting a bit less happy — not more happy — as their wedding day approaches.

“On the average, single people are always on the happy end of the scale; that’s true in every study I know of” ??? Were those studies conducted by the American Society of Single People? Or how about The Coalition Against Marriage ..lol. don’t put a great deal of faith in the studies cited….especially considering how subjective they can be.

Myth #2: Single people favor solitude
Sometimes people say that single people are “alone,” that they “don’t have anyone.” But that’s just a myth. Research shows that single people often have many people in their lives who are important to them. Often, they have a whole network of friends and relatives, and they stay connected with them for decades. After all, they have the time to forge many diverse relationships, which married sorts often don’t.

Assuming this is all true, notice how none of this would equal the depth of the relationship you would have with your partner, not to mention love. Also, as time goes on fewer and fewer of your friends will be single, thus slowly nullifying the above statements argument.

Myth #3: Elderly women live in isolation
Older women, in particular, are often painted as isolated spinsters, but in one study of 50 women who had always been single, 49 of them had close friends and usually they were in touch with those friends every single day. Sixteen of their friendships had lasted more than 40 years.

My grandmother (who is single) would disagree.

Myth #4: Single people don’t live as long as married folks
A serious, intellectual magazine recently printed a story with this headline: “Marry or die.” Seriously. Even the most prestigious publications can get their headlines all wrong when it comes to stories about people who are single. That magazine article ignored the longest-running study of longevity on record. That study started in 1921, with more than 1,000 11-year-olds. Scientists have kept track of these people for as long as they lived. The people who lived the longest were those who stayed single and those who married and stayed married. People who divorced, or who divorced and remarried, had shorter lives. It was consistency, not marriage, that mattered, and the results were the same for men and women.

Notice how they don’t mention that married folks (who did not divorce) beat out everyone else.

Myth #5: Single people are self-centered
Married people are supposedly the ones who reach out to other people and keep families and neighborhoods connected. That’s the story we hear, but it is not what’s really true. National surveys show that single people are more likely to visit, support, contact, and advise their siblings and parents than married or even previously married people. Singles are also more likely to encourage, help, and socialize with their neighbors and friends.

I would not think being married or single would change ones desire to help others.

Myth #6: The children of single parents are destined to live haplessly
These days, forecasts of doom and gloom are often aimed at children who are raised by single parents. To hear the commentators talk about it, you would think that only children raised by married biological parents have a decent shot at a good, healthy, successful life. In my research, though, I was struck by just how overstated those claims actually are. One example comes from the results of a National Drug Abuse Survey, a study of substance abuse among 12- to 17-year-olds. The children of single mothers had low rates of abuse — under 6 percent. And those rates were just 1.2 percent higher than the rates of the children living with married biological parents. Furthermore, two-parent married households did not always have kids with the lowest rates of substance abuse. Teens living with a father and stepmother, for example, had higher rates of substance abuse than teens raised by single mothers.

What constitutes abuse? Spanking? If so, would not all the fathers be considered abusive if they spanked their kids? Again, like with all statistics, they serve what you were looking for in the first place.

Myth #7: Single people are not as healthy as people who get married
Think singletons live an unhealthy life of vice, partying up a storm and eating junk food rather than healthy home-cooked meals? That’s not what the research says. Typically, people who have always been single are very similar in their health to people who are currently married. There is, though, one exception where single people are actually healthier than attached types: married people are more overweight! As for divorce, some research actually shows that people become healthier after they divorce than they were when they were married.

When people are trying to attract the opposite sex, they care more about how they look. So I would think there is some truth to this. Honey, would you grow fat and old with me?? ..lol

Myth #8: Single people waste money on frivolous things for themselves
So you think that singletons splurge and marrieds conserve? If so, then I have just one question for you: Do you know how much weddings cost? Even after the big splash, maybe you thought married folks save up, spend conservatively, and are occasionally called upon to support the more spendthrift single drifters in their clan who racked up credit card debt on fancy shopping sprees and vacations...not so. Coupled-up sorts are no more generous than single people when it comes to giving financial help to family members. As for friends, it is the single people who are there for them. In fact, one study showed that men were much more financially generous to their friends when they were single than they were after they married. When married men divorced, they reverted to their more giving selves. If they remarried, then they went back to being less generous to their friends.

