Mindconnection eNL, 2014-11-16

Home
 

In this issue:
Good News | Product Highlight | Brainpower | Finances | Security | Health/Fitness | Factoid | Thought 4 the Day

With the recent fake "election" here in the USA, control of the Senate nominally went from the Demopublicans to the Republocrats. This probably means nothing in itself; it won't be enough to get the narcissistic psychopath indicted and it probably won't be enough to repeal the disaster known as the Unaffordable Care Act.

But what it does mean, and this is very good news, the titular leader is no longer the pro-crime, anti-liberty, civil rights hating psychopath Harry Reid.

The Senate Majority leader will, starting next year, be Mitch McConnell. Senator McConnell has an A+ rating from the nation's largest civil rights organization (or maybe it's just an A, but he has been out front defending what few remaining liberties we have).

The upshot there is Barry Soetoro's war against the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 10th Amendments should effectively grind to a halt. That will leave him with only the economy to attack, but to do that he will need to get past a Senate that won't simply bow before him.

Of course, he could just keep spewing Executive Orders. But consider that the folks who control these fake "elections" and produce the outcome they want regardless of how people actually vote did not, this time, give Soetoro a captive CONgress.

Now, why would they initiate a change of policy? Basically, people are angry. Very angry. Polls taken outside the various voting places overwhelmingly showed seething resentment against our dictator. People said they wanted him to have less power. People said they were sick of what he was doing to the country. And, most telling, the vast majority were not just mildly displeased but said the country was "very much going in the wrong direction." [The typical poll asks you to choose from various levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and the vast majority of those polled selected the maximum dissatisfaction].

Faced with the possible uprising of 310 million angry citizens (minus whatever number of them are zombies), the criminals who put the narcissistic psychopath in office backed off.

Not only are they sweating We The People, they can no longer assume they have eliminated that third branch of government (judicial) at the federal level. Sure, they bought or intimidated the Supreme Court into giving a crazy ruling on ObummerCare, but in the lower courts that particular scam has lost 91% of the decided cases brought against it. This is another form of uprising, and it's entirely within the existing legal framework. That makes it very powerful.

The response to all of this opposition to the rampant crime is very, very good news. Let's keep the pressure up. Let these whackos know we are past our tolerance point for the lawlessness, financial carnage, and assaults on our liberties.

We are tired of the brazen lying and the fake statistics (such as Soteoro's claiming he reduced unemployment to 8% or whatever, while he actually took aggressive actions that boosted it to 51%).

If they hear this enough, they will respond in our favor. We know that is the case, because of their response to last week's strongly negative voter sentiments. And just how far will they go to avoid the backlash? Maybe if they are pushed hard enough by people speaking out, we will still see the narcissistic psychopath indicted on a few hundred federal charges.

The questioner usually expects me to recommend some sort of androgen supplement or "legal steroid." For years, my answer has been "A good MRP." MRP stands for "Meal Replacement Powder."

The problem with this recommendation today is the word "good." It seems that all the good ones are no longer available, and the products that are left contain corn syrup or some derivative thereof. Corn syrup is an endocrine disruptor, and unless you want to gain fat and lose muscle you should not consume it.

Not only that, the protein base for most of these is pus-contaminated milk from cows that are fed RoundUp-contaminated grains.

There is an interesting solution to this problem. You can solve the RoundUp issue by using FundAminos. This also solves the cost issue, as you only a tiny scoop of FundAminos to give you the same benefits as two large scoops of protein powder.

Research has proven this product to be almost 100% utilized by the body and five times more effective than protein powders in providing your body with the foundational building blocks it needs for optimal cellular function, maintenance, and repair.

So mix the following with water, for a great-tasting, muscle-feeding, lean body MRP:

• Tiny scoop of Fund Aminos.
• Two scoops (use a protein powder scooper) of raw oats. Great carb source.

It's that simple. For variety, you can add cinnamon and (half a scoop of ) raisins if you want. And take a good multivitamin such as VM.

Another variation is to fortify it with micronutrients by adding the very refreshing Chocoberry Blast Super Food Source. Packed with a powerful blend of more than 50 different fruits, vegetables, and botanicals, Chocoberry Blast gives you a healthy dose of super food concentrates, micronutrients, and antioxidants. It even contains kale (the miracle vegetable). It's perfect for when you travel (or commute) and can't take your organic garden with you.

As a Senior Member of the world's largest technical society (the IEEE), I've long enjoyed peer-reviewed articles. In the engineering world, peer review is alive and well. In the scientific world, it's a different story.

Before I go further, let me explain what "peer reviewed" means. There are actually several variations, but the most common one has to do with pre-publication review. Before an article or paper can be published in the particular journal or trade magazine in which the author seeks publication, it must be reviewed by other subject matter experts. So if someone tries to slide sloppy research, weak analysis, or faulty logic into an article the article won't be published.

Often, a publication has a technical editor (either on staff or in a consultant/freelance arrangement) who is generally knowledgeable and who has many industry contacts. This person will send the article around to a few subject matter experts (presumably peers of the author) and then, based on feedback, ask the author to make corrections as a condition of publication.

