THE LADY SAYS IT LIKE SHE SEE'S IT. MORE THEN MOST "MODERATES"
This 4th grade teacher has said it all, and she was brave enough to attach her name to it.
April 17, 2009
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington , DC 20500
Mr. Obama:
I have had it with you and your administration, sir. Your conduct on your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are not an adequate representative of the United States of America collectively or of me personally.
You are so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim world that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President of the United States of America . You are responsible to the citizens of the United States .. You are not responsible to the peoples of any other country on earth.
I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for the United States telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not care about their status in the world. Sir, what do you think the First World War and the Second World War were all about if not the consideration of the peoples of Europe ? Are you brain dead? What do you think the Marshall Plan was all about? Do you not understand or know the history of the 20th century?
Where do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United States does not consider itself a Christian country? Have you not read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States? This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the principles governin g this country, at least until you came along, come directly from this heritage. Do you not understand this?
Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all Americans. Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the king of Saudi Arabia . You didn't show Great Britain, our best and one of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to the king of Saudi Arabia .. How dare you, sir! How dare you!
You can’t find the time to visit the graves of our greatest generation because you dont want to offend the Germans but make time to visit a mosque in Turkey ... You offended our dead and every veteran when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the German people from themselves. Whats the matter with you? I am convinced that you and the members of your administration have the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddleand should be ashamed of yourselves, all of you..
You are so self-righteously offended by the big bankers and the American automobile manufacturers yet do nothing about the real thieves in this situation, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the Freddie Mac bonuses. What do you intend to do about them? Anything? I seriously doubt it.
What about the U.S. House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses to their staff members on top of the $2.5 million in automatic pay raises that lawmakers gave themselves? I understand the average House aide got a 17% bonus. I took a 5% cut in my pay to save jobs with my employer. You havent said anything about that. Who authorized that? I surely didnt!
Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210 million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that's $45 million more than the AIG bonuses. In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives have already been awarded $51 million not a bad take. Who authorized that and why haven’t you expressed your outrage at this group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right now?
I resent that you take me and my fellow citizens as brain-dead and not caring about what you idiots do. We are watching what you are doing and we are getting increasingly fed up with all of you.
I also want you to know that I personally find just about everything you do and say to be offensive to every one of my sensibilities. I promise you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not get a chance to spend two terms destroying my beautiful country.
Sincerely,
Every real American
P.S. I rarely ask that emails be 'passed around'.............PLEASE SEND THIS TO YOUR EMAIL LIST......it's past time for all Americans to wake up!
Ms Kathleen Lyday
Fourth Grade Teacher
Grandview Elementary School
11470 Hwy . C
Hillsboro, MO 63050
(636) 944-3291 Phone
(636) 944-3870 Fax
21 November 2009
06 August 2009
It is becoming a JOKE... Give us Jimmy Carter back
This new President appears to want his cake and eat it too!
I thought Bush was the only one who ever suggested the press 'lighten up'
I guess it is OK for NObama to say it.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/08/gop-senator-white-house-encroaching-on-first-amendment.html
A succinct comment by an astute observer.
Can YOU BELIEVE it? Snopes actually printed something O T L??
(other than Left)
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp
It gets better..
Read my lips.. I don't think it out.. (NObama paraphrase)
As on Yahoo/Finance
2 Obama officials: No guarantee taxes won't go up
2 Obama administration officials can't guarantee middle-class Americans won't see tax hike
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's treasury secretary said Sunday he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul.
As the White House sought to balance campaign rhetoric with governing, officials appeared willing to extend unemployment benefits. With former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan saying he is "pretty sure we've already seen the bottom" of the recession, Obama aides sought to defend the economic stimulus and calm a jittery public.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers both sidestepped questions on Obama's intentions about taxes. Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to lower the federal deficit; Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere.
"There is a lot that can happen over time," Summers said, adding that the administration believes "it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what."
During his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." But the simple reality remains that his ambitious overhaul of how Americans receive health care -- promised without increasing the federal deficit -- must be paid for.
"If we want an economy that's going to grow in the future, people have to understand we have to bring those deficits down. And it's going to be difficult, hard for us to do. And the path to that is through health care reform," Geithner said. "We're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take."
Selling that proposal, however, has proved tricky.
On Friday, the government released a report that suggested the worst recession in the United States since World War II appears on the verge of ending. The economy dipped only slightly in the second quarter of this year -- falling at a 1 percent annual pace, better than expected.
The president cautioned against instant turnaround, though.
"Well, as I've said, I think we maybe are beginning to see the end of the recession, but it's still going to be some time before we are seeing companies hiring again. That's usually the last thing that happens," Obama said in an interview with Univision that aired on Sunday.
"So I think we are still going to have a tough remainder of the year -- probably until next year -- but, you know, at least what we are seeing -- we've pulled back from the possibility of a depression. That's not the danger."
Many analysts think the economy is starting to grow again in the current quarter, setting up a long-awaited recovery.
"Most private forecasters -- and let's use their judgment -- suggest you're going to see unemployment start to come down maybe beginning in the second half of next year," Geithner said, adding those same economists predict positive growth during the second half of this year.
At the same time, Geithner and other administration officials are contemplating how to ask Congress to extend -- again -- unemployment benefits for the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in recent months. The proposal drew measured support from Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., as long as the benefits are drawn from the already approved economic stimulus package.
"We need to take care of those who are unemployed, but we also need to make sure they get jobs," he said.
Those jobs, though, are still elusive. Greenspan said the economy is slowly coming back.
"Collapse, I think, is now off the table. We were teetering for a while," he said.
