I don't propose myself as an expert. However, I live amongst, work with, socialize with and talk to people from and in various parts of the world. I work in a very interational workplace, probably more than 90% are other than American or North American. I have traveled widely and lived in various countries. The media I get hear and read is broadbased, not just the American viewpoint.
You aren't popping my bubble. I understand that some people choose ignorance over knowledge...It comes as no surprise. I am giving my opinion based on my observations, direct observation. Take it in any way you like, as you would anyone else's opinion.
It is an indication of your lack of knowledge and understand of the greater world when you say you don't 'set any store' in how the world percieves America. That perspective is one of the problems America has: Americans with very provincial view points. Every other governent in the world and all the people in them are 'media lap dogs,' except you that is. I did indeed mean to say Caucasions are the minority in the US. Look up the statistics. Add together all the 'minorities' or those who are other than 'white' and you will find that the whites, as a statistical grouping, are in the minority. A woman just ran for president and she was repeatedly and widely ridiculed for doing so based in large part on her gender. Something that simply does not happen in other countries. What conditioned response to Bush? Talk to some people who live outside the US. My comments are based solely on what others have said to me. He was/is almost universally regarded as a buffoon and a failure as both president and statesman. It is not the desire to want our president to be liked around the world that is the issue, unless you are 13 maybe. It is necessary that he is respected and that he gains the support of other world leaders and peoples around the world. If deeply affects his ability to govern, for us, on the world stage. Again, your lack of understanding about this simple points out your lack of knowledge and vision about the broader world.
I always find it amusing when someone who has made an obviously suggestive point tries to turn it around by disingenuous. You may be kidding yourself, which I doubt, but you are not kidding me. You meant exactly that. If not, please clearly explain exactly what point you were making in pointedly telling me you had lived in the US for 40 years.
Yes, of course. But what I am talking about is looking at things statistically. The media tends to give us skewed impressions of how things are...how prevelant certain things are. For example, one airplane crash in which hundreds die is too many, yet they happen. However, it is far safer statistically to fly than to drive down the autobahn or the freeway or expressway. Statiscally...flying is very safe, even with the terrorist threat today. But a lot of people are afraid to fly. Also, the terrorist threat: statistically, for any one individual in our society, the probability of being involved in a terrorist attack is miniscule, yet everyone feels threatened by it. The media plays up the threat, which makes the terrorists have more power. In the same way, the media plays up the idea of the failure of marriage. Which makes more people have a negative attitude about marriage. When in truth, though the situation is not great, it is not as bad as we often tend to think it is.
Yes, I know, my mistake. However, you did say that in long term marriages often people are miserable and just staying together for the children. In my personal experience/observation, I do not find this to be true. With the people I know, their children have now grown and are out on their own. The parents are nearing or are retiring and are spending time doing things they planned to do, like travel, and are enjoying their grandchildren. I don't think it is true that most long term marriages are miserable. We tend to make assumptions or exaggerate based on the examples of a few. It's like in the media: we here about something going on, like school shootings, and start thinking it's happening everywhere, when, in fact, the number of school shootings is miniscule compared to the number of schools there are.
Actually the marriages that survive are not few and far between, that statement contradicts the stats you yourself posted: if 50% of marriages fail, 50% succeed.
I know a lot of people who have been married 20 or 30 years or more who have good marriages. Most of my friends are like this, in fact. They have gone through some rough times, some I know for sure, others probably, every one does. But they have what I consider good marriages, good relationships. One of my friends, her and her husband recently retired. However, he has a genetic heart problem and now cannot travel. They had planned on traveling together a lot in retirement, but now she sometimes travels alone. She cried when she told me how sad she was he and she couldn't travel together. After over 30 years of marriage.
Remember that though the divorce rate is high (I think it's not actually 50%) that's half or more than half of all marriages that do not end in divorce. Means it can work and is not all bad.
Has it ever occured to you that American news and American reality and perspective is not the only thing in this world. There are news chanels from other countries who also have a perspective on world events, and the Obama presidency is extremely important in world events. Fox news and it's perspective is probably the antithesis of the perpective projected my most other news chanels around the world, which mean, if all the other news chanels in America have a similar view to each other but a different view to Fox, and most if not all of the chanels around the world have a similar view as CNN, NBC, etc., means Fox is kind of out there, and kind of a minority view.....so, therefore, most of the rest of the world is unfairly biased .... but not Fox new?
tainogirl--I think the sophistication of these groups is a reflection of the times; terrorist groups are also getting more sophisticated. The way they function, manipulate, recruit, etc., is inhanced by better technology and by media savy.