Married people (with kids I imagine) have less time, so they give more money….While single folks have more time (maybe less money) and give more of their time to friends in need….I would agree with this part of their argument, but I would imagine that married couples (in general and outside of the horror that is a wedding ..lol) are more concerned with spending money on things less focuses on themselves.

All and all, I think that people should stop trying to find reasons to justify the way they are living and instead try to live the way God wants us to live.

(ORIGINAL LINK) 8 myths about being single

'I [Heart] Boobies' Bracelets Cause Stir in Schools

 

Is this a product using a topic as serious as cancer, and using shock value to sell a product?

Some excerpts (Italicized):

Bracelets saying "I [Heart] Boobies" are creating a stir in American schools, with arguments exploding about sexual harassment, cancer awareness and snickering adolescents.

The bracelets are the work of the Keep A Breast Foundation, a non-profit that aims to raise awareness about breast cancer.

Schools from Utah to California to Minnesota find the frank use of a slang term for breasts too spicy for the schoolyard, and have instituted all-out bans or requested individual students to remove the bands.

"By disallowing them, we are eliminating the temptation to have inappropriate and potentially sexually harassing conversations."
Keep A Breast defended its decision to include the word "boobies," saying that the bracelets are intended to provoke conversations on touchy subjects.

But, as one commenter noted on the Fox affiliate website, breast cancer is not the only cancer that ruins lives.

"I have several cancer survivors in my family, including breast cancer, colon and thyroid cancers," the commenter wrote. "I don't see too many folks wearing bracelets that say 'I love rectum' or 'I heart lymph'."

Still, for some teenagers, the bands may be nothing more than a chance to show off a forbidden word in a school setting.

It is interesting to see how no one seems to care about people with all of the other deadly forms of cancer. Should I care about you more based on the type of cancer you have?

(ORIGINAL LINK) '[Heart] Boobies' Bracelets Cause Stir in Schools

Government rules that genetically modified salmon needs no labeling.

Wouldn’t you like to know what you’re eating?

As the Food and Drug Administration considers whether to approve genetically modified salmon, one thing seems certain: Shoppers staring at fillets in the seafood department will find it tough to pick out the conventional fish from the one created with genes from another species.

Despite a growing public demand for more information about how food is produced, that won't happen with the salmon because of idiosyncracies embedded in federal regulations.

The FDA says it cannot require a label on the genetically modified food once it determines that the altered fish is not "materially" different from other salmon - something agency scientists have said is true.

Perhaps more surprising, conventional food makers say the FDA has made it difficult for them to boast that their products do not contain genetically modified ingredients.

"The public wants to know and the public has a right to know," said Marion Nestle, a professor in the Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health Department at New York University. "I think the agency has discretion, but it's under enormous political pressure to approve [the salmon] without labeling."

The controversy comes at a time when Americans seem to want to know more about their food - where it is grown, how it is produced and what it contains. Books criticizing industrial agriculture have become bestsellers, farmers markets are expanding and organic food is among the fastest-growing segments of the food industry.

In the European Union and Japan, it is nearly impossible to find genetically modified foods, largely because laws require labeling, said William K. Hallman, director of the Food Policy Institute at Rutgers University. "No one wants to carry products with such a label," he said. "The food companies figure that consumers won't buy it."

Although some consumer advocates maintain there are important differences, the agency's scientists have already said they see no "biologically relevant" variations between the AquAdvantage salmon and traditional salmon.

Consumers could be certain of getting the non-modified version if they bought salmon labeled as "wild," but most salmon consumed in this country is farmed.

Ever since the FDA approved the first genetically altered material for use in food in 1992, when Monsanto developed a synthetic hormone injected into cows to increase milk production, the agency has held that it cannot require food producers to label products as genetically engineered.

In the intervening years, the use of genetically engineered crops has skyrocketed; 93 percent of this year's soybean crop is genetically engineered, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department.

Byproducts of those crops - soy lecithin, for example - are found in thousands of processed foods from chocolate bars to breakfast cereal; none is labeled as containing genetically modified ingredients.

"This to me raises questions about whose interest the FDA is protecting," said Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), who has introduced legislation that would require labeling for genetically engineered food. "They are clearly protecting industry and not the public."

Is it scary to know how much genetically modiefied food we are already eating? Should we have the right to know whether we should eat something that is genetically engineered? Considering that there are laws governing what can be labeled organic (which is arguably good), would it only be fair to label something that is genetically engineered (arguably bad)?