Greenspan said he doesn't think the Federal Reserve should be considering raising interest rates to ward off inflation, although he added that the Fed will have to rein in credit and raise rates at some point.
Obama's opponent for the presidency, Sen. John McCain, questioned whether the administration's actions will prove beneficial for the country.
"I think it's pretty clear, if you pump trillions of dollars into the economy, you will see some recovery," the Arizona Republican said while giving Obama credit for the improvement. "But the long-term consequences, I think, are going to be, unfortunately, devastating unless we do something about it."
Geithner and Greenspan appeared on ABC's "This Week." Summers appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" and CBS's "Face the Nation." DeMint was interviewed on "Fox News Sunday." McCain spoke with CNN's "State of the Union."
I thought Bush was the only one who ever suggested the press 'lighten up'
I guess it is OK for NObama to say it.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/08/gop-senator-white-house-encroaching-on-first-amendment.html
A succinct comment by an astute observer.
Can YOU BELIEVE it? Snopes actually printed something O T L??
(other than Left)
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp
It gets better..
Read my lips.. I don't think it out.. (NObama paraphrase)
As on Yahoo/Finance
2 Obama officials: No guarantee taxes won't go up
2 Obama administration officials can't guarantee middle-class Americans won't see tax hike
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's treasury secretary said Sunday he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul.
As the White House sought to balance campaign rhetoric with governing, officials appeared willing to extend unemployment benefits. With former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan saying he is "pretty sure we've already seen the bottom" of the recession, Obama aides sought to defend the economic stimulus and calm a jittery public.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers both sidestepped questions on Obama's intentions about taxes. Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to lower the federal deficit; Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere.
"There is a lot that can happen over time," Summers said, adding that the administration believes "it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what."
During his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." But the simple reality remains that his ambitious overhaul of how Americans receive health care -- promised without increasing the federal deficit -- must be paid for.
"If we want an economy that's going to grow in the future, people have to understand we have to bring those deficits down. And it's going to be difficult, hard for us to do. And the path to that is through health care reform," Geithner said. "We're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take."
Selling that proposal, however, has proved tricky.
On Friday, the government released a report that suggested the worst recession in the United States since World War II appears on the verge of ending. The economy dipped only slightly in the second quarter of this year -- falling at a 1 percent annual pace, better than expected.
The president cautioned against instant turnaround, though.
"Well, as I've said, I think we maybe are beginning to see the end of the recession, but it's still going to be some time before we are seeing companies hiring again. That's usually the last thing that happens," Obama said in an interview with Univision that aired on Sunday.
"So I think we are still going to have a tough remainder of the year -- probably until next year -- but, you know, at least what we are seeing -- we've pulled back from the possibility of a depression. That's not the danger."
Many analysts think the economy is starting to grow again in the current quarter, setting up a long-awaited recovery.
"Most private forecasters -- and let's use their judgment -- suggest you're going to see unemployment start to come down maybe beginning in the second half of next year," Geithner said, adding those same economists predict positive growth during the second half of this year.
At the same time, Geithner and other administration officials are contemplating how to ask Congress to extend -- again -- unemployment benefits for the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in recent months. The proposal drew measured support from Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., as long as the benefits are drawn from the already approved economic stimulus package.
"We need to take care of those who are unemployed, but we also need to make sure they get jobs," he said.
Those jobs, though, are still elusive. Greenspan said the economy is slowly coming back.
"Collapse, I think, is now off the table. We were teetering for a while," he said.
Greenspan said he doesn't think the Federal Reserve should be considering raising interest rates to ward off inflation, although he added that the Fed will have to rein in credit and raise rates at some point.
Obama's opponent for the presidency, Sen. John McCain, questioned whether the administration's actions will prove beneficial for the country.
"I think it's pretty clear, if you pump trillions of dollars into the economy, you will see some recovery," the Arizona Republican said while giving Obama credit for the improvement. "But the long-term consequences, I think, are going to be, unfortunately, devastating unless we do something about it."
Geithner and Greenspan appeared on ABC's "This Week." Summers appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" and CBS's "Face the Nation." DeMint was interviewed on "Fox News Sunday." McCain spoke with CNN's "State of the Union."
22 April 2009
JOHN LOTT: ABC's Shameful `20/20¹ Experiment "If I Only Had a Gun."
Agenda-driven dis-information on the part of ABC. A shabby exercise in the abuse of so-called journalism. For shame.
• Article on ABC’s “If I Only Had a Gun”
• Apply for Concealed Pistol License in King County
• Get Training
--
Bill
JOHN LOTT: ABC's Shameful `20/20’ Experiment
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/15/lott__gun_control_experiment_rigged/
Gun control advocates look desperate. Last Friday night, on April 10, ABC aired a heavily promoted, hour long "20/20” special called "If I Only Had a Gun." It is ABC's equivalent of NBC's infamous exploding gas tanks in General Motors pickups where NBC rigged the truck to explode. With legislation in Texas and Missouri advancing to eliminate gun-free zones at universities, perhaps this response isn't surprising.
The show started and ended by claiming that allowing potential victims to carry guns would not help keep them safe –- not even with hundreds of hours of practice firing guns.
No mention was made of the actual multiple victim public shootings stopped by people with concealed handguns nor did they describe who actually carried out such shootings. Instead, ABC presented a rigged experiment where one student in a classroom had a gun. But sometimes even the best editors can't hide everything the camera sees.
The experiment was set up to make the student fail. It did not resemble a real-world shooting. The same scenario is shown three times, but in each case the student with the gun is seated in the same seat –- the center seat in the front row. The attacker is not only a top-notch shooter –- a firearms expert who teaches firearms tactics and strategy to police -– but also obviously knows precisely where the student with the gun is sitting.