There are other methods for peer review. It's not the exact method that is of importance, it's the fact that the publication doesn't just run something because someone sent it in and claims it's all true.

I've personally been involved in a few editorial scrapes, having to play the "bad guy" who says no to a submission that was based on pseudo-science. Sometimes, there's a lot of money at stake and the effort of preventing propagandastic scam publishing meets with fierce resistance. I've seen a few editorial integrity failures in the engineering world of publications, but they are rare and they are usually followed by an outcry that is followed by something substantial that sets the record straight.

But this is in the world of engineering, where a particular personality type dominates.

In science, things are very different. In science, "peer reviewed" can mean anything from "it was actually peer reviewed" to "look hard and you might actually find some truth in here."

Discover Magazine reported on this problem in its November, 2014 issue. Some tidbits:

• The Office of Research Integrity received over 400 allegations of scientific misconduct in 2012. That's double the average number from only 20 years ago.

• From 2001 to 2011, the number of published scientific papers increased 44%, but the number of retractions of these increased more than 1,000%.

• Science Magazine assigned John Bohannon to investigate the "peer review" system. He concocted a fake scientific paper that had so many anomalies and ethical approval problems, it should not have gotten past any decent editor. In October of 2013, he sent it out to over 300 "peer reviewed" journals. The Science staff expected a few might accept it, but they were astounded to find more than half accepted this unacceptable paper.

This shows that "peer review" has about as much control over the integrity of what's published as CONgress does over the legality of what Obama does.

So, what's the brainpower lesson here? Actually, there are several. But the main one is perhaps that you can't trust everything you read. Gee, where have you heard that before? Sure, we all "know" this but how many of us apply this truism to our intellectual diet?

This doesn't mean you should automatically doubt everything you don't happen to agree with or that's new to you. It just means the standards have slipped a very long way and you can't accept things as factual just because they appear in a publication that appears to be prestigious. Of course, what's published online is even less trustworthy (in general).

During the Cold War disarmament treaty talks between Mr. Gorbachev and President Reagan, it became very popular to say, "Trust but verify." That is good advice to follow when getting information from any source.

How to find ways to save money in your home: http://www.kcpl.com/findmoney

• It's nobody's business how much money you make. Don't talk about it with anyone who doesn't have a genuine need to know.
• You may really like that new gizmo you bought, but letting potential thieves know you have one invites trouble. Don't brag about your toys; that just entices someone to take them.
• Don't announce vacation plans to anyone, except on a need to know basis.
• If you escape an IRS probe, don't go around bragging you "beat the IRS." The psychopaths merely threw the fish back in the water. You didn't beat them. The IRS operates on fear and intimidation. Say things that undermine that, and they'll consider you a threat.
• Do not discuss investments with casual acquaintances or strangers.

Generally, the less you say about yourself and/or what you own the better. This seems like such a simple tip, you might be wondering why I bother to mention it. Well, think about what you've said in recent conversations. It's very likely you've caught a few of those proverbial flies.

So, be alert to what you say in future conversations. You might also want to keep track of how many times other people violate their own privacy by sharing things that other people don't need to know. You'll probably be quite amazed at the degree to which this happens.

There's no need to snoop when the victim volunteers the information. Don't be a victim; don't volunteer information.

In this issue, I'd like to talk about a common health hazard that each of us can do something about. 

There are drug addicts who can legally obtain a recreational drug that is highly addictive and that kills nearly 100% of its addicts slowly and painfully. The really bad part is how this drug is used. It's burned and released into the air so that non-addicts are also exposed to dangerously high levels of the over 400 carcinogens and other chemicals. By now, you've probably figured out this drug is tobacco.

We need to help them kick the habit. For their safety, and for ours.

The addicts know what they are doing is wrong. They know non-addicts do not like having this poison spewed onto them. We didn't choose the drug, so why don't these smokers respect our choice?

It's bad enough that they overload our medical resources and cause everyone's costs to rise by disrespecting their own bodies. Why do they act as if it's OK to show zero respect for the bodies of other people?

These addicts often claim they have a "right to smoke." The reality is it's not possible to smoke without abusing the fundamental rights of other people. Since the early 1990s, we normals have made huge progress in limiting the ability of smokers to poison us with the air pollution they so thoughtlessly spew into the air the rest of us must breathe. But we have not made enough progress.

Smokers complain that they feel like second-class citizens because they have to go outside the office or other area to smoke. Addicts who are parents don't like being told that smoking in their homes is child abuse. They hear the messages from their victims, and they feel put upon. Apparently, they are not hearing the messages enough. How many times do you walk past a smoldering butt or get a nose full of the smoke? Too many times, most likely.

Now, here's the thing. The vast majority of these addicts don't intend to harm other people. They just operate under the delusion that they aren't harming other people. Think of the smoker as a good person with a bad habit. But it's a habit that harms not just the addict but other people as well. It's the habit, not the person, that is the problem.

Generally, smokers don't understand what all the fuss is about. They don't smell the stench that emanates from their hair, skin, and clothing even when they aren't in the middle of getting their fix. And besides, they do make an effort to hold the cigarette out to the side (another delusion is that this useless gesture somehow protects the non-addict).