(ORIGINAL LINK) FDA rules won't require labeling of genetically modified salmon

Teen fights school to wear body piercings. Says she belongs to Church of Body Modification.

In a mockery to both organized religion and the 1st Amendment, a family in North Carolina is fighting for the right to wear body piercings in school. Their reason? Is is part of their faith, in the Church of Body Modification.

Some excepts (Italicized):

RALEIGH, N.C. – A soft-spoken 14-year-old's nose piercing has landed her a suspension from school and forced her into the middle of a fight over her First Amendment right to exercise her religion.
Ariana Iacono says she just wants to be a normal teenager at Clayton High School, about 15 miles southeast of Raleigh. She has been suspended since last week because her nose ring violates the Johnston County school system's dress code.


"I think it's kind of stupid for them to kick me out of school for a nose piercing," she said. "It's in the First Amendment for me to have freedom of religion."


Iacono and her mother, Nikki, belong to the Church of Body Modification, a small group unfamiliar to rural North Carolina, but one with a clergy, a statement of beliefs and a formal process for accepting new members.


It's enough to draw the interest of the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has contacted school officials with concerns that the rights of the Iaconos are being violated by the suspension.

Sometimes people just like to be difficult for the sake of it. If you want to fight for a cause, why not fight for something noble?

I am thinking I want to start my own church. The Church Of Sloth. It will be against our beliefs to work hard at any time. :o)

(ORIGINAL LINK) NC teen: Nose ring more than fashion, it's faith - Yahoo! News

At Current Pace, Americans Won’t Be Able To Retire.

 

As more and more Americans come to rely on our national pension system (i.e. Social Security) what will we do if it is not there when we retire?

A new study obtained by CNBC says Americans are $6.6 trillion short of what they need to retire.

 

The study, conducted by Boston College's Center for Retirement Research, says savings have been squeezed by declines in stock and housing values.

The $6.6 trillion figure is based on projections of retirement and income for American workers ages 32-64. The study's authors say they arrived at the amount using conservative assumptions, including a 3 percent rate of return on assets and no further cuts in pension coverage or increases in the Social Security retirement age.

This comes amid recent reports indicating that a White House-created panel is considering proposals to cut Social Security benefits and raise the retirement age.

"The 'Retirement Income Deficit' should be a wake-up call to Americans everywhere," Freese said.

A better question may be: Can we retire? Do we need to learn to take care of ourselves? Should we learn to rely on our families as we are no longer able to take care of ourselves?

(ORIGINAL LINK) Retirement on Hold: American Workers $6 Trillion Short - CNBC

Optical Speed bumps Create Illusion of Little Girl Darting Out In Front Of You. Whiskey Tango.

 

Does this sound like a bad idea? Is this a bit extreme?


Some excerpts (Italicized):


Civil authorities around the world have tried all kinds of tricks to get drivers to slow down: speed bumps, rumble strips, flashing lights, the decoy police cruiser, and of course the good old-fashioned speed trap. The British Columbia 


Automobile Association Traffic Safety Foundation is taking a different tack: scaring the living hell out of drivers. In an effort to brusquely remind drivers of the consequences of wanton acceleration, they’re painting an elongated image of a child chasing a ball into the street in 2-D on the pavement in such a way that it appears three-dimensional.


The painting, like the one above, is being trialed by authorities in a West Vancouver school zone starting yesterday and will be removed after a week of evaluation. From a distance it appears as more or less a smudge, but at a certain distance the stretched image becomes coherent to the driver and appears to rise from the pavement in 3-D. The faster the car is traveling, the faster the image pops into view. A nearby sign bears a motherly admonition: “You’re probably not expecting kids to run into the road.”


It seems like there’s room for epic backfire here, something that reads in the Vancouver Sun like “Driver Runs Down 11 Schoolchildren on Sidewalk After Swerving to Miss Optical Illusion.” But it is an interesting way to trick drivers into thinking about the ramifications of their driving habits. Right after they pull their hearts out of their throats.


Pointing a gun at people would also work, but I doubt many would support such a measure. Furthermore, what would happen if one got used to such warnings, and took them less seriously? Like crying wolf one too many times, the dangers of possibly ignoring the real thing could prove too great.


(ORIGINAL LINK) Illusion of Little Girl Darting Out In Front Of You | Popular Science

Christians pray in Boarded Up church in Indonesia.

