How Detachment from an Addicted Person Can Be Loving For All By Wayland Myers, Ph.D.

© Wayland Myers, 1997 www.NonviolentCommunication.com 

“Detachment is a means whereby we allow others the
opportunity to learn how to care for themselves better.” I heard a drug rehab counselor say that many years ago and I was confused and disturbed. I was a parent. My child’s life, and our family, was being ravaged by her struggle with drug and alcohol use. Was I being told I should abstain from trying to protect her from the consequences of her addictive behaviors? That I should not try to control her recovery? I had heard about this “loving detach- 

ment” before. Then, it just sounded like some form of self-protective abandonment. But now, this counselor made it sound like a gift. How could that be?

Over time, I came to see the counselor’s point. I slowly discovered there were a number 

of benefits to using loving detachment as a way of relating to anyone struggling with a self-harming behavior pattern. And, when I met Marshall Rosenberg in 1986, I came to believe that even more. The insights and values of his Nonviolent Communication process greatly enhanced my understanding of how detachment can be loving for all involved.

Today, I consider myself lovingly detached when, 

I am willing and able to compassionately, and without judgment, allow others to be different from me, to be self-directed, and to be responsible for taking care of themselves. 

I have identified four ways that detachment is loving for those I care about, and four ways it is loving for me. 

How detachment is loving for others: 

I. Those I care for might learn to look within, and trust themselves for self-direction, including when and how to ask for help. If I refrain from trying to manage their problematic situation, the people I care about may learn something about thinking for themselves, problem solving, and when and how to ask for help. They might learn to better listen to their feelings and intuitions, to heed those little voices we all wish we listened to more. They might learn to better recognize when they want help and how to request it in ways that leave them feeling good, rather than embarrassed or ashamed. In short, letting them manage their own affairs gives them the opportunity to draw on their own inner resources, instead of mine, and from this direct experience of their abilities, no matter how groping or uncertain, they can build competence and may thereby increase their confidence. I believe this is the number one, and most natural, avenue for creating an increased sense of self esteem.

II. They might learn more about cause and effect. 

My not intervening allows others to have an uninterrupted experience of the cause and effect relationship between their actions and the natural consequences of those actions. In this way, they have a direct encounter with their personal power to con- 

tribute to their own pleasure or pain. Allowing people to have appropriate sized, real problems, and real responsibility for working out their solutions, seems to greatly facilitate this learning. 

III. They might experience the motivation to continue on, or change. 

Pleasurable and painful experiences often provide us the motivation to repeat what brought satisfaction and change what didn't. We all use this kind of emotional energy to move us forward in life. These motivating energies arise naturally within and feel much better to respond to than the attempts by others to motivate us through guilt, fear and other forms of coercion. 

IV. Self discovery and self enjoyment might increase.

If I grant others the freedom to think, feel, value, perceive, etc. as they wish, and they relax because they feel respected and safe, they might discover many new things about themselves. They might discover what they really like, feel or think. They might have

moments of creative insight that inspire, excite and encourage them. They might invent new, more satisfying dreams for their lives than ever would have appeared under the pressure of my controlling presence. 

Whenever I find myself struggling with the impulse to step-in and begin trying to manage another's life, or solve his or her problems, I find it helpful to review the four points just presented. They strongly motivate me to remain lovingly detached. 

Now, how about the ways loving detachment benefits me? 

How detachment is loving for me: 

I. I am relieved of the strain of attempting the impossible.

By carefully reviewing my experiences of trying to control other people's physical behavior, sobriety, health, learning, emotions and opinions, I have come to one conclusion: The only thing I might be able to control is a person's physical behavior and that requires that I possess enough physical strength and am willing to use it. If I accept my powerlessness to control the other things, the inner lives and wills of others, then I relieve myself of the stress and strain of attempting the impossible. This is a primary way for me to create more serenity in my life. In fact, if I practice this process deeply enough, I sometimes reach the point where I form no opinion about what another should do. This is a truly liberated and refreshing moment for us both. 

II. What other people think of me can become none of my business. 

If I am powerless to control the thoughts, perceptions, values or emotions of another, then I can liberate myself by accepting that their opinions of me are none of my business. Accepting this as fact, I not only free myself, but the other person as well, because I cease my attempts to control their inner workings. 

