You are browsing the archive for 2014 May 17.

Avatar of admin

by admin

My Ex-Boyfriend Was A Porn Addict

May 17, 2014 in Blogs

By Rachel Khona, The Frisky

“I assumed most guys watched porn from time to time, but it never occurred to me that my partner could actually be addicted to it. Until it happened to me.”


“You just don’t know how to get me off,” M. snapped.

Humiliated, tears immediately sprang into my eyes. Every guy I had dated or hooked up with had always been more than pleased with our sex life.  M. had always had a problem getting and staying hard. But now that I was confronting him, he was blaming it on me. Once M. became erect, he would stay that way for a while until he lost steam and went limp. As for having an orgasm, it was relegated to a once in a while event. We would cheer as though he was a toddler who managed to make it to the toilet to pee.

In the film “Don Jon,” Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays a man who is so addicted to porn he cannot enjoy sex with a real woman. Just like the protagonist, M. watched porn every day. Scared of what the answer may be, I began to wonder, 'Was porn the problem?' In pop culture, porn is often seen as an affirmation of masculinity. The idea of porn addiction always seemed nebulous at best, something invented by the religious right. I assumed most guys watched it from time to time, but it never occurred to me that my partner could actually be addicted to it. Until it happened to me.

In a Cambridge University study, neuroscientist Dr. Valerie Voon ran a series of tests comparing the brain activity of self-described porn addicts with those of healthy males while watching porn. While the control group was excited by the imagery, the compulsive users’ brains were twice as active, similar to someone addicted to alcohol, drugs, or nicotine.

When a user keeps watching porn a new dopamine spike is created causing the viewer to become accustomed to each additional hit. Over time, the brain’s receptors becomes less sensitive to the dopamine creating a need for increasingly extreme experiences to become sexually aroused. In other words, regular …read more

Source: ALTERNET

Avatar of admin

by admin

Hillary and Ben Bernanke on the Economy

May 17, 2014 in Economics

By Hunter Lewis

Hillary Clinton’s speech yesterday revealed some of her thoughts about reviving the economy.

She said she was trying to “encourage more companies to come off the sidelines and, frankly, for some to use some of that cash that is sitting there waiting to deploy.”

This echoes the naïve idea embraced by the Obama administration that economies are fueled by ever more borrowing and spending. But this is not how jobs are created.

Jobs are created when businesses deploy their cash savings wisely. It is always the quality of investment that counts, not the quantity. If high quality investment opportunities are lacking, often because of government interference with the economy, businesses actually help us all by refusing to waste their cash on projects that will blow up in short order and just create even more unemployment in the long run.

When this false recovery, fueled by all the wasteful spending, blows up, as it will eventually, what will pull us out of the next crash? It will be those businesses and individuals who have refused to play at the casino, who have saved and put money away, who will be able to step in, invest, and start a genuine, not a phony, recovery process.

Hillary’s viewpoint is as crony capitalist as President Obama’s. They both complain that government has done favors for business and business in turn must do favors for government. Favors start with campaign contributions, but extend to more hiring, especially before an election. Who cares about quality of investment, or long run results? “In the long run we are all dead,” as Lord Keynes, the godfather of crony capitalism, helpfully reminded us.

Hillary further stated that “as secretary of state I saw the way extreme inequality corrupted other societies.” This is a clever reversal of the truth . It is corruption, in particular crony capitalist corruption, that creates the worst kind of inequality, in which the poor, the young, and the middle class fall further and further behind while rich government cronies thrive.

There was more nonsense in Hillary’s speech. She boasted about how 23mm new jobs had been created during her husband’s administration and the government’s budget balanced, without mentioning the role of the dot-com bubble in making it all look good until the mini-crash of 2000. In truth, today’s rotten economy had its origin under the Clinton administration, but who will believe this when the 2016 election rolls around?

This speech has been …read more

Source: MISES INSTITUTE

Avatar of admin

by admin

9 Vilest Right-Wing Moments This Week: Limbaugh Pits Himself Against Abducted Nigerian Girls

May 17, 2014 in Blogs

By Janet Allon, AlterNet

“They're not our girls”… and more horrific commentary.


1. Rush Limbaugh: The Nigerian girls aren’t “our” girls… and other atrocities.

Despicable, human-shaped being Rush Limbaugh went full-on evil this week when he decided to mock the #BringBackOurGirls Twitter campaign to bring attention to the school girls kidnapped in Nigeria.

Why? What could possibly be partisan or controversial about wanting to help more than 200 girls kidnapped by radical Islamists and sold as sex slaves and wives?

Well, Michelle Obama held up a #BringBackOurGirls sign—that could be part of it.

“Look at her,” Rush snarled at a picture of Mrs. Obama, “looking all sad.” Also looking sad about the missing girls was Malala, the heroic Pakistani girl who nearly died because she insisted on getting an education. Jesus Christ himself would be ridiculed by Limbaugh if he sided with the Obamas on anything.

Also, Limbaugh felt the need to point out that the Nigerian girls are not “our” girls, so… maybe we shouldn’t care about them so much.