Further developments on the stuggles of Christians’ in Indonesia.


Excerpts Italicized:

JAKARTA, Indonesia – Dozens of Christians held prayers inside their boarded-up church near Indonesia's capital Sunday, saying they had as much right as anyone to worship in the world's most populous Muslim country.


They were surrounded by hundreds of police and unarmed security guards.
Using bullhorns, local officials reminded members of the Batak Christian Protestant Church they were banned from the site following an attack on two church leaders by suspected Islamic hard-liners.
"We just want to carry out our obligations as Christians, but authorities are treating us like terrorists," said Advent Tambunan, a member of the congregation in the industrial city of Bekasi.


"There's no justice for us in this country."


Ten people were arrested after last week's attacks, which left one churchgoer hospitalized with a stab wound. Among them was the local leader of the hard-line Islamic Defender's Front, which has led calls for the Christians to leave.


In recent months, the hard-liners have thrown shoes and water bottles at the church members, interrupted sermons with chants of "Infidels!" and dumped piles of feces on the land.


Local officials had seven empty buses on standby outside the Batak Christian's shuttered church Sunday, ready to transport them to an alternate site of worship provided by the government.
But members of the congregation, numbering about 100, refused to budge.
After lengthy negotiations, they were allowed to carry out Sunday services, with the agreement that they would talk later this week about ways to help defuse religious tensions in the neighborhood.

We are lucky….

(ORIGINAL LINK) Christians pray in shuttered church in Indonesia - Yahoo! News

Is That Plastic Container Safe? Not as safe as you think.

Below is an article talking about the safety of plastic bottles. We are not as safe as we think….


Our homes are full of plastic, and the kitchen is no exception. The problem: Chemicals in plastic containers and other kitchenware may leach into the foods or drinks that they're holding. Scientific evidence suggests that some of these chemicals may be harmful to people, especially infants and children.


The two best-studied offenders are bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates. BPA mimics estrogen and has been shown to disrupt hormone and reproductive system function in animals. Research by the National Toxicology Program found a moderate level of concern about its "effects on the brain, behavior and prostate gland in fetuses, infants and children." Phthalates have been shown to disrupt the endocrine system and have led to malformations in the male reproductive system in animals. Studies in humans have found associations between high phthalate exposure and a variety of health concerns including low sperm quality, high waist circumference and insulin resistance.


Researchers are still debating whether phthalates and BPA actually cause these health problems and, if so, how much exposure is necessary to trigger them. While these issues are being figured out, some experts recommend taking a preventive approach: "Minimize contact of food with problematic plastics as a precautionary measure to protect your health," suggests Rolf Halden, PhD, adjunct associate professor of environmental health sciences at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Here are six simple tips for reducing your exposure to the potentially harmful chemicals in plastics.


1. Know the code. Look on the bottom of your plastic to find the recycling symbol (a number between 1 and 7 enclosed in a triangle of arrows). The code indicates the type of plastic you are using and can give you important clues about safety. "We generally say 1, 2, 4 and 5 are considered to be the safest," says Sonya Lunder, senior analyst at the Environmental Working Group. Try to avoid using plastics with 3 or 6, as these leach chemicals that may be harmful. Number 7 is an "other" category that includes BPA-containing plastics called polycarbonates. These plastics, which you should avoid, will have the letters PC printed underneath the 7.


2. Reconsider the microwave. Heat can increase the rate at which chemicals like BPA leach from plastic. Containers labeled "microwave safe" have been tested by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and found to leach extremely small amounts, which the FDA has determined to be safe. However, some experts advise people to keep plastic out of the microwave altogether. "I don't microwave anything in plastic," says Lunder. "It's really easy and fast to put my food into a ceramic or glass container and heat it that way." And never put plastic wrap on top of your food in the microwave, since it can melt. Use wax paper or a paper towel instead.


3. Use it for its intended purpose. Plastics that are designed for single use should only be used once. "Plastic breaks down over time," Lunder explains. "Some aren't designed to withstand heating and cooling." Most plastics with recycling code number 1 are intended for single use, such as disposable water bottles. And that takeout container from six months ago? Toss it. In general they're fine for refrigerating leftovers, but aren't designed for heat exposure or long-term use.


4. Wash by hand. Only put plastics into the dishwasher if they have a dishwasher safe label. If you want to be extra-cautious, wash all plastics by hand or use only glass and ceramic plates and dishes. In the dishwasher, plastics are exposed to detergents and heat, which may accelerate the leaching of BPA from food containers.


