Sarah Palin-Endorsed Alaska Senate Candidate Trailing Lisa Murkowski By Wide Margin

July 23rd, 2010   by Emma

Just how much is a Sarah Palin endorsement worth in Alaska?

At least as far as the state's U.S. Senate GOP primary is concerned, not very much it seems.

Incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowki is leading challenger Joe Miller 62 percent to 30 percent, according to a Ivan Moore Research poll. (More than half of the Alaskans polled said that they had no impression of Miller.)

Miller not only has Palin's backing but also the support of the Tea Party Express heading into the Aug. 28 primary.

The National Journal reports that "Palin initially said she would back Murkowski and cut the senator's campaign a check. But this spring, Palin decided to back Miller after her husband, Todd Palin, hosted a Miller fundraiser in Wasilla."

Another recent survey points out Palin's dwindling popularity in her home state.

Palin, who was once extremely popular as governor, is now viewed unfavorable by 47 percent of Alaskans compared to 41 percent who view her favorably.

The Ivan Moore Research survey was conducted July 7-11 and polled 647 registered voters, including 303 Republican voters in Alaska.

Boehner Denies Telling GOP Congressmen Who Partied With Female Lobbyists To 'Knock It Off'

July 22nd, 2010   by Emma

House Minority Leader John Boehner is denying a report that he warned GOP congressmen to steer clear of female lobbyists on Capitol Hill. The NY Post's Page Six reported on Wednesday morning that Boehner told Congressmen who partied with lobbyists "to knock it off."

"I don't think I have [said that]," Boehner told reporters at a media breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor on Wednesday. "They're commenting on rumor and speculation."

Boehner derided the reporter who asked the question, telling him he prefers to keep private comments private. "It sounds like a rumor to me," Boehner added.

The kerfuffle started when GOP Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska, who's locked in a tight race with Democrat Tom White, was reportedly seen having questionable exchanges with a lobbyist at Capitol Hill Club in DC.

SEIU, Labor Directly Lobby Geithner On Elizabeth Warren's Behalf

July 21st, 2010   by Emma

The labor community is going to lend its considerable political clout to the effort to get Elizabeth Warren confirmed as the first head of the newly-created Consumer Protection Agency, going directly to the White House official who may stand in her way.

On Tuesday, SEIU President Mary Kay Henry will "raise the point that Elizabeth Warren would be an excellent head of the newly created Consumer Protection Agency" in private talks with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, according to a senior source with the union. The tete-a-tete adds an element of intrigue into the debate over who should head the new but important agency and could set up a now-familiar scenario in which the labor community finds itself butting heads with the White House's economic team.

Geithner has privately expressed skepticism with Warren's candidacy for the post -- despite the fact that she is considered the godmother of the very idea that consumers need a watchdog agency on their behalf. The Treasury Secretary is wary about the message that Warren's appointment would send to the financial community and would prefer to appoint Michael Barr, a senior Treasury Department official who was instrumental in crafting financial regulatory reform.

In public, the White House has insisted that it is open up to all candidacies, including Warren's. But Geithner's private musings have spurred an intense pushback.

In addition to Kay Henry's visit to Treasury, another major union, the AFL-CIO, has directly lobbied the White House on Warren's behalf, according to a source with the union federation. Meanwhile, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a liberal activist group, has colleted roughly 140,000 signatures in a petition drive urging the White House to nominate Warren for the new post.

Warren, it should be noted, could assume the post by executive appointment under the newly passed regulatory reform law. This would allow her to avoid a bitter confirmation fight in which she would need the support of 60 Senators in order to make it through the Senate.

Cupcake Bubble: The End Of The Line For Small Cakes?

July 20th, 2010   by Emma

Late last week, the Wall Street Journal reported on how New Yorkers' sustained obsession with cupcakes might account for a legitimate part of the city's economy. According to the paper:

The latest unemployment numbers for New York City show that, while the labor market shrunk in June, the overall unemployment rate improved, partially fueled by growth in the restaurant and bar industry.
They've singled out cupcakes as a key driver of the sector's growth. Ever since Carrie and Miranda sat outside Greenwich Village's Magnolia Bakery in an episode of Sex and the City (and yes, the Journal did ackowledge that was a long time ago) cupcake places have been sprouting up all over New York. From CRUMBS to the first NYC branch of LA's beloved Sprinkles opening this year, New Yorkers (read, tourists) just can't seem to get enough, making the cupcake industry "recession proof."