As far as the Obama presidency inspiring a stronger reaction amonst those who hate anyway, it's possible. I expect, and hope, to see him work to bring people together. It's people who feel disinfranchised who get angry and resentful. It's an additional task to an already overwhelming job, but he needs to make sure that everyone, no matter what race, ethnicity, etc., feels they are recognized and valued in our society, even if they are not technically a minority. I'm sure he realizes he needs to bring people together. There will always be those who hate him, no matter what, simply for being black, and/or a democrat. One of his tasks is to make sure those people don't have fodder for recruiting anyone who may be borderline. I am excited and hopeful about this administration.
I think you can only do it if it doesn't jeopardy your own job. For me, I support myself, if I lose my job, there is no one to fall back on, so I can't do something that I know would jeopardize my job. If it would not threaten my job, yes I would say something if the co-worker were a friend. It seems to me an odd, strange situation that others would know someone is going to be fired, unless you are managerial or in personal. If you are a manager, it is probably, unfortunately,not appropriate for you to discuss with a worker who is going to be fired that he is going to be fired: one of the downsides to being management.
Arming teachers and especially janitors (and no disrespect to them, my father was a janitor, though not in a school---but janitors are not trained professionals in dealing with children) is CRAZY.
In the States, there are some schools that have security all day or part of the day. If those people are well trained, allowing them to have access to a firearm, not carry it around the school but have access to it, might be reasonable. But to arm faculty, admin, staff is insane.
The best solution is to place in all schools security people who are trained professionals, trained not only in security but in dealing with young people. They are visable and present on the campus all day long. Then mingle constantly with the kids. Kids talk. A school is like a small town, everybody knows everything about everyone else...as far as the student population. These people generally know how to get the trust of most of the kids. They can know almost everything that is going on beneath surface. If there is reason to become concerned about the behavior of some students, they are usually able to suss it out and deal with it.
I have taught in schools who have full time security people who do this. They do not carry firearms. They are armed with brains, training, and understanding of teenagers and adolescents. Why such people are not in every school in the nation has to do with money, plain and simple.
This is the worst argument ever. I'm a teacher. I would never be armed, at school or anywhere else. I don't want any of colleagues to be armed, not the administrators, and especially not "other staff," and, in fact, not anyone on a school campus. It is ironic to me that invariably those who propose this measure are not the ones who are in the schools day in and day out with the kids. How could anyone really think the best thing to do is to turn schools into armed camps? This is a social issue that needs to be dealt with from it's impetus, not to be dealt with in a simplistic reactionary manner.
I can understand that people like smoking and don't like being treated as pariahs for smoking; what I can't understand is the denial of all the many, many negative things it does to the body, the very serious health risks it causes. Smoke, okay. But at least accept and acknowledge what it does to the body.
Most people know that smoking can cause lung cancer, but it can also cause many other cancers and illnesses.
Cigarettes contain more than 4000 chemical compounds and at least 400 toxic substances.
Research has shown that smoking reduces life expectancy by seven to eight years
The number of people under the age of 70 who die from smoking-related diseases exceeds the total figure for deaths caused by breast cancer, AIDS, traffic accidents and drug addiction.
Non-smokers and ex-smokers can look forward to a healthier old age than smokers.
Smoking accelerates the hardening and narrowing process in your arteries: it starts earlier and blood clots are two to four times more likely.
Coronary thrombosis: a blood clot in the arteries supplying the heart, which can lead to a heart attack. Around 30 per cent are caused by smoking.
Cerebral thrombosis: the vessels to the brain can become blocked, which can lead to collapse, stroke and paralysis.[/ b]
If the kidney arteries are affected, then high blood pressure or kidney failure results. Blockage to the vascular supply to the legs may lead to gangrene and amputation.
Smokers tend to develop coronary thrombosis 10 years earlier than non-smokers, and make up 9 out of 10 heart bypass patients.
Smokers are more likely to get cancer than non-smokers. This is particularly true of lung cancer, throat cancer and mouth cancer, which hardly ever affect non-smokers.
If you smoke, the risk of contracting mouth cancer is four times higher than for a non-smoker. Cancer can start in many areas of the mouth, with the most common being on or underneath the tongue, or on the lips.