Each time the experiment is run, the attacker first fires two shots at the teacher in the front of the class and then turns his gun directly on the very student with the gun. The attacker wastes no time trying to gun down any of the unarmed students. Thus, very unrealistically, between the very first shot setting the armed student on notice and the shots at the armed student, there is at most 2 seconds. The armed student is allowed virtually no time to react and, unsurprisingly, fails under the same circumstances that would have led even experienced police officers to fare poorly.
But in the real world, a typical shooter is not a top-notch firearms expert and has no clue about whether or not anyone might be armed and, if so, where they are seated. If you have 50 people –- a pretty typical college classroom –- and he is unknown to the attacker, the armed student is given a tremendous advantage. Actually, if the experiment run by "20/20″ seriously demonstrated anything, it highlighted the problem of relying on uniformed police or security guards for safety: the killer instantly knows whom to shoot first.
Yet, in the ABC experiment, the purposefully disadvantaged students are not just identified and facing (within less than 2 seconds) an attacker whose gun is already drawn. They are also forced to wear unfamiliar gloves, a helmet, and a holster. This only adds to the difficulties the students face in handling their guns.
Given this set-up the second student, Danielle, performed admirably well. She shot the firearms expert in his left leg near the groin. If real bullets had been used, that might well have disabled the attacker and cut short his shooting spree.
Nevertheless, even terrible shooters can often be quite effective. Despite all of ABC's references to the Columbine attack, the network never mention the armed guard at the school. He had an unusually poor target shooting record –- indeed it is reported that he couldn't even hit a target. Yet, his bravery still saved many lives because his poorly aimed shots forced the two killers to engage in gunfire with him. This slowed down their killing spree and gave many students a chance to escape the building. The guard was only forced to retreat and leave the school himself because of the homemade grenades that the Columbine murderers had.
The Columbine murderers strongly and actively opposed passage of Colorado's right-to-carry law, particularly the part that would have allowed concealed handguns being legally carried on school campuses. What goes unnoticed is that the Columbine attack took place the very day that the state legislature scheduled final passage of the concealed handgun law.
Time after time the attackers in these multiple victim public shootings consciously avoid areas where people might be able to defend themselves. In the attack on the Jewish community center in Los Angeles in which five people were wounded, the attacker had apparently "scouted three of the West Coast's most prominent Jewish institutions—the Museum of Tolerance, the Skirball Cultural Center and the University of Judaism—but found security too tight."
In the real world, even having a gun and pointing it at an attacker has often convinced the attacker to stop shooting and surrender. Examples include high schools in Pearl, Mississippi and Edinboro, Pennsylvania, as well as the Appalachian Law School in Virginia. Street attacks in Memphis to Detroit ended this way, too, without any more shots fired.
Even if the cases don't get much attention, gun permit holders stop these multiple victim attacks on a regular basis. Ironically, just this past Saturday, the day after ABC's broadcast, a permit holder in Columbia, Texas stopped a mass robbery by fatally shooting the criminal. Some Web sites have started collecting these and other defensive gun use cases (e.g., see here, here, and here).
ABC'S "20/20″ exaggerates "the danger of accidentally hitting a friend" when confronting an attacker. The show cites as an example is a man who mistook his wife for an intruder. Obviously that case is a tragedy, but those cases are exceedingly rare. But why didn't they present a single multiple victim attack as an example? Simple, because it has not happened.
ABC pushes the notion that gun show regulations, rather than arming potential victims, can stop these attacks. But very few criminals get their guns from gun shows: a U.S. Justice Department survey of 18,000 state prison inmates showed that less than one percent (0.7%) of prisoners had obtained their gun from a gun show. Even adding flea markets and gun shows together raises the number to just 1.7 percent. There is not a single academic study showing that regulating private individuals selling their own guns — the so-called "gun show loophole" — reduces any type of violent crime. What the regulations have accomplished is cutting the number of gun shows by 25 percent.
The show ends with this claim:
"If you are wondering where are all the studies about the effectiveness of guns used by ordinary Americans for self-defense, well keep searching, we could not find one reliable study and the ones we found were contradictory."
Yet, "contradictory" is an overstatement. There have been 26 peer-reviewed studies published by criminologists and economists in academic journals and university presses. Most of these studies find large drops in crime. Some find no change, but not a single one shows an increase in crime.
You would think that if gun control worked as well as ABC implies, there wouldn't be these multiple victim public shootings in those European countries with gun laws much stricter than those being publicly discussed in the United States or by ABC. Yet, multiple victim public shootings are quite common in Europe. In just the last few days, there have been a shooting at a college in Greece and in a crowded café in Rotterdam. Of course, the worst K-12 public school shootings are in Europe.
Given the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent annually in the United States for police officers on campus and other programs, one would hope that this relatively inexpensive alternative, where people are willing to bear the costs themselves to protect others, would be taken more seriously.
ABC never mentions a simple fact: all multiple victim public shootings with more than 3 people killed have occurred where permitted concealed handguns are prohibited. Rather than studying what actually happens during these shootings, ABC conjured up rigged experiments aimed at convincing Americans that guns are ineffective. Unfortunately, ABC's advice, rather than making victims safe, makes things safer for attackers.