III. My attention and energy are freed to focus on improving my own life. 

I have plenty of problem areas in my own life. Obsessing about another’s life can help me avoid the pain within mine. But, the time and energy I spend obsessing about another's life I don't spend on mine, and if I do this enough, my life stays at its current level of unmanageability or gets worse. Loving detachment gives me the opportunity to invest my energies in my life. 

IV. I can express my love or caring in ways that bring me joy and satisfaction. 

When someone I care for is struggling with a problem, or feeling some kind of pain, I usually want to be supportive or helpful. But, I want to offer the kind of help that would bring me joy to offer, and them joy to receive. 

Psych doctors took money from drug companies to medicate children in juvenile jails....

by Tara Green 

(NaturalNews) Psychiatrists working for the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, entrusted with the health of children in state custody, accepted thousands of dollars from drug companies. While earning huge fees as speakers for manufacturers of anti-psychotic pills, the doctors also wrote prescriptions for psychiatric drugs for children in the DJJ system. The Palm Beach Post News broke the story of this medical conflict of interest which one former federal prosecutor calls "truly stunning and troubling."

Post reporter Michael LaForgia found that one in three of the psychiatrists who held contracts with the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) to treat children in the system also either accepted gifts from drug companies or appeared as a paid speaker for those companies. LaForgia's research revealed that the doctors prescribed anti-psychotic drugs prior to those drugs receiving approval from the FDA for pediatric use. One of the psychiatrists whose work LaForgia investigated wrote significantly more Medicaid prescriptions for children during the period he was working for the pharmaceutical companies. The combined pharmaceutical company payments to the four highest paid DJJ-affiliated psychiatrists totaled nearly $200,000.

The Post's story prompted Wansley Waters, the recently appointed secretary of the DJJ, to order an investigation into the prescription of antipsychotic drugs to children in the state program. Citing the investigation, Waters declined further comment on the situation. However, Circuit Judge Ronald Alvarez, a 12-year veteran of the Palm Beach County juvenile courts, stated that "This is a serious, legitimate and possibly life-threatening issue that requires investigation, reformation and possibly prosecution."

Lack of regulation at the federal, state and county helped contribute to this situation. Neither the federal government nor the state of Florida requires drug companies to disclose payments to physicians. The Florida DJJ has no policy in place asking doctors working for the agency either to reveal or to avoid conflicts of interest. The DJJ also has no tracking system for drugs prescribed to children in its care, instead relying on the judgment of doctors to write prescriptions in the childrens best interest.

Less than a week before the Post broke the story, the DJJ's chief medical director, Lisa Johnson, sent a memo to all contracted and state-employed doctors working with children in the system. In that memo, she warned psychiatrists against prescribing anti-psychotics and other medication except for reasons approved by the federal government. The memo also reminded doctors not to use drugs as "as a means of punishment, discipline, coercion, restraint or retaliation."

As the pharmaceutical companies move to expand their market everyone becomes a potential "patient" to be medicated. Children in the care of the state, unable to refuse treatment and without direct parent or guardian involvement in their daily lives are especially vulnerable. The Post story is a commendable (and, unfortunately, these days, all too rare) instance of the mainstream media living up to its watchdog role, fulfilling the famous description of journalism's mission to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." We hope the Pulitzer committee has made note of Michael LaForgia's tremendous work in bringing about reforms in the medical pill mill culture.

To grasp the extent to which mainstream healthcare, and the psychiatric profession in particular, has been co-opted by Big Pharma, check out the information available at the website of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights. As one article on the CCHR website notes, the DSM, known as the diagnostic manual of the psychiatric profession, has in reality become a "billing bible": "With the DSM, psychiatry has taken countless aspects of human behavior and reclassified them as a mental illness simply by adding the term disorder onto them . . . The DSM is driven not by science, but instead caters to the pharmaceutical industry." The CCHR urges psychiatrists to take heed of the advice of take heed of Dr. Paul Genova, who wrote in Psychiatric Times, that the "DSM diagnostic system has outlived its usefulness by about two decades. It should be abandoned, not revised."