But Jacob Goldstein at NPR read the story and took to the financial blog Planet Money, questioning if New York is indeed experiencing a "cupcake bubble", joking:

"Did they really think cupcakes were different than cake?" the world will ask after the cupcake market implodes. "Why did they wait in those ridiculous lines just to buy cake?"
And noted:

[B]ubbles are notoriously difficult to spot -- just ask Alan Greenspan. And pessimists like me, forever arguing that the bubble is about to pop, are as likely to be wrong as the optimists arguing that we're on the cusp of a New Cupcake Era, headed for Dow Cupcake 36,000.

The Power Of Expectations

July 19th, 2010   by Emma

Take a moment to think of something you're really looking forward to: an event, a vacation, a visit. Can't you practically see yourself lying on the beach or strolling in the shade, or tucking into that meal at the restaurant where you have a reservation?

Now take a moment to think about something you dread. Some of us might dread a meeting we have to attend, a class for which we are not prepared, or a confrontation we fear is brewing between us and a friend or workmate. Others of us may have become so avoidant of situations that cause us discomfort that we can't call up an example because we have skillfully arranged our lives to hold as little to dread as possible. (Don't count on this as a technique, however -- life has a way of supplying us with opportunities when we least expect them.)

Here's the good and bad news: research shows that we tend both to overestimate how much we're going to enjoy something AND how awful something is going to be. Why is that? In short, it's because the imagined experience and the lived experience are never the same thing.

On the most mundane level, this means that even if you can come up with a pretty fair idea of what it will be like to finish reading this article, step away from the computer and walk down the hall -- for example -- you still don't know exactly what will happen next.

More significantly, it is our fantasies of what we feel "sure" is going to happen that can be problematic for us. I was talking about this concept recently with a friend of mine who said, "But sometimes when people worry about something, it's a way of working out what could go wrong in order to prepare in case it does go wrong." Yes, or even to prevent it from going wrong, I added. Being conscious that you are working through possibilities in order to forestall problems from occurring is different from believing you know that something is going to go wrong and then making choices based on that presumption. I would never want you to go against your instincts -- that is, if you don't want to go sky-diving, don't go! But a blind date that you fear will be a disaster actually has numberless possible outcomes. The only certainty is that you don't know what it will actually be like.

Of course, we all anticipate our history. If you never had a good experience at a certain restaurant, it would be reasonable to balk if a friend suggests that you meet there again. If the food has never been good, there is no reason to assume it will be good this time. But what if you went to that restaurant open to the possibility that the food may be bad, but the company may be good? What if the restaurant has changed hands since the last time you were there, or you simply haven't ordered what they do best? While it would be perfectly fine to let your friend know that you aren't fond of that place and would like to meet somewhere else, it might also make sense to find out what draws her there. And then, maybe, to meet her there, with neither dread nor expectation, but just open to what the situation will bring.

I am not suggesting, here, that you should ignore your feelings or try to talk yourself out of them, but rather that you be aware that feelings are not the same thing as facts. "I feel clumsy and self-conscious when I go to a yoga class" is not the same as "I can't do yoga." The former is an acknowledgement of feelings from which you might go on to reassure yourself, "... but I bet a lot of people feel that way. I'm going to go to yoga and see how it goes."

"I can't do yoga," on the other hand, is a phrase that might lead you then to think, "so there's no point in putting myself through the torture of going to a class." How do you know the class will be torture? Or, more to the point, is it possible that the way you treated yourself throughout a previous class exacerbated the negative experience?

To use our example of, "I can't do yoga," I might say, "Let's find out!" meaning that if yoga is something you wish you could do, try it and see. If you believe you aren't able to do yoga because you tried it once and the class wasn't right for you, I might observe that we don't have enough information yet to draw a conclusion. There are so many variables: the teacher, the style of yoga, your own projections (for example, thinking a teacher doesn't like you when in fact, who knows what the teacher is thinking?).

When I was first starting out as a therapist, a terribly depressed client told me how dark and lonely a place the world is. She said that wherever she went, no one ever smiled at her. What we know now is that for the depressed person, this is a reality. The face they show to the world is sad or even blank. People tend to mirror the expressions they see, so the depressed person may have unconsciously and unwittingly drawn from people the very facial expressions that confirmed her belief of the world. Conversely, the person who walks around wreathed in smiles tends to see smiles around her, confirming her world view that all is well. At all times, we are impacting our environment as our environment is impacting us. Therefore, when you walk into a room "knowing" you're going to be miserable, perhaps you have a hand in creating that outcome for yourself.