5. Do not freeze. Only put plastics in the freezer if they have a freezer-safe label. Freezer temperatures can cause plastics to deteriorate, which increases the leaching of chemicals into the food when you take containers out of the freezer to thaw or reheat.


6. Don't panic. Cutting down on exposure to potentially harmful chemicals in plastics can benefit your health. But as Dr. Halden reminds us, "Many things in your life pose a much higher risk than exposure to plastics, such as smoking, poor diet and even driving a car."


Food for thought

(ORIGINAL LINK) Is That Plastic Container Safe?

U.S. Appeals court reverses landmark computer privacy ruling.

Privacy is becoming a thing of the past….


Some excerpts (Italicized):


Bowing to the Obama administration, a federal appeals court Monday gutted its own decision that had dramatically narrowed the government's search-and-seizure powers in the digital age.


The 9-2 ruling by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals nullifies Miranda-style guidelines the court promulgated last year that were designed to protect Fourth Amendment privacy rights during court-authorized computer searches. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, as solicitor general last year, had urged the court to reverse itself amid complaints that federal prosecutions were being complicated, and computer searches were grinding to a halt, because of the detailed guidelines.


The original ruling required the government to cull specific data described in the search warrant, rather than copy entire hard drives. When that's not possible, the feds were advised to use an independent third party under the court's supervision, whose job it would be to comb through the files for the specific information, and provide it, and nothing else, to the government. The ruling said judges should "deny the warrant altogether" if the government does not consent to such a plan in data-search cases.


If enough citizens decide to fight back,  what would it take to reverse this? I am afraid the only thing that could change this would be congress adopting a constitutional amendment? Do 2/3rd’s of the Congress want to protect us as such?

(ORIGINAL LINK) Appeals court guts landmark computer privacy ruling – ArsTechnica

FOXNews.com - Sixth Suspect Arrested in U.K. Over Threat to Pope

 

We live in a country of relative tolerance. In a country so similar to our own, the dangers of being Catholic are perhaps exemplified.

Article posted in its entirety:

British police staged a pre-dawn raid at a London garbage depot Friday, arresting five street cleaners in a suspected terrorist plot against Pope Benedict XVI on the second day of his state visit to Britain. A sixth person was arrested later in the day.

The Vatican said the pope was calm despite the arrests and planned no changes to his schedule. But the arrests overshadowed a major address by Benedict to British politicians, businessmen and cultural leaders about the need to restore faith and ethics to public policymaking.

Acting on a tip, police detained the men, aged 26 to 50, under the Terrorism Act at a cleaning depot in central London after receiving information about a possible threat. The men were being questioned at a London police station and have not been charged. Police said an initial search of that business and other properties did not uncover any hazardous items.

Police said the five were arrested "on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism." Police said a sixth man -- a 29-year-old -- was arrested later in the day at his home but no other details were immediately available.

(Pope Benedict XVI, right, attends a Service of Prayer at St Mary's University College Chapel at Twickenham, London Friday Sept. 17, 2010. Thousands of cheering Catholic schoolchildren feted Pope Benedict XVI on his second day in Britain on Friday, offering a boisterous welcome even as the pontiff urged their teachers to make sure to provide a trusting, safe environment.)

The pope's visit has divided opinion in officially Protestant, highly secular Britain. The trip has been overshadowed by disgust over the Catholic Church's clerical abuse scandal and opposition from secularists and those opposed to the pope's stances against homosexuality and using condoms to fight the virus that leads to AIDS.

The detained suspects worked for a contractor on behalf of Westminster Council, the authority responsible for much of central London. Benedict spent much of the afternoon in Westminster Hall and Westminster Abbey; the depot were the men were arrested is responsible for cleaning another part of London that the pope is not due to visit, however, police said.

Police confirmed that some of the suspects were thought to be from outside Britain but declined to comment on media reports they were of Algerian origin.

One street sweeper at the depot, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said at least one of those arrested was Algerian, and that he believed all five arrested in the morning were from North Africa.

Veolia Environmental Services, the cleaners' company, had no immediate comment on the arrests.

At the scene of the arrests in Chiltern Street, close to London's Madame Tussauds' tourist attraction, police cordoned off part of the road, removing items from the Veolia depot and examining nearby garbage cans.