Of course, Limbaugh was deeply offensive on a variety of topics this week, including an assertion that this generation is “the most racist, and the most sexist” ever, because Obama was elected, and Hillary might be. But pitting himself against Malala pretty much took the cake. It prompted Jon Stewart to start a #f*@ckyourush campaign against the hater he aptly described as the “quivering rage heap who is apparently desperately trying to extinguish any remaining molecule of humanity that might still reside in the Chernobyl-esque superfund clean-up site that was his soul.”

And that’s on a good day.

2. Laura Ingraham: Nigerian girls were kidnapped because, Benghazi.

As the world now knows, schoolgirls were kidnapped in Chibok, Nigeria. Their cause has become a rallying cry around the world. For Fox Newsian Laura Ingraham, this can only mean one thing: Benghazi. Also, Benghazi. It’s like a buzzing sound, a compulsive tic she just has to blurt out… constantly. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. During a show this week, she interrupted her guest, who seemed to be actually discussing the situation in Nigeria, to say: “I think part of the problem here is …read more

Source: ALTERNET

Avatar of admin

by admin

Female CEOs More Likely to Get Fired

May 17, 2014 in Blogs

By Edward Helmore, The Guardian

A survey confirms that top businesswomen work on the edge of a glass cliff.


The perception that high-achieving businesswomen are more vulnerable than their male counterparts to being abruptly fired – pushed off the “glass cliff” in the contemporary corporate vernacular – has been borne out by a new study from a global management consultancy.

Researchers at Strategy&, formerly known as Booz & Company, found that women are forced out of chief executive positions more than a third of the time, while only a quarter of men in similar positions suffer the same fate.

The precarious position of women in the highest echelons of power – illustrated last week by the dramatic departures of Jill Abramson andNatalie Nougayrède as the editors of the New York Times and Le Monde– remains a stubborn fact of corporate life.

According to the authors of the 2013 Chief Executive Study, women' higher rate of failure is not because they are placed in more challenging roles or set up to fail. The research looked at CEO turnover over the past decade at the top of the world's 2,500 largest public companies and found that, while women represent only 3% of new CEOs, they are often forced out of top jobs sooner.

The report finds that men and women are broadly comparable in every area –except one: “Women are more often outsiders,” says co-author Ken Favaro. “So they're more vulnerable. They don't know the organisation. They can't diagnose the problems as quickly and don't understand the culture or how to get it to work for them – and they aren't necessarily given more time to deliver.”

While the proportion of women in the CEO class has doubled to nearly 4% in the past five years, a figure that the study's authors believe could rise to 33% by 2040, the gender norms of global corporate leadership remain stubbornly hard to shift.

With a smaller internal leadership pool to choose from, companies hiring female executives from outside are also likely to be less tolerant of shortcomings than they are with executives groomed in-house. And external CEOs are seven times more likely to …read more

Source: ALTERNET

Avatar of admin

by admin

Was American Democracy Always Doomed?

May 17, 2014 in Blogs

By Andrew O’Hehir, Salon.com

Most critiques of democracy as it currently exists assume that democracy can and should be fixed. Is that too optimistic?


In the glory days of the anti-globalization movement, circa the “Battle in Seattle” of 1999, there was an oft-repeated street scene some of you will remember. A group of protesters would seize an intersection or a block for a little while, likely because the police were otherwise occupied or couldn’t be bothered or didn’t want to bust heads while the cameras were watching. The ragtag band would haul out the drums and noisemakers, climb the lampposts and newspaper boxes with colorful banners, and send out an exuberant chant: “This is what democracy looks like!” (Contrary to what you may have heard, smashing the Starbucks windows was not required, and not all that common.)

It’s easy to snark all over that from this historical distance: If democracy looks like a noisy street party involving white people with dreadlocks dressed as sea turtles, count me out! But the philosophy behind that radical-activist moment was not nearly as naive as it might look from here, and much of the problem lies in that troublesome noun: democracy. In those post-Communist, pre-9/11 days, the era of the “end of history,” democracy in its liberal-capitalist formulation was assumed to be the natural fulfillment of human society. It was the essential nutrient-rich medium for the growth of all good things: Pizza Hut, parliamentary elections, knockoff designer clothes and broadband Internet, not to mention all the wonderful gizmos that were about to be invented. Even anti-capitalist protesters were compelled to embrace the rhetoric of democracy, if only to suggest (as Gandhi did about “Western civilization”) that it was a great idea but we hadn’t gotten there yet.

A decade and a half later, democracy remains officially unopposed on the world stage, yet it faces an unexpected existential crisis. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, American-style liberal-capitalist democracy has presented itself to the world as “the only legitimate form of expression or decision-making power” and “the necessary first condition of freedom.” (I’m quoting an anarchist critique by Moxie …read more

Source: ALTERNET

Avatar of admin

by admin

Why They Hate Peace

May 17, 2014 in Economics

By Mises Updates

6755

Ron Paul writes in this weekend’s Mises Daily:

Some believe economic sanctions and blockades are acceptable alternatives to invasion and occupation. But these too are acts of war, and those on the receiving end rarely capitulate to the pressure. More likely they remain bitter enemies, and resort to terrorism when unable to confront us in a conventional military fashion.

Inflation, sanctions, and military threats all distort international trade and hurt average people in all countries involved, while usually not really hurting the targeted dictators themselves. Our bellicose approach encourages protectionism, authoritarianism, militant nationalism, and go-it-alone isolationism.

…read more

Source: MISES INSTITUTE