Have you ever had the experience of getting in your car to go somewhere, and almost before you know it, reached your destination? Chances are you were caught up in a fantasy. Part of your conscious mind was tracking your driving experience, while the rest of your attention was turned inward as you relived a memory, projected what you believe is going to happen next, or rehashed a conversation. A client of mine once described how, as a child riding as a passenger in a car, she would become frightened watching an adult in her life make hand gestures and silently move his mouth as this man unconsciously acted out some sort of argument or altercation. The client knew that whatever fantasy the adult was engaged in as he drove would translate into trouble for the actual people around him. That's because while the man knew he was in an imaginary conversation, the feelings that that imaginary conversation stirred up were very real. Therefore, when the man emerged from the fantasy into the real world, he would bring the rapid heartbeat, tightened muscles and angry feelings with him, and with those, a virtual guarantee that his next interaction would be ugly.

We all do some version of that. We create a very real world in our own minds and then respond as if that world were our present reality. There's nothing wrong with fantasy and day dreams, but we need to be careful that we don't merge what we imagine with what may actually be happening around us, or unfolding before us. It's an eye-opening experience to see what happens when you allow yourself not to "know." A wide world of possibility and opportunity is out there!

 

 

 

Driver from: www.huffingtonpost.com

Experiments have been carried out on volunteers to see what happens when all sensations are stopped

July 16th, 2010   by Emma

This can be done in several ways. One method is to put a man inside a completely isolated room. This room is heavily sound-proofed and absolutely dark. There is no light or sound and the person is instructed just to lie motionless in a bed. People have stayed in rooms such as this for as long as four days. The results of sensory deprivation (SD) vary with the individual.

Soon after entering the confinement cell most subjects went to sleep and slept almost without interruption for ten to twenty-four hours. These are gross estimates for there was nothing by which the subjects could determine the time that had elapsed. We know for certain that one subject slept for nineteen hours but insisted that he had had a nap of less than one hour. According to the monitoring microphone, which was capable of picking up the deep breathing of sleep, it seems more likely that most subjects slept all of the first twenty-four hours.

We felt that so much sleeping in the first day wasted the effects of confinement, so we started placing subjects in SD early in the morning. We reasoned that after a night's sleep our confined subject would be unable to dissipate(§ifii)the effects of SD by sleeping. Such was not the case. As for as we could determine they went to sleep just as quickly and slept just as long as the previous subjects. We then started entering the subjects at midmorning, midday, and midafternoon. As it turned out, it made no difference when during the day and, presumably, during the night we started the confinement; the initial sleep period was always about the same.

We had not expected this extended period of initial sleep. In fact, it had seemed reasonable to expect something of the opposite. SD was a very novel situation for our subjects, and as such, we reasoned, it should have occupied them for some time. I had a similar expectation for astronauts during space flight and was greatly surprised to learn that the Russian astronaut Yuri Gagarin had been able to sleep during his space flight around the earth.

Other effects were also noted. With no real sensations to work on, the brain makes up all sorts of false information. Many people experience vivid dreams and hallucinations^}^). When they are finally taken out of the room into the real changing world of light and sound, they are in very strange state of mind, ready to believe anything and not really able to make decisions.

"I have great confidence that by the end of the decade we'll know in vast detail how cancer cells arise

July 15th, 2010   by Emma

says microbiologist Robert Weinberg, an expert on cancer. "But," he cautions, "some people have the idea that once one understands the causes, the cure will rapidly follow. Consider Pasteur discovered the causes of many kinds of infections, but it was fifty or sixty years before cures were available."

This year, 50 per cent of the 910,000 people who suffer from cancer will survive at least five years. In the year 2000, the National Cancer Institute estimates, that figure will be 75 per cent. For some skin cancers, the five-year survival rate is as high as 90 per cent. But other survival statistics are still discouraging—13 per cent for lung cancer, and 2 per cent for cancer of the pancreas.

With as many as 120 varieties in existence, discovering how cancer works is not easy. The researchers made great progress in the early 1970s, when they discovered that oncogenes, which are cancer-causing genes, are inactive in normal cells. Anything from cosmic rays to radiation to diet may activate a dormant oncogene, but how remains unknown. If several oncogenes are driven into action, the cell, unable to turn them off, becomes cancerous.

The exact mechanisms involved are still mysterious, but the likelihood that man, cancers initiated at the level of genes suggest that we will never prevent all cancers. "Changes are a normal part of the evolutionary process," says oncologist William Haywar. Environmental factors can never be totally eliminated; as Hayward points out, "We can't prepare a medicine against cosmic rays."

The prospects for cure, though still distant, are brighter.

"First, we need to understand how the normal cell controls itself. Second, we have to determine whether there are a limited number of genes, in cells which are always responsible for at least part of the trouble. If we can understand how cancer works, we can counteract its action."