John Lott is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland and the author of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, second edition, 2009) and The Bias Against Guns (Regnery, 2003). Much of the discussion here is based on both books. John Lott's past pieces for FOX News can be found here
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/15/lott__gun_control_experiment_rigged/
• Article on ABC’s “If I Only Had a Gun”
• Apply for Concealed Pistol License in King County
• Get Training
--
Bill
JOHN LOTT: ABC's Shameful `20/20’ Experiment
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/15/lott__gun_control_experiment_rigged/
Gun control advocates look desperate. Last Friday night, on April 10, ABC aired a heavily promoted, hour long "20/20” special called "If I Only Had a Gun." It is ABC's equivalent of NBC's infamous exploding gas tanks in General Motors pickups where NBC rigged the truck to explode. With legislation in Texas and Missouri advancing to eliminate gun-free zones at universities, perhaps this response isn't surprising.
The show started and ended by claiming that allowing potential victims to carry guns would not help keep them safe –- not even with hundreds of hours of practice firing guns.
No mention was made of the actual multiple victim public shootings stopped by people with concealed handguns nor did they describe who actually carried out such shootings. Instead, ABC presented a rigged experiment where one student in a classroom had a gun. But sometimes even the best editors can't hide everything the camera sees.
The experiment was set up to make the student fail. It did not resemble a real-world shooting. The same scenario is shown three times, but in each case the student with the gun is seated in the same seat –- the center seat in the front row. The attacker is not only a top-notch shooter –- a firearms expert who teaches firearms tactics and strategy to police -– but also obviously knows precisely where the student with the gun is sitting.
Each time the experiment is run, the attacker first fires two shots at the teacher in the front of the class and then turns his gun directly on the very student with the gun. The attacker wastes no time trying to gun down any of the unarmed students. Thus, very unrealistically, between the very first shot setting the armed student on notice and the shots at the armed student, there is at most 2 seconds. The armed student is allowed virtually no time to react and, unsurprisingly, fails under the same circumstances that would have led even experienced police officers to fare poorly.
But in the real world, a typical shooter is not a top-notch firearms expert and has no clue about whether or not anyone might be armed and, if so, where they are seated. If you have 50 people –- a pretty typical college classroom –- and he is unknown to the attacker, the armed student is given a tremendous advantage. Actually, if the experiment run by "20/20″ seriously demonstrated anything, it highlighted the problem of relying on uniformed police or security guards for safety: the killer instantly knows whom to shoot first.
Yet, in the ABC experiment, the purposefully disadvantaged students are not just identified and facing (within less than 2 seconds) an attacker whose gun is already drawn. They are also forced to wear unfamiliar gloves, a helmet, and a holster. This only adds to the difficulties the students face in handling their guns.
Given this set-up the second student, Danielle, performed admirably well. She shot the firearms expert in his left leg near the groin. If real bullets had been used, that might well have disabled the attacker and cut short his shooting spree.
Nevertheless, even terrible shooters can often be quite effective. Despite all of ABC's references to the Columbine attack, the network never mention the armed guard at the school. He had an unusually poor target shooting record –- indeed it is reported that he couldn't even hit a target. Yet, his bravery still saved many lives because his poorly aimed shots forced the two killers to engage in gunfire with him. This slowed down their killing spree and gave many students a chance to escape the building. The guard was only forced to retreat and leave the school himself because of the homemade grenades that the Columbine murderers had.
The Columbine murderers strongly and actively opposed passage of Colorado's right-to-carry law, particularly the part that would have allowed concealed handguns being legally carried on school campuses. What goes unnoticed is that the Columbine attack took place the very day that the state legislature scheduled final passage of the concealed handgun law.
Time after time the attackers in these multiple victim public shootings consciously avoid areas where people might be able to defend themselves. In the attack on the Jewish community center in Los Angeles in which five people were wounded, the attacker had apparently "scouted three of the West Coast's most prominent Jewish institutions—the Museum of Tolerance, the Skirball Cultural Center and the University of Judaism—but found security too tight."
In the real world, even having a gun and pointing it at an attacker has often convinced the attacker to stop shooting and surrender. Examples include high schools in Pearl, Mississippi and Edinboro, Pennsylvania, as well as the Appalachian Law School in Virginia. Street attacks in Memphis to Detroit ended this way, too, without any more shots fired.
Even if the cases don't get much attention, gun permit holders stop these multiple victim attacks on a regular basis. Ironically, just this past Saturday, the day after ABC's broadcast, a permit holder in Columbia, Texas stopped a mass robbery by fatally shooting the criminal. Some Web sites have started collecting these and other defensive gun use cases (e.g., see here, here, and here).
ABC'S "20/20″ exaggerates "the danger of accidentally hitting a friend" when confronting an attacker. The show cites as an example is a man who mistook his wife for an intruder. Obviously that case is a tragedy, but those cases are exceedingly rare. But why didn't they present a single multiple victim attack as an example? Simple, because it has not happened.
ABC pushes the notion that gun show regulations, rather than arming potential victims, can stop these attacks. But very few criminals get their guns from gun shows: a U.S. Justice Department survey of 18,000 state prison inmates showed that less than one percent (0.7%) of prisoners had obtained their gun from a gun show. Even adding flea markets and gun shows together raises the number to just 1.7 percent. There is not a single academic study showing that regulating private individuals selling their own guns — the so-called "gun show loophole" — reduces any type of violent crime. What the regulations have accomplished is cutting the number of gun shows by 25 percent.
The show ends with this claim:
"If you are wondering where are all the studies about the effectiveness of guns used by ordinary Americans for self-defense, well keep searching, we could not find one reliable study and the ones we found were contradictory."
Yet, "contradictory" is an overstatement. There have been 26 peer-reviewed studies published by criminologists and economists in academic journals and university presses. Most of these studies find large drops in crime. Some find no change, but not a single one shows an increase in crime.