As the CCHR website and videos document, the profit-based method of disease diagnosis and drug prescription is not only greedy and unethical but also dangerous. Many of the drugs being given to children have caused serious and even deadly side-effects. The website DrugFree Children.org also provides useful information for anyone wanting to move past the pharmaceutical companies' propaganda about the supposed safety and benefits of their products.

Also worth reading to understand the pill-mill culture is the book "Selling Sickness: How the World's Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients" (Ray Moynihan and Alan Cassels, 2006). The authors of this book reveal the collusion of Big Pharma, doctors and supposed "patient advocacy groups, abetted by the public relations and advertising campaigns designed to persuade consumers that they need drugs. The book is also the basis of a documentary film of the same name.

"I'm Sorry, Officer" by Will Wlizio/Utne Reader

5/18/2011 12:49:25 PM

by Will Wlizlo

 

As soon as you hear the siren whooping and see the blue and red lights flashing behind your car, you start to feel sorry for yourself. You grudgingly pull over and adopt a pleasant attitude. You may not be sorry that you were going 65 mph in a 25 mph school-zone, but you’re definitely sorry that a police officer was behind you when you did. And now you’re about to get a ticket. A new study called “The Value of Remorse” published in the journal of Law and Human Behavior (abstract only) suggests that you may save a pile of cash if you channel all those sorry feelings and just apologize to the officer.

Infrastructurist’s Eric Jaffe summarizes the paper:

To reach this conclusion, [researchers Martin Day and Michael Ross] asked more than 500 Canadians to recall their most recent speeding violation. The survey participants detailed their speed and fine, as well as the interaction they had with the police officer who stopped them. Generally speaking these interactions fell into the following categories: apology (“I’m sorry”), excuse (“I didn’t realize I was speeding”), justification (“My sister is giving birth”), denial (“I wasn’t speeding”), or silence.

On average, the survey participants had been going 18 miles per hour over the speed limit, leading to a ticket of roughly $130 Canadian. When Day and Ross analyzed the specifics of these episodes, they found that people who apologized to the police officer received, on average, a $33 reduction to their fine.

Jaffe also points out that as the severity of your lead-footed infraction increases (meaning, the faster over the speed limit you were going), the more professed remorse works to your wallet’s advantage. (The graph to the right plots the relationship between speed and ticket cost for those who apologize and those who do not for a sample of Americans interviewed by Day and Ross.)

Source: Infrastructurist, Law and Human Behavior (abstract only)

Image by Casey Serin , licensed under Creative Commons . 

Read more: http://www.utne.com/Spirituality/Value-Of-Remorse-Reduced-Speeding-Ticket.aspx#ixzz1NSpmdSnF

"Self-Love for Sale" ~ Utne Reader

Self-Love for Sale — Features — Utne Reader

Making a Killing: The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging by Steve Beckow

Making a Killing: The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging

.....an email...................

Dear Senior,


We regret(rejoice) to inform you that even 


though 


you and your employer paid into the system 


your  entire working life, we're taking away your

Medicare because we can.



Please watch Groupon for deals on prescription 


medications and bypass surgeries.

Yours Truly,

Teabagger Death Panel

What Do You Think About this video?

One Lawman With the Guts to Go After Wall Street

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/one_lawman_with_the_guts_to_go_after_wall_street_20110518/

Posted on May 18, 2011

By Robert Scheer

The fix was in to let the Wall Street scoundrels off the hook for the enormous damage they caused in creating the Great Recession. All of the leading politicians and officials, federal and state, Republican and Democrat, were on board to complete the job of saving the banks while ignoring their victims ... until last week when the attorney general of New York refused to go along.

Eric Schneiderman will probably fail, as did his predecessors in that job; the honest sheriff doesn’t last long in a town that houses the Wall Street casino. But decent folks should be cheering him on. Despite a mountain of evidence of robo-signed mortgage contracts, deceitful mortgage-based securities and fraudulent foreclosures, the banks were going to be able to cut their potential losses to what was, for them, a minuscule amount.
In a deal that had the blessing of the White House and many federal regulators and state attorneys general—a settlement probably for not much more than the $5 billion pittance the top financial institutions found acceptable—the banks would be freed of any further claims by federal and state officials over their shady mortgage packaging and servicing practices and deceptive foreclosure proceedings.

At the same time, the SEC and other federal regulatory bodies are making sweetheart deals with the bankers to close off accountability for creating and collecting on more than a trillion dollars’ worth of toxic mortgage-based securities at the heart of the nation’s economic meltdown—a meltdown that has seen the national debt grow by more than 50 percent, stuck us with an unyielding 9 percent unemployment and left 50 million Americans losing their homes to foreclosure or clinging desperately to underwater mortgages. On top of which an all-time high of 44 million people are living below the official poverty line and fewer new homes were started in April than at any other time in the past half century. With housing values still in free fall, we continue to make the bankers whole.
As Gretchen Morgenson reported in The New York Times, the Justice Department division responsible for checking for fraud in the bankruptcy system has found a widespread pattern of deception by banks foreclosing homes, and she concluded: “So an authoritative source with access to a lot of data has identified industry practices as not only pernicious but also pervasive. Which makes it all the more mystifying that regulators seem eager to strike a cheap and easy settlement with the banks.”

Not really surprising given both the enormous hold of Wall Street money over the two major political parties and the revolving door through which executives travel between firms like Goldman Sachs and the top positions in the U.S. Treasury Department and elsewhere in the government. The financial crisis occurred only because Republicans and Democrats passed the laws that Wall Street lobbyists wrote ending reasonable banking industry regulation installed in the 1930s in response to the Depression. And when the greed they enabled threatened the foundations of our economy, under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, it was the bankers who were assisted into lifeboats that had no room for ordinary people.

Not surprising then to find all of the power players in on the latest deals: the Obama administration that had bailed out the banks but not troubled homeowners; the regulators and Fed officials who all looked the other way when the housing bubble was inflated; and the state attorneys general who backed away from going after the perpetrators of robo-signed mortgages and other scams used to foreclose homes.

But now Schneiderman has a chance to derail the deals, given that he is supported by the state’s tough 1921 Martin Act, which one of his predecessors as New York state attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, had used to good advantage in exposing the financial behemoths that are so heavily based in New York. The Wall Street Journal describes the Martin Act as “one of the most potent prosecutorial tools against financial fraud” because, as opposed to federal law, it doesn’t carry the more difficult standard of proving intent to defraud.

Last week, it was revealed that Schneiderman’s office has demanded an accounting from Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs as to the details of their past practice of securitizing those mortgage-based packages that proved so toxic. Maybe he will fail against such powerful forces, as did Spitzer and later Andrew Cuomo, but it is a test worth watching, since no one else, from the White House on down, seems to be concerned with holding the bailed-out banks accountable for the massive pain and suffering they inflicted on the public.
AP / Frank Franklin II

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Copyright © 2011 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. Web site development by Hop Studios

NY AG Investigation: Why Haven't Wall Streeters Gone to Jail?

NY AG Investigation: Why Haven't Wall Streeters Gone to Jail?

Julian Assange: Why the world needs WikiLeaks | Video on TED.com

Julian Assange: Why the world needs WikiLeaks | Video on TED.com

ALWAYS INFLUENCE, NEVER CONTROL

Lloyd J. Thomas, Ph.D. has 30+ years experience as a Life Coach and
Licensed Psychologist.  He is available for coaching in any area
presented in "Practical Life Coaching" (formerly "Practical
Psychology").  Initial coaching sessions are free.  Contact him: (970)
568-0173 or E-mail: DrLloyd@CreatingLeaders.com or LJTDAT@aol.com.


By Lloyd J. Thomas, Ph.D.

       When coaching couples, many times I hear statements like: "Our
marriage has gone flat."  "All we do is fight...if we talk to each
other at all;"  "If only s/he would change, I would be a lot happier;"
Each one complains about his or her partner

       Many young adults honestly believe that if they love their partner
enough, or relate to them long enough, that the partner will change.
If they criticize enough, point out the other's weaknesses enough,
blame enough, give enough, yell enough, go silent long enough...their
partner will change.