It is hard to predict how science is going to turn out, and if it is eally good science it is impossible to predict

July 14th, 2010   by Emma

If the things to be 3und are actually new, they are by definition unknown in advance, 'ou cannot make choices in this matter. 1) You either have science or ou don't and if you have it you are obliged to accept the surprising nd disturbing pieces of information, along with the neat and prompt-1 useful bits.

The only solid piece of scientific truth about which I feel totally confident is that we are profoundly ignorant about nature. Indeed, I sgard this as the major discovery of the past hundred years of biolo/. It is, in its way, an illuminating piece of news. 2) It would have nazed the brightest minds of the 18th century Enlightenment to be Id by any of us how little we know and how bewildering the way aaad seems. 3) It is this sudden confrontation with the depth and ope of ignorance that represents the most significant contribution of e 20th century science to the human intellect. In earlier times, we ther pretended to understand how things worked or ignored the problem, or simply made up stories to fill the gaps. Now that we have gun exploring in earnest, we are getting glimpses of how huge the lestions are, and how far from being answered. Because of this,  are depressed. 4) It is not so bad being ignorant if you are totally iprant the hard thing is knowing in some detail the reality of ignoice, the worst spots and here and there the not-so-bad spots, but true light at the end of the tunnel nor even any tunnels that can yet trusted.

But we are making a beginning and there ought to be some satisition. There are probably no questions we can think up that can't answered, sooner or later, including even the matter of consciousness. 5) To be sure, there may well be questions we can't think up, ever, and therefore limits to the reach of hi* man intellect, but that is another matter. Within our limits, we should be able to work our way through to all our answers if we keep at it long enough, and pay attention.

Investors are being encouraged to continue ploughing their sav-i into the stock market after shares in London recovered all the los-incurred since September 11

July 13th, 2010   by Emma

The advice comes despite Ameri-s Dow Jones industrial average tumbling on Friday after a case of irax was diagnosed in New York. Consumer spending in America > slumped by more than three times economists' predictions in itember, pushing share prices back below pre-attack levels.

The FTSE 100 index of Britain's largest companies close on Fri-1 at 5145—up 112 points on its September 10 close. The Dow in v York rallied late on to close at 9311, down 66 points. Although 3t experts are predicting further volatility in the coming months, / remain cautiously optimistic that the FTSE 100 will begin a sus-ed, if rocky, rally towards 5500 by the end of the year.1 The im-diate economic outlook is still bleak. Some commentators predict t America will endure a recession lasting six months. They also ex¬it Britain to suffer a sharp slowdown. But analyst say the market is

well placed to absorb any further bad news.

Sharpen economic downturns can, perversely ( ffl ?g j&), be good for the market because they force firms to be more cost-effi-cient. Therefore, any announcements about rising unemployment or corporate streamlining could have a positive effect on shares. Of more concern to private investors is the impact that another terrorist attack would have on shares. If this were to happen, the market would almost certainly slump again. But history suggests that it would, once again, make up any lost ground within weeks.

Experts are therefore urging private investors not to repeat their past mistakes, when they waited for a sustained rally before feeling confident enough to invest.2 Cross said, "It's peculiar that investors feel it's safer to invest after the market has risen by 25% than when it has fallen by 25%. Common sense suggests that the opposite would be more appropriate. "3 Mike Lehnhoff of Gerrard, the stockbroker, said that if the market hit 5500 and remained around that level for some weeks, it would be a sign that further, sustained gains were imminent. He said, "Getting back to 5500 would be important, because if the index stayed at that level, the psychology of the market would change substantially. Defensive shares would become too expensive and big investors would start moving into value stock, which are the type of firms that do well in an economic recovery."

But private investors could be forgiven for their pessimistic mood, as nearly all Isa buyers have suffered big losses. But investors can take some comfort from the fact that the next three months are traditionally the best-performing period of the year for the stock market." David Schwartz, the stock-market historian, said the index almost always rose in the period between November and April. Since 1974, the market went up on 24 occasions between November and April, by an average of 15 % , and dropped only three times. Schwartz said, " It' s no guarantee for this year, but history is on our side. "

Boxer, Fiorina In Statistical Tie

July 9th, 2010   by Emma

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A new poll finds that U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer's popularity with Californians has dropped, and that she's in a statistical tie with Republican challenger Carly Fiorina.

The Field Poll released Thursday found that 47 percent of likely voters support Boxer while 44 percent back Fiorina. That gap is within the poll's margin of error.

More concerning for the Democratic senator is her popularity, now close to the lowest since she was elected to the Senate in 1991. Just 41 percent of voters say they have a favorable image of the three-term incumbent, while 52 percent have an unfavorable image.

Women remain more supportive of Boxer. She leads among female voters by 11 percentage points in her first head-to-head matchup against another woman.

 

Driver from: www.huffingtonpost.com