You would think that if gun control worked as well as ABC implies, there wouldn't be these multiple victim public shootings in those European countries with gun laws much stricter than those being publicly discussed in the United States or by ABC. Yet, multiple victim public shootings are quite common in Europe. In just the last few days, there have been a shooting at a college in Greece and in a crowded café in Rotterdam. Of course, the worst K-12 public school shootings are in Europe.
Given the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent annually in the United States for police officers on campus and other programs, one would hope that this relatively inexpensive alternative, where people are willing to bear the costs themselves to protect others, would be taken more seriously.
ABC never mentions a simple fact: all multiple victim public shootings with more than 3 people killed have occurred where permitted concealed handguns are prohibited. Rather than studying what actually happens during these shootings, ABC conjured up rigged experiments aimed at convincing Americans that guns are ineffective. Unfortunately, ABC's advice, rather than making victims safe, makes things safer for attackers.
John Lott is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland and the author of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, second edition, 2009) and The Bias Against Guns (Regnery, 2003). Much of the discussion here is based on both books. John Lott's past pieces for FOX News can be found here
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/15/lott__gun_control_experiment_rigged/
I wondered why it took so long to rescue the Captain...
... and now we know. Regarding the source, the closest I’ve gotten is third-hand, so limit your credence level to that with which you’re comfortable. I pray that this relatively dinky incident serves as a valuable Learning Opportunity for our President.
I maintain that declaring open season on pirates, including keeping teams of six on 24-hour watch, armed with one .50 cal., several light machine guns, RPGs and M-16s, in case any pirates got on board, would quickly shift the Risk:ROI balance toward untenable, even for starving Somali fishermen-turned-pirates, or their opportunistic warlords, who personally have little to lose. Those ‘mother ships’, from which mid-ocean pirate vessels are launched, should be either summarily sunk, or confiscated and sold, with proceeds going to those who have paid ransoms. If it’s really all about profit, let’s make it immediately unprofitable.
NOW THE REST OF THE STORY
SEAL= The United States Navy Sea, Air and Land Forces, commonly known as the US Navy SEALs, the Special Ops Forces of the U.S. Navy, employed in direct action and special reconnaissance operations. SEALs are also capable of employing unconventional warfare...
BHO = Barrack H Obama
DEVGRU=Development Group ...the old Seal team 6 out of the Norfolk area...probably the best of the best
NSWC=Navy Special Warfare Command
ROE=Rules of Engagement
RIB=Ridged Inflatable Boat
OSC=On Scene Commander
CPN=is probably the Captain of the Bainbridge
CDR=Commander
OpArea= Operations Area
Raggies= from the term ‘Rag-tag’, meaning
1. ragged or shabby; disheveled.
2. made up of mixed, often diverse, elements: a ragtag crowd.
Subject: AH, now it comes out Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:
1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams on the scene for 36 hours, going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.
2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger
3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction.
4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.
5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams.
6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies.
7. BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" behaviour. As usual with him, it's BS. So, per our last email thread, I'm downgrading Oohbaby's performace to D-. Only reason it's not an F is that the hostage survived.
Read the following accurate account.
Philips’ first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn’t worked out as well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country’s Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors — and none was taken.
The guidance from National Command Authority — the President of the United States, Barack Obama — had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage’s life was in clear, extreme danger.
The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates — and again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate from the commander in chief’s staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a “peaceful solution” would be acceptable.
After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on-scene commander decided he’d had enough.
Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage’s life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer — unnamed in all media reports to date — decided the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips’ back was an imminent threat to the hostage’s life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.
Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA, and Philips was safe.
There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in yesterday’s dramatic rescue of an American hostage.
Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and [1] declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president’s toughness and decisiveness.
Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin yesterday’s success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort.
What should have been a standoff lasting only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its
team of NSWC operators to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four day and counting standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.
I maintain that declaring open season on pirates, including keeping teams of six on 24-hour watch, armed with one .50 cal., several light machine guns, RPGs and M-16s, in case any pirates got on board, would quickly shift the Risk:ROI balance toward untenable, even for starving Somali fishermen-turned-pirates, or their opportunistic warlords, who personally have little to lose. Those ‘mother ships’, from which mid-ocean pirate vessels are launched, should be either summarily sunk, or confiscated and sold, with proceeds going to those who have paid ransoms. If it’s really all about profit, let’s make it immediately unprofitable.
NOW THE REST OF THE STORY
SEAL= The United States Navy Sea, Air and Land Forces, commonly known as the US Navy SEALs, the Special Ops Forces of the U.S. Navy, employed in direct action and special reconnaissance operations. SEALs are also capable of employing unconventional warfare...
BHO = Barrack H Obama
DEVGRU=Development Group ...the old Seal team 6 out of the Norfolk area...probably the best of the best
NSWC=Navy Special Warfare Command
ROE=Rules of Engagement
RIB=Ridged Inflatable Boat
OSC=On Scene Commander
CPN=is probably the Captain of the Bainbridge
CDR=Commander
OpArea= Operations Area
Raggies= from the term ‘Rag-tag’, meaning
1. ragged or shabby; disheveled.
2. made up of mixed, often diverse, elements: a ragtag crowd.
Subject: AH, now it comes out Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:
1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams on the scene for 36 hours, going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.
2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger
3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction.
4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.
5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams.
6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies.
7. BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" behaviour. As usual with him, it's BS. So, per our last email thread, I'm downgrading Oohbaby's performace to D-. Only reason it's not an F is that the hostage survived.
Read the following accurate account.
Philips’ first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn’t worked out as well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country’s Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors — and none was taken.
