Epiphanyblog

All about ideas…

Posts Tagged ‘mccain

Okay, this is just to funny to be real

with one comment

This just in fromWired Science, Republican men who learned that Obama had been elected president had lowered testosterone levels, nearly matching those of women.

Comparison of testosterone levels pre- and post election of Pres. Obama

Comparison of testosterone levels pre- and post election of Pres. Obama

…liberal testosterone levels stayed stable, while those of male Republican voters plummeted. The latter also reported feeling submissive and unhappy.

There are many ways to read these results, which are based on saliva samples taken from 183 men and women as the polls closed, and again when President Obama’s victory was officially announced.

First, male voters get the same vicarious boost from a candidate’s political victory as they would their favorite sports team beating a rival. That’s the main academic finding of the study, published Wednesday in Public Library of Science ONE, but one that seems rather self-evident.

Much more interesting is the split. Obama voter testosterone merely stabilized. The researchers suggest that, as nighttime testosterone levels typically dip, stabilization “is conceptually similar to a rise.”

But if testosterone usually just dips at night, it positively plummeted for Republican men.

Indeed, Republican men “felt significantly more controlled, submissive, unhappy and unpleasant at the moment of the outcome” than those who voted for Obama, the researchers wrote. “Moreover, since the dominance hierarchy shift following a presidential election is stable for four years, the stress of having one’s political party lose control of executive policy decisions could plausibly lead to continued testosterone suppression in males.”

This is just too funny!

Advertisements

Written by Valerie Curl

October 22, 2009 at 12:19 PM

So the Republicans want to meddle…

leave a comment »

Today, Tehran Bureau printed quotes from Tehran residents who stated their opposition to Republican/neo con calls to interfere in the domestic situation in Iran.

A voice from central Tehran earlier this morning (Sunday 21 June):

If Obama moves to support the demonstration in strong terms, this camp will lose and Ahmadinejad will gain ground; also it is not good to make an American domestic issue from an Iranian domestic issue. Yesterday was brutal, but not as brutal we still do not know how many were killed, but from the set up of the riot police it is apparent that they want to keep people off street with the least casualty possible. This is not a praise, it is to say that government does not want to escalate things.

If there is no demonstration today it does not mean it is over. This is just the beginning. The focus is on having an election.

You must see the people, this is a people united, all groups and sections are out there, war veterans, old revolutionaries, housewives. The first girl I saw beaten yesterday was wearing a chador, this is not a western thing here, this is a domestic issue in which Iranian people have the right to demand a new election.


From an academic listserv (Sunday 21 June):
“Message from an ordinary Tehrani”

Dear friend, if you have any contacts within the American Administration, please send them this message on behalf of us, ordinary Iranians in Iran (whose interests and concerns are very different from those of the exiled Iranians in the United States and in Europe who do not yet understand the mentality here and who have been cut off from the Iranian society for too long). Tell your contacts in the Administration that their point of view regarding Iran is by far the best position that an American Government has ever taken. We appreciate this and thank the President.

During the last two or three decades not one American president had “understood” Iran. All of them got caught in the traps of the mollahs, despite themselves having to play the bad cop .. but this time the intelligent president has decided not to join in their game, bravo.

It is normal that he is criticized vividly by most of the Los Angeles Iranians (and by most Republicans): since a long time they have been asking for just one thing : that America attack Iran and change the regime so that they get their possessions and their former jobs and privileges back, without wanting to know what today’s young Iranian wants here and now. It makes me think of the Cubans in Florida … they don’t consider the interests of their country but only what is due to them.”

It’s awfully strange that the Republicans and neo cons think it perfectly acceptable to meddle in the internal affairs of another country (around politics and elections), but remember what they all said when Europe and Japan said they hoped Obama was elected? Didn’t they say the election of a US president was wholly a domestic affair and that other countries should stay quiet and not interfere? Do I smell hypocrisy here?

At this time what the Iranians really want is not interference, but for the world to know what is going on and to say to the government of Iran that they have stolen the election and violated their own Constitution.

Written by Valerie Curl

June 22, 2009 at 12:56 AM

TARP as we’re learning….

leave a comment »

Okay, I’m one of those who publically expressed my favor for passing TARP. But I expected, given the public written and verbal display on TARP, a few things in doing so:

1) that banks receiving the money would spend it to open the credit markets, i.e. lend money to open the credit markets.

2) that those running the receiving-companies would be held to a fiscal standard that protected American taxpayer dollars, i.e. no golden parachutes; no bonuses for employees whose companies that were failing; no dividends from companies that sought taxpayer bail out dollars; no unnecessary expenses.