Other types of cancer that are more common in smokers are: bladder cancer cancer of the oesophagus cancer of the kidneys cancer of the pancreas cervical cancer
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a collective term for a group of conditions that block airflow and make breathing more difficult, such as:
emphysema - breathlessness caused by damage to the air sacs (alveoli) chronic bronchitis - coughing with a lot of mucus that continues for at least three months.
Smoking is the most common cause of COPD and is responsible for 80 per cent of cases.
It's estimated that 94 per cent of 20-a-day smokers have some emphysema when the lungs are examined after death, while more than 90 per cent of non-smokers have little or none.
In smokers, the rate of decline in lung function can be three times the usual rate.
Smoking raises blood pressure, which can cause hypertension, a risk factor for heart attacks and stroke.
Heavy smokers are twice as likely to get macular degeneration, resulting in the gradual loss of eyesight.
Smokers run an increased risk of cataracts.
Smokers take 25 per cent more sick days year than non-smokers.
Smoking stains your teeth and gums.
Smoking increases your risk of periodontal disease, which causes swollen gums, bad breath and teeth to fall out.
Smoking causes an acid taste in the mouth and contributes to the development of ulcers.
With respect, I am not suggesting I have a crystal ball. If you are a smoker and have been for, let's say, 40 or nearly 40 years, it doesn't take a crystal ball to say you not only will have health issues, you already do, sorry, but that is a claim backed up by all the scientific medical knowledge currently available. You may appear to be in 'better shape'than most, but you are not in better shape than a non smoker, again, backed up by medical research. Of course, a man who is very overweight and has a regular very poor diet, who doesn't exercise, is also in poor health. But smoking is not only as bad as those things, but worse. Sorry. Not meaning to offend you.
I have read that it can be a good idea to try dating someone who goes against what you think your type is. No so much physically, as we do need to date people we are physically attracted to, but say if your genally go for the stock broker type, try dating an artist, that type of thing. If you are usually interested in only musicians, try dating a businessman.
I wouldn't date a smoker. I did once, for about 6 months. He seldom smoked around me. I didn't break up with him because of the smoking, but I also would never have gotten really serious about him unless he quit. But I wasn't that serious, so it wasn't a big issue. However, that was years ago. I was a former smoker then. In the intervening years, some years after that relationship, I took up smoking again for a couple of years. I hate being a smoker. I realize that being around people who smoke can lead to my smoking, so I do not spend time with smokers anymore. I would not date a man who smoked, whether he smoked around me or not. Whether he was polite and went outside to smoke or whatever, just wouldn't do it. Especially at our age, it is so destructive and leads to other problems, including ED, which can be a result of general poor health. And it stinks.
Your question implies some sort of desperation on the part of women? That we should accept someone whose lifestyle is about 100% different than our own so we can find a partner? Not likely. There are plenty of men who don't smoke, in fact, most of the men I meet are non-smokers. I think if you are interested in a woman who doesn't smoke, maybe you should consider being the one who compromises rather than her. You are 54 years old and probably you've been smoking ll of your adult life: you will have, as a result, many health issues, not the least of which is endurance.... I'm interest in men who take care of themselves and value their health, so no, I wouldn't consider a man who smokes: if it is a choice of that or being alone, which it isn't, I'll be alone.
I guess I got the wrong url or something: it's supposed to be a video of Bill Cosby doing the Noah's Ark bit....very funny....The other thing is wierd, I agree.
I generally don't even notice what people wear, unless it is something that really stands out because it is so strange: then I find it kind of interesting. I am bothered by too much skin hanging out, especially if it is a lot of blubbery fat....ick. But, really, just don't care or pay attention to what other people wear. I was just recently told that most women no longer wear skirts normally. I didn't realize that as I wear one most days, to work. So I started looking around and taking note and it seems to be true: the vast majority of women are wearing jeans or slacks, few wear skirts, even those in the city going to work. But, was surprised, had no idea. Clothes and fashion: not something I pay a lot of attention to.
amelia7 Forum Posts (162)
RE: HATE IN THE AGE OF OBAMA
I don't propose myself as an expert. However, I live amongst, work with, socialize with and talk to people from and in various parts of the world. I work in a very interational workplace, probably more than 90% are other than American or North American. I have traveled widely and lived in various countries. The media I get hear and read is broadbased, not just the American viewpoint.You aren't popping my bubble. I understand that some people choose ignorance over knowledge...It comes as no surprise. I am giving my opinion based on my observations, direct observation. Take it in any way you like, as you would anyone else's opinion.