The guidance from National Command Authority — the President of the United States, Barack Obama — had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage’s life was in clear, extreme danger.
The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates — and again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate from the commander in chief’s staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a “peaceful solution” would be acceptable.
After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on-scene commander decided he’d had enough.
Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage’s life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer — unnamed in all media reports to date — decided the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips’ back was an imminent threat to the hostage’s life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.
Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA, and Philips was safe.
There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in yesterday’s dramatic rescue of an American hostage.
Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and [1] declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president’s toughness and decisiveness.
Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin yesterday’s success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort.
What should have been a standoff lasting only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its
team of NSWC operators to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four day and counting standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.
02 March 2009
If this doesn't get you... read it again tomorrow
"I DEMAND" my "RIGHTS"
Sharon Jasper has been victimized. Sharon Jasper has been rabidly wronged. She has become a Section 8 care case -- the victim of ever changing public housing policies.
Sharon Jasper has spent 57 of her 58 years dedicated to one cause and one cause only, and has nothing to show for her dedicated servitude. She has lived in Section 8 housing all but 1 of her 58 years. It was a legacy passed down from her parents who moved into Section 8 housing in 1949 when she was six months old. She has passed the legacy down to her children, but fears they may have to get jobs to pay for the utilities and deposits.
She laments about her one year hiatus from the comfort of her Section 8 nirvana, ' I tried it for a year -- you know, working and all. It's not anything I would want to go through again, or wish on anyone in my family, but I am damn proud of that year.'
Sharon was moved out of her St. Bernard housing project after hurricane Katrina and into a new, yet albeit, substandard quarterage. As can be noted from the above photo of her new Section 8 home, it is repugnant and not suitable for someone of Sharon Jasper's seniority status in the system. 'Don't be fooled by them hardwood floors,' says Sharon . 'They told me they were putting in scraped wood floors cause it was more expensive and elegant, but I am not a fool -- that was just a way to make me take scratched up wood because I am black. The 60 inch HD TV? It may look nice but it is not a plasma. It's not a plasma because I'm black. Now they want me to pay a deposit and utilities on this dump.' 'Do you know why?'
She has held her tongue in silence through the years of abuse by the system, but it came to a head at the New Orleans city council meeting where discussions were under way about the tearing down of the St. Bernard projects. When a near riotous exchange between groups opposing the tearing down of St. Bernard and groups wanting the dilapidated buildings torn down and newer ones built, Sharon unleashed verbal hell with her once silenced tongue. The object of her oratory prowess was an acquiescent poor white boy in attendance. The context of her scathing rebuke was, 'Just because you pay for my house, my car, my big screen and my food, I will not be treated like a slave!' and 'Back up and Shut up! Shut up, white boy! Shut up, white boy!'
Recapping from the mental log of the city council minutes in her head, Sharon repines, 'Our families have been displaced all over the United States. They are being forced to commit crimes in cities they are unfamiliar with. It is a very uncomfortable situation for them. Bring them back, then let's talk about redevelopment.' Sharon directs the reporter's attention across the street to Duncan Plaza where homeless people are living in tents and states that, 'I might do better out there with one of these tents.' She further lamented her sentiments about her situation. 'I might be poor, but I don't have to live poor.'
=================================================================
Any wonder why this country is in the shape it is???????
Sharon Jasper has been victimized. Sharon Jasper has been rabidly wronged. She has become a Section 8 care case -- the victim of ever changing public housing policies.
Sharon Jasper has spent 57 of her 58 years dedicated to one cause and one cause only, and has nothing to show for her dedicated servitude. She has lived in Section 8 housing all but 1 of her 58 years. It was a legacy passed down from her parents who moved into Section 8 housing in 1949 when she was six months old. She has passed the legacy down to her children, but fears they may have to get jobs to pay for the utilities and deposits.
She laments about her one year hiatus from the comfort of her Section 8 nirvana, ' I tried it for a year -- you know, working and all. It's not anything I would want to go through again, or wish on anyone in my family, but I am damn proud of that year.'
Sharon was moved out of her St. Bernard housing project after hurricane Katrina and into a new, yet albeit, substandard quarterage. As can be noted from the above photo of her new Section 8 home, it is repugnant and not suitable for someone of Sharon Jasper's seniority status in the system. 'Don't be fooled by them hardwood floors,' says Sharon . 'They told me they were putting in scraped wood floors cause it was more expensive and elegant, but I am not a fool -- that was just a way to make me take scratched up wood because I am black. The 60 inch HD TV? It may look nice but it is not a plasma. It's not a plasma because I'm black. Now they want me to pay a deposit and utilities on this dump.' 'Do you know why?'
She has held her tongue in silence through the years of abuse by the system, but it came to a head at the New Orleans city council meeting where discussions were under way about the tearing down of the St. Bernard projects. When a near riotous exchange between groups opposing the tearing down of St. Bernard and groups wanting the dilapidated buildings torn down and newer ones built, Sharon unleashed verbal hell with her once silenced tongue. The object of her oratory prowess was an acquiescent poor white boy in attendance. The context of her scathing rebuke was, 'Just because you pay for my house, my car, my big screen and my food, I will not be treated like a slave!' and 'Back up and Shut up! Shut up, white boy! Shut up, white boy!'
Recapping from the mental log of the city council minutes in her head, Sharon repines, 'Our families have been displaced all over the United States. They are being forced to commit crimes in cities they are unfamiliar with. It is a very uncomfortable situation for them. Bring them back, then let's talk about redevelopment.' Sharon directs the reporter's attention across the street to Duncan Plaza where homeless people are living in tents and states that, 'I might do better out there with one of these tents.' She further lamented her sentiments about her situation. 'I might be poor, but I don't have to live poor.'