The pope's security on this trip has been visibly higher than on previous foreign trips, and Vatican officials have acknowledged that Britain represents a higher security threat than the other European countries Benedict has visited this year, including Portugal, Malta and Cyprus.

News of the arrests came as the pope was meeting representatives of other religions, including Muslims and Jews, and stressing the need for mutual respect, tolerance and freedom. The Vatican said the pope was informed of the arrests and was pleased he could stick to his schedule.
"We have complete trust in the police," Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi told reporters. "The police are taking the necessary measures. The situation is not particularly dangerous."

"The pope is happy about this trip and is calm."

Hours after the arrests, Benedict met with the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the spiritual leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion, at his London residence. The meeting came amid new tensions following Benedict's unprecedented decision last year to make it easier for Anglicans opposed to the ordination of women bishops to convert to Catholicism.

Benedict and Williams greeted each other warmly. Benedict said flat-out he had no intention of speaking of difficulties "that are well known to everyone here." Rather, he stressed the need for Christians to work together and bring a greater sense of virtue into public discourse.

Williams, who has not hidden his dismay over the Vatican's invitation to conservative Anglicans, also stressed the ongoing effort to bring the two churches back together, saying each side was "made less by the fact of our dividedness."

He praised Benedict for his constant call to bring faith into public policy -- a theme Benedict explored further in a speech in Westminster Hall attended by former Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, who recently converted to Catholicism.
Benedict praised Britain's democracy as a model worldwide for valuing freedom of speech and respect for law.

But he lamented that religion, particularly Christianity, was increasingly being marginalized from political decision-making, citing as an example the global financial crisis, which he has blamed on an absence of strong ethical foundations in economic policy.

"There are those who would advocate that the voice of religion be silenced, or at least relegated to the purely private sphere," he said. "There are those who argue that the public celebration of festivals such as Christmas should be discouraged, in the questionable belief that it might somehow offend those of other religions or none."

"These are worrying signs of a failure to appreciate not only the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, but also the legitimate role of religion in the public square."

Benedict travels with his own security detail, headed by chief papal bodyguard Domenico Giani. Benedict's white, bulletproof Popemobile is flanked by eight to 10 dark-suited bodyguards who jog alongside, scanning crowds for potential threats.

There have been no major known attempts against Benedict during his five-year papacy, although he was knocked down at Christmas Eve Mass in 2009 by a mentally unstable woman who jumped the security barricade inside St. Peter's Basilica. In 2007, a man jumped the barricade in St. Peter's Square and grabbed the pope's vehicle before being pushed to the ground by guards.

Benedict's predecessor Pope John Paul II was wounded in an assassination attempt in 1981 in St. Peter's Square. Police in the Philippines also disrupted an alleged plot to assassinate John Paul in Manila in 1995.

Benedict was nearly 30 minutes late for his first event Friday morning; the Vatican attributed the delay at the time to logistical problems. It wasn't known if the arrests contributed to the delay.

The pope was then given a boisterous welcome by thousands of cheering Catholic schoolchildren at St. Mary's University College in London, where he urged young people to ignore the shallow temptations of today's "celebrity culture."

Benedict also told their teachers to make sure to provide the children with a trusting, safe environment -- the second time in as many days that he has referred to the church sex abuse scandal. On Thursday, the pope acknowledged that the Roman Catholic Church had failed to act quickly or decisively enough to remove pedophile priests from ministry.

"Our responsibility toward those entrusted to us for their Christian formation demands nothing less," Benedict said. "Indeed, the life of faith can only be effectively nurtured when the prevailing atmosphere is one of respectful and affectionate trust."

Polls in Britain indicate widespread dissatisfaction with the way Benedict has handled the sex abuse scandal, with Catholics nearly as critical of him as the rest of the population.

Outside the London university hall, some 4,000 young students, outfitted in prim school uniforms and waving small white-and-yellow Holy See flags, serenaded the pontiff Friday with gospel hymns and songs.

The students, from England, Scotland and Wales, gave Benedict a tie-dyed stole and three books tracing the history of the Catholic Church in Great Britain. The 83-year-old Benedict appeared relaxed and happy, gently greeting children and kissing them on the head.

In a surprise move, Becky Gorrod, 39, who had been standing outside the gates of St. Mary's holding her 8-month-old daughter Alice, was ushered in to meet the pontiff as the crowd cheered.
"My husband's never going to believe me," Gorrod told journalists. "They opened the car door, and the pope got out. Then the (pacifier) fell out of Alice's mouth, and the pope bent down and picked it up! The pope! How mad is that?"

She said the pope then kissed Alice on the forehead.
A few blocks away, about 30 people protested, holding up inflated condoms and posters.

"Condoms are not crimes," read one. Another read: "Science flies you to the moon: religion flies you into buildings."

Michael Clark, 60, said he was protesting because he was gay and annoyed that the pope's visit was expected to cost British taxpayers 12 million pounds ($18.7 million) for security.

"That means it's being supported by taxpayers and people who may not have the same ideas," Clark said. "Sexuality is not evil."

Benedict began his four-day U.K. state visit on Thursday, greeted by Queen Elizabeth II at Holyroodhouse Palace in Edinburgh, Scotland. He wraps it up Sunday in Birmingham when he beatifies the 19th century Anglican convert Cardinal John Henry Newman.

Catholics are a minority in Britain at 10 percent, and until the early 19th century they endured harsh persecution and discrimination and were even killed for their faith. King Henry VIII broke with Rome in the 16th century after he was denied a marriage annulment.

(ORIGINAL LINK) FOXNews.com - Sixth Suspect Arrested in U.K. Over Threat to Pope

The Strength of the Catholic Church in Scotland

A taste of things to come….


Most of the article is posted below:


When Pope John Paul II preached in Glasgow in 1982, the crowd was estimated at 300,000.
On Thursday, fewer than a third of that number will be in Bellahouston Park as his successor, Benedict XVI celebrates Mass.


John Paul told his congregation he was full of admiration for the plans of Scottish bishops to use his visit to promote the spiritual renewal of the country.


But if it happened, its effects have not lasted.


Scotland's Catholic population has fallen by 18% since 1982; baptisms are down 39%; and the number of people marrying in Catholic churches has plunged by 63%.

The number of priests is also falling.

In 1982 all but two parishes in the Glasgow archdiocese were served by two or more priests.
Now, Canon Robert Hill at St Patrick's in Anderston says being on your own is the norm.
"Many of us now have shared responsibilities: I myself have two parishes to look after.


"Most priests have at least one other ministry, school chaplaincy, hospital chaplaincy, so I suppose what I am saying is the same work has to be done with fewer people."


Smiling, he said in the old days, he could have come home in the evening to share dinner with other priests. Now he is more likely to have to make his own meal.


Scotland is increasingly secular, and the dwindling congregations are not a problem uniquely confronting the Catholic church.


'New era'


According to the Reverend Doug Gay, an ordained minister who lectures in practical theology at Glasgow University, all churches are now "running hot" and storing up problems for their priests and ministers.


"The implications of that are severe for many of the clergy involved because they are having to work harder and in some cases having to retire later, and there's a fair amount of discouragement around amongst people because of this," he said.


Dr Gay added: "There are also implications in that churches have to plan for a new era and they are going to have to do things differently, they're going to have to involve lay people in the churches to do far more than they did previously.





(More than 300,000 attended Bellahouston Park in 1982 during Pope John Paul II's visit)


"And you can see this in both the Roman Catholic church, but also the Church of Scotland; new patterns of ministry, and more flexible approaches to ordination."


One way the Catholic church is confronting its dwindling manpower is through the use of permanent deacons.


Although there are about 40,000 around the world, Scotland has resisted the idea until recently, and now there are more than 50.


Deacons - one of the oldest offices in the church - are ordained to proclaim the Gospel and bring the Word to the community.


Twelve were appointed in Glasgow in 2009; a further three in 2010.
Michael O'Donnell is one. A married man with children, he says he can take on many of a priest's responsibilities, augmenting their work rather than replacing them.


"What we do in the deaconate is rather than just being in the church, we're taking the church into the community," he said.


"So it's working with the priests, not instead of the priest, or due to a shortage; it's working with the people; it's the people of God, and we all have a role within that."


The Catholic Church insists it is not fixated with the size of its flock.


But it has pointed out that since the current pope was elected, there has been an increase in the number of men training to become priests in Scotland.


What could this mean for the future of the church in Scotland?  Does the state of the church in Scotland reflect the state of the church in the rest of the world? Should we focus so much on numbers, or in the relative strength of those that are faithful? Personally, I’d like to see both increase.