3) that only banks who really needed the money to stay alive would receive the money.

4) that a bipartisan committee would oversee the expenditures to make sure taxpayer monies were being appropriately and economically spent.

5) that complete transparency (openness) would occur.

So far, none of this has occurred. The American taxpayer appears once again to be taken for a big financially-loss ride. I guess I should have known better, given all the discredited promises of the current Administration. Nevertheless, I hoped for something better.

Needless to say, I am angry. I feel like I’ve been lied to and taken advantage of once again.

Wall Street, with the willing cooperation of this Administration, caused the ruination of our economy.

Regardless of ‘house flippers”, and families who were pushed into purchasing houses too expensive for their means, and builders who chose only to build McMansions because those houses provided the greatest profits, Wall St. went on a drunken, wild, gambling rampage with products that had were outlawed following the market crash of 1929.

That’s right. The very products that rating agencies, such as Moody’s who said those products were triple-A, caused the same problems in 1929.

Those very products were outlawed following the crash of ’29 because they were huge, unleveraged gambles which caused the market crash.

Thanks to Phil Graham, one of McCain’s main early economic advisers, and his Wall Street cohorts the rules outlawing those products were eliminated. Thus, the gambling began. And that is truly what it was: outrageous gambling!

Some made fortunes beyond belief. But for the rest of us, we lost big time.

We have been left with an economy that is the worst in 30 years. So, I’m angry with Hank Paulson.

I’m angry that he refused to demand rules that protect the American taxpayer from excessive and uncontrolled expenditures from those companies who received taxpayer monies.

I’m angry that

1) he’s refused to open to the American public who received the money.

2) the companies who received the money have used it to build up their balance sheets without opening up lending.

3) they used the money to pay huge bonuses to the very same people who caused this problem. No bonuses whatsoever should be paid by companies who receive TARP monies. Period.

4) they have used the money to pay for hugely expensive corporate retreats. From a business perspective, this kind of expenditure is just plain wrong. From a taxpayer perspective, it is totally unethical.

5) they have used the money to purchase other banks rather than for lending. Again, the money was provided to open the credit crunch, not to enhance a particular bank’s growth or expansion.

6) he also pushed taxpayer money onto those banks who, according to their public own statements, did not need it, such as Wells Fargo.

The Treasury and Hank Paulson, in particular, deceived the American public and Congress.

When Obama takes office, he can begin to reverse the damage done by Wall Street’s greed and self-aggrandizement, but by then millions more jobs will be lost and thousands upon thousands of businesses will go under.

Thanks, Wall Street et al. Your self-centered greed really screwed up the America economy. I hope you’re happy with the ruination you’ve caused!

Also, might I be so bold as to ask: where are you’re ethics!?! Where is your integrity!?! Where is you honor!?!

Or do you have any of these characteristics!?!?

87% of audience votes “no” for McCain

leave a comment »

In an article written for the Washington Post’s PostGlobal section, Mona Eltaway writes that when the Doha Debates audience was asked who they preferred for the U.S. Presidency, “The result was a resounding ‘no’ for Sen. John McCain.”

According to Ms. Eltaway’s article, 87 percent of the audience voted against the motion “This House believes the Middle East would be better off with John McCain in the White House.”

The verdict came during the latest episode of “The Doha Debates”- a monthly forum on Arab and Muslim issues aired on BBC World to a potential audience of nearly 300 million viewers across 200 countries.

With the economy taking deeper nosedives, it has seemed as if Obama and McCain were – in successive debates – doing their best to ignore the rest of the world and fixate on domestic issues. While that might be understandable for worried Americans and the rest of us who live here, other parts of the world are eager to know how the next occupant of the White House will affect their lives too.

And affect he will, especially the Middle East where the Bush administration has pursued one disastrous policy after the other and where there is palpable dread that the U.S. would want to pursue yet another one by attacking Iran.

It wasn’t an evening of knee-jerk anti-Americanism. Rather it was a chance for people from the region to express what worries them the most about the U.S. When they got the cue for questions, it was as if the Middle East had stretched far beyond the peaceful Doha night to include trouble spots that are rarely on the mind of the U.S. voter come election time.

Asked to identify just their country of origin, we heard from men and women from Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Qatar, Sudan, Yemen and the U.S.

Obama is going to have a lot to do to repair the image of the U.S. abroad, especially in the Middle East. To many citizens of the Middle East, the Bush policies towards the Middle East have been…well, let’s just say that they don’t rank above zero on a scale of one to ten. Obama is going to need one hellava Secretary of State and State Department. World class people, to say the least.