=================================================================
Any wonder why this country is in the shape it is???????
09 February 2009
How to Practice Radical Honesty
from wikiHow - The How to Manual That You Can Edit
Honesty is the first chapter of the book of wisdom. -Thomas Jefferson
You probably tell dozens of little lies and half-truths every day. And you probably spend a significant chunk of your time evaluating what's going on in other people's minds, because they're probably not being completely honest with you. What would happen if you stopped lying? Ditched the brown-nosing and diplomacy? Stopped walking on eggshells? Are you ready to find out?
The "radical honesty" movement was founded by a psychotherapist named Brad Blanton, who insists that everyone would be much happier if we were all completely honest, as in no lies--no matter how small and white they may be. It’s a pledge to see and verbally acknowledge things exactly as they are, to the best of your ability. If you have a habit of stopping short of saying what you really think, turning things around will take time, but the results can be shockingly refreshing.
Steps
- Observe yourself lying. Most people lie throughout the day, every day. For example, 60% of people tell an average of two to three lies in a 10-minute conversation![1] So if you try to catch yourself lying--you may be surprised with how often you do it. It can also be enlightening to think about how often the people around you lie (see How to Detect Lies). And remember, the purpose of this step is to observe. Don't judge, or justify, like "Oh, well, I have to lie, or else blah, blah, blah." Rationalization is a product of denial, and denial is a deep form of dishonesty.
- When people ask you how you're doing, do you respond honestly?
- Do you feign interest in something that you're not really interested in?
- Do you find yourself lying in order to avoid hurting someone's feelings?
- Do you bite your tongue? Are you lying by omission?
- When people ask you how you're doing, do you respond honestly?
- Think deeply about whether you're really doing anyone a favor by lying. Should you really shelter someone from reality? Are you giving the recipient of your white lie enough credit? Do you assume they're too weak to handle the truth?
- Consider that telling someone the truth presents the opportunity to help them learn how to not take things personally, which is a very valuable life skill to have.
- In a way, it's manipulative and patronizing to pretend to be interested in what someone is saying, when you're really not. That's what we often do with kids, because we consider them too immature and inexperienced to understand that not everyone is interested in what they are interested in. If you treat the people around you the same way you treat children, then you might just find that the people around you act like children.
- Is lying ever really the best way to express compassion? Or is it the easiest way for you to avoid confrontation, rejection, or discomfort? If you're going to lie, then perhaps you can be honest with yourself about why you're lying--don't tell yourself it's for that person's own good, or that you're being kind, when it's really because you don't have the courage to be completely honest yet.[2]
- Consider that telling someone the truth presents the opportunity to help them learn how to not take things personally, which is a very valuable life skill to have.
- Confess. Once you see how often you lie, try fessing up once in a while. It's usually easier to be honest after the act than during, so this is a good stepping stone. You can start off with lies from the months or years ago (it's easier for people to forgive those, and see them as water under the bridge) and then start confessing about lies that you told days, hours, or even seconds ago. ("Um--actually, just now when I told you I'd be happy eating sushi, I lied. I really don't want sushi, I just wanted to seem cool. Can we get burgers instead?")
- Some people will freak out, and some people will appreciate your candor. This is also a good way to get to know the people around you better - are they receptive and forgiving? Or are they dramatic and manipulative jerks?
- Some confessions are best served with an apology. See How to Apologize.
- Some people will freak out, and some people will appreciate your candor. This is also a good way to get to know the people around you better - are they receptive and forgiving? Or are they dramatic and manipulative jerks?
- Uncensor yourself. Now it's time to remove the filters between what you think and what you say. (See the Warnings below.) Can you really speak your mind? Try it. Think out loud for an hour when you're by yourself, and make it a point to say whatever pops into your mind, no matter how random, dirty, or stupid it might be. It's a good warm-up exercise, and you should do it regularly, just to reinforce the direct connection between brain and mouth. Try doing it with a friend (perhaps explain to them what you're doing, and invite them to do it too, like a game). And eventually, try doing it around everyone! Some ideas to jump-start your honesty:
- Admit when you've forgotten someone's name, even if you're supposed to know that person's name because you've known them for years and seen them regularly and you know their kids' names, and even their dog's name.
- Tell someone when you're starting to get bored with the conversation. "I stopped listening about a minute ago" or "I'm not really interested in talking about this" or simply, "I'm bored. I'll be back in ten minutes."
- Express frustration with you co-workers, and even your boss. "I'm annoyed that you didn't respond to our memo earlier. But at the same time, I'm relieved, because then if we don't nail one of the things you want, we can blame any delays on your lack of response."[2]
- Start sentences with the words "I resent you for..." or "I appreciate you for..."[2]
- Read up on How to Practice Nonviolent Communication.
- Admit when you've forgotten someone's name, even if you're supposed to know that person's name because you've known them for years and seen them regularly and you know their kids' names, and even their dog's name.
- Inject the honesty with humor. This doesn't mean "sugar-coating" the truth by preceding and following it with a gentle reassurance (like How to Give a Feedback Sandwich or -gasp- How to Spin Bad News). This means that when you speak the truth, you express it in cheerful and lighthearted way, like you're giving them a gift, not cutting them with a knife. Take, for example, a waiter asking you how your coffee is (and it's bad):[2]
- (Sheepishly, apologetically) "Uh, yeah. I always have to order espresso here, because the espresso tastes like regular coffee. The regular coffee here is terrible. Can't you guys make stronger coffee?"
- "Yeah, man! This coffee tastes like $&!#!" Followed by a boisterous laugh.
Both statements are unabashedly true. But which one is more likely to be received well? - (Sheepishly, apologetically) "Uh, yeah. I always have to order espresso here, because the espresso tastes like regular coffee. The regular coffee here is terrible. Can't you guys make stronger coffee?"
- Take off the edge. Follow up your honesty with a reminder that you're not deliberately trying to break hearts, crush dreams, or hurt feelings. (Unless you are, in which case hopefully the person will read our article on How to Recognize a Manipulative or Controlling Relationship and leave you.)
- Say what you were doing: "I'm just being honest" or "That's what popped into my mind."
- Offer a return to the world of lies: "I want to be honest with you. If you want me stop being honest, I will. Do you want me to?" Or "I didn't mean to make you feel uncomfortable; I just wanted to express what was on my mind. If you want me to stop, I will."
- Change the subject. In the example of admitting boredom above, try: "Can we talk about something else?" or "Let's talk about something we have in common."
- If possible, express your honesty in person. It allows you to fully experience the ramifications of being radically honest, and makes it harder for the receiving party to run away--which probably means they'll still be there when the shock subsides, and your interaction can recover and move forward.[2]
- Say what you were doing: "I'm just being honest" or "That's what popped into my mind."
- Brace yourself for return fire. When you are radically honest, some people will respond in like manner. Welcome it. This is a good opportunity to open new dialogue, and discover things about a person that you might have otherwise never known, because you were both too scared of hurting each other's feelings. When you tell your buddy that he really is fat, he might tell you that your beard makes you look like a homeless lumberjack. Respond gracefully!
- "Thanks for telling me."
- "That's fine."
- "That's true!"
- "Really?"
- "Thanks for telling me."
- Know where to draw the line. How honest is too honest? In the honesty business, there’s a fine line between radical and reckless. Reckless honesty is the result of pushing the authenticity envelope so far that you shoot yourself in the foot. The border between radical and reckless must be patrolled by your intuition. Sometimes that line is obvious, but sometimes it’s not.
- The founder of the radical honesty movement readily admits that he lies to the IRS, in golf, and in poker.[2]
- Kids are radically honest, but they may not be receptive to it. Their parents may not be receptive to it either. So you might not want to tell a child that their dog didn't really go to a farm, or that Santa Claus doesn't exist, or how you really made that baby.
- See additional Warnings below.
- The founder of the radical honesty movement readily admits that he lies to the IRS, in golf, and in poker.[2]
Video
A video featuring Brad Blanton, the therapist who created the "Radical Honesty" concept.
Tips
- You're likely to experience a little adrenaline rush before and during acts of radical honesty. You're breaking taboos and taking big social risks.[2] It might be addictive.
- Radical honesty can be a good way to pick up the opposite sex. Example: "I didn't really want any tea; I was just trying to figure out a way to delay you so I could talk to you for a while, because I want to go to bed with you."[2] Some people will be utterly disgusted with your honesty, but others will be shocked - and impressed - by your candor.
- Address relationship problems in real time. Maintaining integrity in relationships means addressing problems that come up in real-time. Emotions are not chess pieces, and love is not a game of strategy. If you sense that something might be wrong, seek to identify and resolve the issue on the spot. If you’re constantly met with responses like the Solemn Downward Stare, followed by the Evening of Awkward Silence, and the Night Without Sex, then be warned: the game you’re playing isn’t worth winning.
- Applying radical honesty in your work means creating things that are of value to you personally, and that hinges on solving problems. But you can't solve problems if you don't acknowledge problems; if you would rather deny them, ignore them, or avoid talking about them because you don't want to "rock the boat". What most frustrates you about your work, and the world in general? Almost every answer to that question is a project or business idea with your name written all over it. Asking “What most frustrates you about the world?” is not only a means of identifying opportunities to create value in your life, it’s also a compass that directs you towards the people that will help make those dreams come true.
- Radical self-honesty requires a matching dose of humility. Whatever score you give yourself in any category is almost surely inflated. If the currency by which we measure others is pounds, the currency by which we measure ourselves is yen. Some of these feelings of superior knowledge, skill, or judgement are no doubt justified. But many, if not most of them, aren’t. The moment you become conscious of this, your self-awareness expands. You begin to ask yourself more honest questions and give yourself more honest answers.
Warning
- Esquire writer AJ Jacobs, tried radical honesty for one month and considered it the worst month of his life.[3][4] You may not enjoy this "therapy".
- At worst, you'll be fired, divorced, disowned, and sued. At best, you'll be considered rude, you'll get invited out more because you're entertaining to be around, and the relationships that remain in your life will be healthier.
- Supposedly, men think about sex every three minutes.[2] If this describes you (and you don't have to be a man for it to apply to you) and you're practicing extreme honesty, you'll mention sex every three minutes and this could get you into very big trouble, both socially and legally.
- You might want to read How to Win a Street Fight, in case your radical honesty is directed towards someone else's main squeeze.
- You might want to read How to Win a Street Fight, in case your radical honesty is directed towards someone else's main squeeze.
Related wikiHows
Sources and Citations
- 30sleeps.com - Original source of content, shared with permission.
- ↑ http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-06/uoma-urf061002.php
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 http://www.esquire.com/features/honesty0707
- ↑ http://otter.covblogs.com/archives/2007/11/notes-a-book-reading-with-aj-jacobs.html
- ↑ http://www.esquire.com/features/honesty0707
Article provided by wikiHow, a wiki how-to manual. Please edit this article and find author credits at the original wikiHow article on How to Practice Radical Honesty. All content on wikiHow can be shared under a Creative Commons license.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