So when you angrily confront an addict, it should not be surprising that the addict's response is an angry one. Does this mean you should resort to passive-aggressive techniques? No, those never produce the desired outcome.

Avoidance is the path of least resistance ("I'll overlook it this time, I don't want a confrontation"). But each incidence of not speaking up indicates the behavior is OK, so that when you do speak up it seems you are being unreasonable.

The solution is to be assertive, but not aggressive. And be consistent. Smoking isn't a rational behavior or an intelligent one. You have to treat the addict the same way you treat a dog you are trying to train: reward with positive reinforcement. And be consistent. Actually, this works very well for people too. For people who smoke, it's one of the few effective ways to help them change their destructive behavior.

An example is this. Your neighbor Jim smokes on his porch, but it wafts over pretty much undiluted to your porch. This, of course, is outrageous. But Jim doesn't see it that way. So don't act as if he should. He's outside, relaxing with a smoke and minding his own business. That's how he sees it, and that's where you have to start. Not that he's trying to kill you or violate your rights.

You can approach Jim and say, "I've got a problem, and I need your help."

Now Jim is thinking of how he might help you with YOUR problem instead of being defensive toward your accusations about him.

After all, Jim is a good guy. He just has a bad habit.

"I know you enjoy your cigarettes, but as you know I choose not to smoke. The reason has to do with my health. I'm not asking you to stop smoking, but I need you to figure out a way you can smoke without the smoke coming over to my porch. I can't sit outside at all, because when you sit outside you light up. Can you smoke somewhere else, or can we figure out a smoke-free time that will permit me to be on my own porch?"

Probably, Jim will stop smoking on that porch. Maybe he won't. Even if he does disregard your plea, he has heard another voice, a respectful one, asking him to stop spewing his poison on other people. His discomfort level with smoking will increase. If another person asks him to take it elsewhere, it increases again. If it increases enough times, Jim will seek to free himself from his self-destructive, socially-inept drug addiction.

I have personally used this technique, and it has always been effective. It has never been effective for me to act as if the smoker intends to do something wrong, though that is how I see it and it is my gut response.

People generally don't want trouble. If you ask nicely, they generally don't want to give you trouble either. That's the "catch more bees with honey than with vinegar" thing.

And remember, you are asking the smoker to show respect for YOUR body. To get respect, you must give respect. Don't go on the attack. Ask for help. Nicely.

In addition to probably solving your problem with Jim's spewing 400+ toxic chemicals into the air you are breathing, you will help Jim free himself from an addiction that is already killing him.

Not only is it killing him, it's making him ugly too. Look at his teeth and gums the next time he talks. Look at the wrinkles on his neck. Many smokers pretend there isn't any disfigurement, but heavy smokers are easy to spot in a crowd. They are the ones with "Smokers face" and other readily-visible damage from the chronic abuse of this drug.

Tobacco addition is 100% lethal, if it goes on long enough. Every tobacco addict dies quite prematurely from some tobacco-caused disease (usually in a horrible way), unless s/he first dies from something like getting hit by a truck. The disability and disfigurement along the road to tobacco death are both very unpleasant.

So if you feel a bit squeamish about sticking up for your own health, consider that you are helping the addict by merely bringing up the problem. Why? Because tobacco addiction is one of those drug addictions that nearly always starts with peer pressure and this same pressure continues to exert its will over that of the addict.

This pressure is a major reason some people find it hard to free themselves. They bond with other addicts on the porch at work or they bond with their smoking spouse. When there is pressure to stop smoking, it offsets a corresponding amount of the pressure to keep smoking. The trick is to apply more social pressure to stop smoking than the addict gets to keep smoking. If the addict gets support from a spouse who also wants freedom from this addiction, the two have a very good chance of succeeding.

We also need to apply pressure on the merchants who peddle this poison. Where you shop, ask the store manager if you can voice your opinion on something. Start off by saying, "I would like your help with a problem." Then state that smoking is the leading cause of male impotence, causes over a dozen different kinds of cancer, and kills nearly 100% of smokers through a variety of debilitating, awful diseases like emphysema. Then conclude with, "If there's anything you can do to make these products less prominent and less enticing, you would be helping all of this store's patrons."

Most likely, the store manager will brush you off. But you've made your point. Many stores have already responded to having heard this point again and again. You can also visit the Websites of the retailers you frequent and voice the same thing; especially make an effort to contact the gas station chains.

Notice that in no case did I suggest asking the smoker to quit or the store to stop carrying the drugs. Notice the subtlety. That is what moves things toward success. You can ask a small favor and usually get what you want. Ask for a big one, and you may get an antagonistic response that leaves you worse off than when you started.

• The best workouts are short and intense.
• A good diet contains far more flavors and satisfaction than the typical American diet.

The University of Alaska spans four time zones. This is an interesting fact that leads to another interesting fact. Most people living in the Lower 48 mistakenly believe that North America spans 4 time zones. But look up New Brunswick Time and you'll understand why this belief is a mistaken one.

 The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man . . .

. . . never worshipped anything but himself.

Sir Richard Francis Burton (1821 - 1890)