Written by Valerie Curl

November 6, 2008 at 4:13 PM

Socialism?

leave a comment »

Do you think “socialism” is a terrifying thing, about to invade the policies of America?

If so, you really must hate Social Security and Medicare. When those programs were first introduced, they were called socialist. Republicans ran the “red scare, socialist” mantra across America to attempt the defeat of these programs.

If you think Obama’s health care plan is socialist, then I suggest you check out Switzerland. The Swiss are very conservative. They own more guns per capita than the U.S. They are adamant about privacy, just look at their banking regulations regarding privacy.

Yet, they voted a few years ago for National Health Insurance, even though the Conservatives worked hard to defeat it, saying it was socialist and too expensive. Nevertheless, the leader of the Conservative wing now says the Swiss would never give up their National Health care system. They like it too much. It’s been a boon to their GDP, their pharma companies (among the largest in the world) have no problem with it, the people love it, and health insurance companies are very happy with it.

So, what is the problem with solutions that work for business and helps citizens? This is not 1955 any more.

Written by Valerie Curl

November 5, 2008 at 2:05 AM

Anxiously watching the election…and my fingers are crossed

leave a comment »

I know I’m not alone in being glued to the election news today. I know I’m not alone in having my fingers crossed and hoping my guy, Obama, wins.

This election is very important to me, not because of me – an aging Baby Boomer – but because of all the young people in this country. They deserve a better U.S. and a better world than the one that G.W. Bush and his crowd have made.

After a serious study of both McCain and Obama – their histories, their philosophy, what others who know them well say about their personalities and character, how they think and behave, and their various policy positions – I chose Obama. I sincerely believe he will be better for the younger generations of this country. I believe he has a better ideas and a better temperament.

I also think that a President Obama will be much more conservative than predicted. This guy is very smart, very pragmatic, level headed and inclusive, as his Conservative and Federalist Society compatriots at Harvard Law stated. He may very well have more trouble with his Democratic Congressional colleagues than the Republicans.

Throughout today, I’ve also been reading foreign papers and checking out chat rooms with a large foreign constituency. Everyone is paying extremely close attention to this election, even though many of them do not understand our electoral process. By a large majority, they’re hoping for an Obama win because they see in him a truly positive change in American foreign and economic policy from what the disastrous Bush policies which McCain, they believe, will continue or be even worse.

Obama will be better for the younger generations in this country as well as for older, near-retirement, middle-class people like me. So, I have my fingers crossed.

Written by Valerie Curl

November 5, 2008 at 1:13 AM

McCain is a “Redistributor” too

leave a comment »

McCain has been tossing out the term “redistributor” to describe Sen. Obama, as if Obama is a socialist. At least, that’s the implicit connection he’s trying to make. But it’s far from true.

Newsweek’s Andrew Romano, in his column, writes:

Conservatives are eagerly pushing the charge–online, at rallies and in my inbox–that “Barack the Redistributor” is a secret communist, Marxist or socialist. (Today, the right is misreading as evidence of his pinko ways a 2001 interview in which Obama complains that progressive activists once wrongly wanted the Supreme Court to “ente[r] into the issues of redistribution of wealth.”) Now, I understand the appeal of this line of attack, which provides voters with a familiar, 20th-century bogeyman to fear. But characterizing Obama’s plan to tax the nation’s top earners at 39 percent instead of 36 percent as socialist is absurd. Dwight Eisenhower taxed top earners at 91 percent. Richard Nixon taxed them at more than 50 percent. Even Ronald Reagan didn’t lower the top marginal rate to less than 50 percent until the last two years of his second term. Were these Republicans secret socialists, too?

Romano’s column concludes:

Deep down, I suspect McCain knows that Obama isn’t really a socialist. Why? Because he once sounded a lot like his rival on taxes. During the 2000 campaign, for example, a young woman asked McCain why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” “Look, here’s what I really believe,” he added. “That when you are–when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.” He soon backed up his words with action. After Bush was elected, McCain told Congress that he was disappointed by the president’s plan to “cut the top tax rate of 39.6 percent to 36 percent.” When it came time for a vote, the Arizonan stood on the Senate floor and announced that “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.” Unless McCain was a socialist in 2000 and 2001, Obama isn’t a socialist now.

John McCain understands and even promotes a progressive tax policy that taxes higher wager earners more than lower wage earners. The same thing Obama believes. The bogeyman title is nothing more than an attempt to scare the voting populace.

Written by Valerie Curl

November 3, 2008 at 4:34 PM

%d bloggers like this: