- 68 percent had to scale back purchases at the grocery store due to rising prices.
- 40 percent reported the loss of a job.
- 39 percent experienced reduced wages, hours or benefits at work.
- 39 percent had to move in with a family member or take someone in to save money.
- 33 percent lost health insurance coverage.
- 23 percent fell behind on mortgage payments or experienced a home foreclosure.
- And 23 percent experienced reduced unemployment, infant care and/or child care benefits.
It’s been said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder … but tragically most women are far too critical of themselves. Here an FBI artist tries to show women that they are far more attractive than they believe. This is part of a campaign by Dove.
“Evil is unspectacular and always human, and shares our bed and eats at our own table.”
- W. H. Auden
(The following excerpts taken from the insightful and thought-provoking article It Can Happen Anywhere by LZ Granderson, weekly columnist for CNN.com and senior writer and columnist for ESPN the Magazine and ESPN.com, originally appeared on CNN.com on April 15, 2013. To view it in its entirety please click on the link below.)
If September 11, 2001, was the day everything changed, then April 15, 2013, serves as another reminder of that change, of our frailties and of a new reality in which “it can’t happen here” has been replaced by “it can happen anywhere.”
This is what happens when evil like the kind experienced in Boston takes away our innocence.
It forces us to empty our pockets, have our bags inspected and remove trash cans from the streets of a major international city.
If September 11, 2001, made you cry, then April 15, 2013, should make you angry.
Doesn’t matter if the culprits of this heinous act came from afar or home. The origin of the person or persons responsible won’t bring us the peace that we took for granted not so long ago. That peace is gone, forever. Our children will hear stories about this peace and our children’s children will treat it as a fairy tale.
If April 15, 2013, was the day the Boston Marathon became a target for terrorism, then September 11, 2001, was the day we all were warned that it would be. Since then nothing has been the same.
Nothing will be the same.
“Something in the way she moves attracts me like no other lover.” – George Harrison
(The following excerpt from Men’s Nonverbals Increase Women’s Attractiveness by Ronald E. Riggio, Ph.D., originally appeared on psychology today.com on July 13, 2012. To view it in its entirety please click on the link below.)
What are the implications? If a person is treated as if they are sexually attractive (or smart, or funny, or whatever) they will behave in a manner consistent with how they are treated. Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder — and that beholder’s eye can affect our sexual attractiveness.
“Queen Bee: a woman who dominates or leads a group” – Merriam Webster
(The following excerpt from Buzzkill: What To Do When You’re The Workplace Queen Bee by Peggy Drexler originally appeared on April 9, 2013, on thedailybeast.com. To view it in its entirety please click on the link below.)
I’ve lately been studying the Queen Bee phenomenon as it relates to the modern day workplace. For decades, we’ve witnessed this phenomenon, which is defined by women who achieve success opposing the similar rise of other women, most typically in male-dominated fields. Although one might think these women would be eager to support other women out of a sense of solidarity, too often patriarchal work cultures create a situation in which the few women who rise to the top become obsessed with maintaining authority. These women aren’t necessarily born Queen Bees, but become them. Now, with the numbers of women in management positions rising so, too, are the incidents of female bosses who bully, abuse, over- criticize, or worse.
In a 2012 Gallup survey, 60 percent of U.S. government employees reported being miserable at work not because of low pay or poor benefits, but because of their bosses. Studies show that bad bosses aren’t just a hit for morale; they’re a hit for business and profitability. A 2012 Harvard Business Review report noted that even expensive company perks like great health insurance and rewards systems mean nothing for productivity and loyalty if the boss is a bad leader. Good bosses, meanwhile, lead employees to increase revenue, as proven by various studies conducted at big box stores like Sears, J.C. Penney, and Best Buy. In the case of Sears, when employee satisfaction improved by 5 percent, customer satisfaction improved enough to lead to a significant increase in revenue. This is why, more and more, underlings aren’t just subject to review but are asked for their feedback on their supervisors as well.
Genetically modified (GM) foods are often promoted as a way to feed the world. But this is little short of a confidence trick. Far from needing more GM foods, there are urgent reasons why we need to ban them altogether.
1. GM foods won’t solve the food crisis
A 2008 World Bank report concluded that increased biofuel production is the major cause of the increase in food prices. Biofuels are crops grown for fuel rather than food. GM giant Monsanto has been at the heart of the lobbying for biofuels — while profiting enormously from the resulting food crisis and using it as a PR opportunity to promote GM foods!
“The climate crisis was used to boost biofuels, helping to create the food crisis; and now the food crisis is being used to revive the fortunes of the GM industry.” — Daniel Howden, Africa correspondent, The Independent (UK)
“The cynic in me thinks that they’re just using the current food crisis and the fuel crisis as a springboard to push GM crops back on to the public agenda. I understand why they’re doing it, but the danger is that if they’re making these claims about GM crops solving the problem of drought or feeding the world, that’s bullshit.” – Prof Denis Murphy, head of biotechnology, University of Glamorgan, Wales
2. GM crops do not increase yield potential
Despite the promises, GM has not increased the yield potential of any commercialised crops. In fact, studies show that the most widely grown GM crop, GM soya, has suffered reduced yields.
A report that analyzed nearly two decades worth of peer reviewed research on the yield of the primary GM food/feed crops, soybeans and corn (maize), reveals that despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase US crop yields. The author, former US EPA and US FDA biotech specialist Dr Gurian-Sherman, concludes that when it comes to yield, “Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down.”
“Let’s be clear. As of this year , there are no commercialized GM crops that inherently increase yield. Similarly, there are no GM crops on the market that were engineered to resist drought, reducefertilizer pollution or save soil. Not one.” – Dr Doug Gurian-Sherman
3. GM crops increase pesticide use
US government data shows that in the US, GM crops have produced an overall increase, not decrease, in pesticide use compared to conventional crops.
“The promise was that you could use less chemicals and produce a greater yield. But let me tell you none of this is true.” – Bill Christison, President of the US National Family Farm Coalition
4. There are better ways to feed the world
A major UN/World Bank-sponsored report compiled by 400 scientists and endorsed by 58 countries concluded that GM crops have little to offer global agriculture and the challenges of poverty, hunger, and climate change, because better alternatives are available. In particular, the report championed “agroecological” farming as the sustainable way forward for developing countries.
5. Other farm technologies are more successful
Integrated Pest Management and other innovative low-input or organic methods of controlling pests and boosting yields have proven highly effective, particularly in the developing world. Other plantbreeding technologies, such as Marker Assisted Selection (non-GM genetic mapping), are widely expected to boost global agricultural productivity more effectively and safely than GM. 
“The quiet revolution is happening in gene mapping, helping us understand crops better. That is up andrunning and could have a far greater impact on agriculture [than GM].” – Prof John Snape, head of the department of crop genetics, John Innes Centre
6. GM foods have not been shown to be safe to eat
Genetic modification is a crude and imprecise way of incorporating foreign genetic material (e.g. from viruses, bacteria) into crops, with unpredictable consequences. The resulting GM foods have undergone little rigorous and no long-term safety testing. However, animal feeding tests have shown that GM foods have toxic effects, including abnormal changes in organs, immune system disturbances, accelerated ageing, and changes in gene expression. Very few studies have been published on the direct effects on humans of eating a GM food. One such study found unexpected effects on gut bacteria, but was never followed up.
It is claimed that Americans have eaten GM foods for years with no ill effects. But these foods are unlabeled in the US and no one has monitored the consequences. With other novel foods like trans fats, it has taken decades to realize that they have caused millions of premature deaths.
“We are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences.” — Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist
7. People don’t want GM foods – so they’re hidden in animal feed
As a spokesperson for Asgrow, a subsidiary of Monsanto, said, “If you put a label on genetically engineered food, you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.” The GM industry has got around the problem of consumer rejection of GM foods by hiding them in animal feed. Meat, eggs and dairy products from animals raised on the millions of tons of GM feed imported into Europe do not have to be labelled. Some studies show that contrary to GM and food industry claims, animals raised on GM feed ARE different from those raised on non-GM feed. Other studies show that if GM crops are fed to animals, GM material can appear in the resulting products and affect the animals’ health. So eating these “stealth GMOs” may affect the health of consumers.
8. GM crops are a long-term economic disaster for farmers
A 2009 report showed that GM seed prices in America have increased dramatically, compared to non-GM and organic seeds, cutting average farm incomes for US farmers growing GM crops. The report concluded, “At the present time there is a massive disconnect between the sometimes lofty rhetoric from those championing biotechnology as the proven path toward global food security and what is actually happening on farms in the US that have grown dependent on GM seeds and are now dealing with the consequences.”
9. GM and non-GM cannot co-exist
GM contamination of conventional and organic food is increasing. An unapproved GM rice that was grown for only one year in field trials was found to have extensively contaminated the US rice supply and seedstocks. In Canada, the organic oilseed rape industry has been destroyed by contamination from GM rape. In Spain, a study found that GM maize “has caused a drastic reduction in organic cultivations of this grain and is making their coexistence practically impossible”.
The time has come to choose between a GM-based, or a non-GM-based, world food supply.
“If some people are allowed to choose to grow, sell and consume GM foods, soon nobody will be able to choose food, or a biosphere, free of GM. It’s a one way choice, like the introduction of rabbits or cane toads to Australia; once it’s made, it can’t be reversed.” – Roger Levett, specialist in sustainable development
10. We can’t trust GM companies
The big biotech firms pushing their GM foods have a terrible history of toxic contamination and public deception. GM is attractive to them because it gives them patents that allow monopoly control over the world’s food supply. They have taken to harassing and intimidating farmers for the “crime” of savingpatented seed or “stealing” patented genes — even if those genes got into the farmer’s fields through accidental contamination by wind or insects.
“Farmers are being sued for having GMOs on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell.” – Tom Wiley, North Dakota farmer
Stand Up to Bigotry and Imagine a World Without Hate. For 100 Years the Anti-Defamation League has empowered millions to fight prejudice.
Official video : ADL.org/imagine