       Some people acknowledge they don't have the power to change
another's thoughts, feelings, opinions, or values.  Therefore, they go
on to conclude that they have no impact or influence on anyone.  If
what they say or do cannot change how another responds, then it seems
logical to conclude they themselves are powerless, helpless to
influence others.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

       Everything you do has an impact on yourself, others or your
environment.  You are the most powerful and influential creature on
earth.  Just because you cannot control the choices or responses of
others, does not mean you function without impact.  Simply because you
cannot determine how others think, feel or behave, does not mean you
have no important impact on them at all.

       Let's turn this dynamic around and view it from the opposite side.
If you cannot determine how others function, the reverse is also true.
 They cannot determine how you behave.  Viewed from this perspective,
who determines how we think, feel and behave?  Clearly, it is only
you.  We have all the power to change ourselves.  We have no power to
change others.

       Does this mean we are not impacted by the behavior of others?  Not
at all.  If you walk up and slap me across the face, your behavior
will have a powerful impact on me.  However, your slapping me in no
way determines how I will respond.  I am free to choose my response
from any number of possibilities.  Your slap does not determine my
response.  I do.

       When you realize you can and do have an impact on others, but have
absolutely no power to determine their responses, you are free to stop
wasting your time and energy focusing on how you can make your spouse,
child or colleague change anything.  With that freed-up time and
energy, you might as well use it to modify the only person you can
change...,yourself.

       When you change yourself, you modify the nature of the impact you
have on others.  Remember, you and your behavior always have
influence.  The nature of that influence is determined by your own
choices.  You never have control of others.  The nature of control
lies within each of us alone.  When you fully understand this, you
will stop blaming others, stop reacting to others, stop modifying what
you do in order to "make" someone else happy, angry, sad, or behave in
any way differently than they choose.

       Stephen Covey writes in his book, The 7 Habits Of Highly Effective
People, "...if you want to have a happy marriage, be the kind of
person who generates positive energy and sidesteps negative energy
rather than empowering it.  If you want to have a more pleasant
cooperative teenager, be a more understanding, empathic, consistent,
loving parent.  If you want to have more freedom, more latitude in
your job, be a more responsible, a more helpful, a more contributing
employee.  If you want to be trusted, be trustworthy.  If you want the
secondary greatness of recognized talent, focus first on primary
greatness of [your own] character."

       Never forget that who you are...your character, always influences
others.  That is your personal power.  Manage your power wisely and
you influence the nature of all your relationships.  You are helpless
to control or change your partner, but you do have a powerful impact
on the quality of your marriage.  Improve the quality of your
character and you improve the quality of not only your marital
relationship, but all your relationships.  The only way you can
possibly change your life is to change yourself.  You may not
determine or control how life is, but you always have an influence
upon it.

USDA fines family four million dollars for selling bunny rabbits ~ from Natural News

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

When the Dollarhite family of Nixa, Mo., first started raising and selling bunnies as part of a lesson to teach their teenage son about responsibility and hard work, they had no idea they would eventually meet the heavy hand of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). According to a recent article covered in Breitbart's Big Government, the USDA recently ordered the Dollarhite family to pay more than $90,000 in fines because they sold more than $500 worth of rabbits in a year -- and if they fail to pay the fine by Monday, May 23, the fine will multiply to nearly $4 million.

It all started back in 2006 when John Dollarhite and his wife Judy rescued two rabbits that ended up breeding. The family cared for and raised the new rabbits, and eventually began to sell them to neighbors, friends, and others for $10 or $15 each. Having started by first selling the animals for meat, and later for show, the Dollarhites carefully and humanely raised the small creatures on their three-acre homestead, all while teaching their son honest values in a business environment similar to running a small lemonade stand.

Eventually, the Dollarhites developed such a highly-respected reputation across Missouri that the popular Branson, Mo., theme park Silver Dollar City, and even a local pet store, Petland, began purchasing bunnies from the family in 2009. And according to John, individuals from both Silver Dollar City and Petland, as well as a rabbit competition judge, told him that the family's bunnies were among the best they had ever seen -- healthy, beautiful, and very well-cared for.

All seemed well until a USDA inspector showed up at the family's home in the fall of 2009, and asked to do a "spot inspection" of the rabbitry. The inspector made no indication that anything was amiss, but only that she wished to see the facility. After meandering the premises, the inspector claimed that a few very insignificant aspects of the raising facility were in violation of USDA standards, even though the Dollarhites were not USDA certified, nor were they required to be. She then asked if the Dollarhites wished to be part of the voluntary USDA certification system, upon which they told her they would look into it.