(ORIGINAL LINK) BBC News - Strength of the Catholic Church in Scotland

U.S. Poverty Posts Record Gain. Getting Worse.

Poverty in the U.S. is going up.


Some excerpts (Italicized):


Bowing to the Obama administration, a federal appeals court Monday gutted its own decision that had dramatically narrowed the government's search-and-seizure powers in the digital age.


The 9-2 ruling by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals nullifies Miranda-style guidelines the court promulgated last year that were designed to protect Fourth Amendment privacy rights during court-authorized computer searches. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, as solicitor general last year, had urged the court to reverse itself amid complaints that federal prosecutions were being complicated, and computer searches were grinding to a halt, because of the detailed guidelines.


The original ruling required the government to cull specific data described in the search warrant, rather than copy entire hard drives. When that's not possible, the feds were advised to use an independent third party under the court's supervision, whose job it would be to comb through the files for the specific information, and provide it, and nothing else, to the government. The ruling said judges should "deny the warrant altogether" if the government does not consent to such a plan in data-search cases.


"The most important anti-poverty effort is growing the economy and making sure there are enough jobs out there," Obama said Friday at a White House news conference. He stressed his commitment to helping the poor achieve middle-class status and said, "If we can grow the economy faster and create more jobs, then everybody is swept up into that virtuous cycle."
Should those estimates hold true, some 45 million people in this country, or more than 1 in 7, were poor last year. It would be the highest single-year increase since the government began calculating poverty figures in 1959.


Democrats almost certainly will argue that they shouldn't be blamed. They're likely to counter that the economic woes — and the poverty increase — began under President George W. Bush with the near-collapse of the financial industry in late 2008.


There is an argument for giving responsibility of some of what is happening to the Bush administration, but the first year and a half of the Obama administration was largerly focuses on issues other than the economy (i.e. health care). They will likely pay for this in the upcoming elections.


What is poverty? Has our view of poverty changed over the centuries? Is the American idea of poverty the same as the Nigerian? What can we do to help those in poverty to escape it?

(ORIGINAL LINK) FOXNews.com - U.S. Poverty on Track to Post Record Gain Under Obama's Watch

Food expiration dates: What they really mean.

Would it be nice to know that our food lasts longer than what is printed?

Some excerpts (Italicized):

Are you one of those people who pour the milk down the drain on the expiration date?

Expiration dates on food products can protect consumer health, but those dates are really more about quality than safety, and if not properly understood, they can also encourage consumers to discard food that is perfectly safe to eat.

• Milk: If properly refrigerated, milk will remain safe, nutritious, and tasty for about a week after the sell-by date and will probably be safe to drink longer than that, though there’s a decline in nutritional value and taste.

• Cottage cheese: Pasteurized cottage cheese lasts for 10-14 days after the date on the carton.

• Mayonnaise: Unopened, refrigerated Kraft mayonnaise can be kept for 30 days after its expiration date or 3-4 months after opening, the company told ShelfLifeAdvice.

• Yogurt: Yogurt will remain good 7-10 days after its sell-by date.

• Eggs: Properly refrigerated eggs should last at least 3-5 weeks after the sell-by date, according to Professor Joe Regenstein, a food scientist at Cornell University. Note: Use of either a sell-by or expiration (EXP) date is not federally required, but may be state required, as defined by the egg laws in the state where the eggs are marketed.

The “Use-By” Date

The “use-by” or “best if used-by” date indicates the last day that the item is at its best quality as far as taste, texture, appearance, odor, and nutritional value. The decline after that is gradual. The use-by date refers to product that has not yet been opened.

The “Sell By” Date

The “sell by” date is not really a matter of food safety, but a notice to stores that the product should be taken off the shelf because it will begin to decline in quality after that date.

The Law

From the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA): “Product dating is not generally required by federal regulations. However, if a calendar date is used, it must express both the month and day of the month (and the year, in the case of shelf-stable and frozen products). If a calendar date is shown, immediately adjacent to the date must be a phrase explaining the meaning of that date such as "sell-by" or "use before."

There is no uniform or universally accepted system used for food dating in the United States. Although dating of some foods is required by more than 20 states, there are areas of the country where much of the food supply has some type of open date and other areas where almost no food is dated.”

Could this alter your food purchasing or disposal habits? Definitely some “food” for thought.

(ORIGINAL LINK) Food expiration dates: What do they really mean? | Yahoo! Green