After the inspector left, the Dollarhites heard nothing more from the USDA until January 2010 when a Kansas City-based USDA inspector called the family and said he needed to have a meeting with them because they sold more than $500 worth of rabbits in a single year. When the Dollarhites asked why this was a problem and what law this violated, the man refused to offer an explanation over the phone.

Upon meeting in person, the inspector said he was only there to investigate the rabbitry and take notes for a report, upon which he instructed the family to contact another USDA office if they failed to hear anything further from the USDA after six weeks. As the eighth week arrived without any communication, John called the office and was redirected to the Washington, DC, office where a lady shockingly and bluntly explained to him that she had his report, and that the USDA planned to prosecute him and his family "to the maximum that we can" in order to "make an example" out of him.

Shortly thereafter, the Dollarhites received a letter from the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) ordering them to pay a fine of $90,643 for supposedly violating a mystery law that prohibits the selling of more then $500 in rabbits within a year, even though the Dollarhites were in full accordance with Missouri state law, did not sell their rabbits across state lines, and raised their rabbits humanely and in excess of minimum requirements. The letter outlined that the Dollarhites had until May 23 to pay the exorbitant fine, or else face additional fines totaling nearly $4 million -- all for selling about $4,600 worth of rabbits that netted the family a mere $200 in profits.

The whole scenario proves, once again, that the USDA is nothing more than a tag-team terrorist duo with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Both agencies' insatiable lust for power and control over private affairs is never satisfied, as they continue to prowl around like bloodthirsty predators seeking whoever and whatever they can devour. When will Americans finally stand up to their tyranny and say enough is enough?

To read the full account of the Dollarhite saga, visit:
http://biggovernment.com/bmccarty/2...

To contact the APHIS division of the USDA responsible for this mess and express your thoughts on the matter, write, call, or email:
USDA/APHIS/AC
4700 River Road, Unit 84
Riverdale, MD 20737-1234
ace@aphis.usda.gov
(301) 734-4978

All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml

Obama calls for fixing No Child Left Behind - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency

Obama calls for fixing No Child Left Behind - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency

The Truth About Paul Ryan

The Truth About Paul Ryan

What Maria Shriver can't teach you about cheating

What Maria Shriver can't teach you about cheating

Bush-Era Tax Cuts Projected As Largest Contributor To Public Debt [CHART]

The Huffington Post  William Alden  First Posted: 05/20/11 02:50 PM ET Updated: 05/20/11 03:04 PM ET

If the Bush-era tax cuts are renewed next year, that policy will by 2019 be the single largest contributor to the nation's public debt -- "the sum of annual budget deficits, minus annual surpluses" -- according to new analysis from the non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

These tax breaks for the nation's top earners, combined with the cost of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will account for nearly half the public debt in 2019, measured as a percentage of economic output, the CBPP's analysis shows. Even the cost of the economic downturn, combined with the cost of the legislation passed to stem the damage, won't be as burdensome as the weight of the Bush-era tax cuts, the chart below suggests. See if you can find the debt associated with the Trouble Asset Relief Program and the rescue of Fannie and Freddie:

Tax cuts for the highest earners were renewed late last year, as part of a deal that extended tax breaks for middle earners and reauthorized unemployment insurance. In an April speech, President Barack Obama laid out a plan to reduce the nation's deficit and debt, suggesting that he would strive to make sure the Bush-era tax cuts expire naturally in 2012.

If tax cuts do expire as scheduled, that would win significant debt relief for the government, CBPP says:

[S]imply letting the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule (or paying for any portions that policymakers decide to extend) would stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio for the next decade. While we'd have to do much more to keep the debt stable over the longer run, that would be a huge accomplishment.

The Dumbing Down of Society from Neurotoxins

The Dumbing Down of Society from Neurotoxins

DSK Accuser: The Dangerous Life of a Hotel Maid

DSK Accuser: The Dangerous Life of a Hotel Maid

Gut bacteria linked to behavior: That anxiety may be in your gut, not in your head

Gut bacteria linked to behavior: That anxiety may be in your gut, not in your head