by Olivia LaRosa, November 20, 2014
“The study confirms that infanticide isn’t some curious thing caused by humans encroaching on animal territory, it is a male tactic to improve their mating opportunities,” said Kit Opie, from the University College London.
If the female is involved in caring for an infant, the male baboon feels neglected. The ownership of the infant lies with the mother.
It also appears that the females of these species have come up with a strategy to prevent the males from killing their young and this involves mating with as many males as they can in a short time. This strategic promiscuity makes it difficult to discern the infant’s paternity and the males stop killing the young if there is the possibility that the offspring is their own.
Strategic promiscuity stops male baboons from asserting an ownership interest in an infant, and therefore the right to murder it.
“Infanticide primarily evolves in social mammals in which reproduction is monopolized by a minority of males,” the researchers wrote in their study, which was published in the journal Science on Nov. 14. “It has not promoted social counterstrategies such as female gregariousness, pair living, or changes in group size and sex ratio, but is successfully prevented by female sexual promiscuity, a paternity dilution strategy.”
Having lived in a nuclear family situation for most of my life, I can’t say I recommend it. The ideal family unit is the mother and her children. Men can drop in, but they are not to be relied upon for support. Mother and children receive sufficient income to raise children that can explore their potential to contribute to society.
Elizabeth Holmes is a dropout and she’s a billionaire at 30. Her company’s technology will be in every Walgreen’s store in the nation.
Another “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” story of someone who worked rilly rilly hard to get ahead.
She was born in a hovel in a coal-mining town. Yes, the headline begs you to infer how unimportant a college education is, or ignores any advantages gained by having old-money-rich or talented parents. Class makes the difference in 92% of these cases.
So I lied. She went to Stanford on the money her parents saved up for her to go to college. I promise you that 92% of Americans could not save enough money to send their children to Stanford. (Let’s stick with 92% becuz it is my favorite number to illustrate a statistic on the high end that I don’t want to look up.)
If she was really all that smart, she would have had a full-ride academic scholarship to Stanford.
Bill Gates famously dropped out of college to found Microsoft. People forget to note that he dropped out of Harvard and that his father was a fabulously rich attorney who was the creme de la creme of Seattle society.
George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, John F. Kennedy, Donald Trump, and hundreds more of our opinion-makers and idols are the children of the rich. Born on third base and thinking they hit a homer, far too many of these entitled pompous “leaders” lack empathy and compassion for their fellow human beings.
“Mark Zuckerberg is the son of dentist Edward Zuckerberg and psychiatrist Karen Kempner.
“At Ardsley High School, Zuckerberg excelled in classics. He transferred to Phillips Exeter Academy in his junior year, where he won prizes in science (math, astronomy and physics) and classical studies.”
Nothing helps a kid succeed in life more than a rich parent.
by Olivia LaRosa, October 28,2014
Since the candidacy of Joni Ernst for the office of US Senator came to my attention, I started sampling coverage of her campaign through news media feeds.
Here are the things I have learned:
Joni spends most of her time thanking the 20 people who show up at her rallies.
Joni has no bills in mind to pass.
Joni swallows all of that bogus John Bircher nonsense Koch people feed her. Joni may know that the Koch Brothers are paying the bills for her candicacy but she doesn’t care. Joni is just a Koch Brothers puppet.
Joni is scary. Joni’s kinda dumb. Joni is unfit to sit within the US Senate.
Joni knows nothing about governance except how to get a county job and award her dad with contracts.
Joni likes living on the same block where she grew up because she knows where the cracks in the sidewalk occur.
Joni makes most of her political decisions based on what’s good for the place where she lives and the people in her immediate family.
Joni and her husband have been Federal employees their whole lives. Joni was in the National Guard during the Iraq wars but did not hold a combat role. Joni likes to exaggerate. Who’s supping more at the government’s trough? Them or me?
Joni takes money from chemical company mouthpieces. How much more cancer can your family take on her behalf?
Marco Rubio comes to your state to applaud the fact that if Joni is elected you can fire Harry Reid. 1) There is no assurance that would happen. 2) How does Harry Reid’s position affect your everyday life?
But finally, at the end, no one is reading Joni’s press releases and no one is supporting her corrupt donors.
So far the only reference to beauty Ernst has made has been in reference to her concealed-carry weapon.
I can’t believe that any responsible citizen would vote for a cardboard cutout from the Koch Brothers campaign.
Even if Bruce Braley sits on his butt for six years he will cause less damage to Iowa and the US if he is elected. Joni Ernst is a corporate puppet and death will follow in her wake. As you may know, the chemical industry is one of her top contributors.
This is why the chemical industry pays so much for lobbyists. They have both ends of the cancer market, the cause and the cure, and they want to keep it that way.
Ernst is a voluntary chemical corporation lobbyist and nothing more.
By Olivia LaRosa, circa 2012
(I have read this paragraph a hundred times over the years since I published it. It still turns my stomach.) OLE 2014
This man, a gynecologist, wore a tiny camera in his tie. With the tiny camera, he captured pictures of the genitals of women and girls for his private amusement. He was in a position of power and he abused that power with base motives.
His hospital, Johns Hopkins, will pay $190,000,000 (One hundred ninety million dollars) in an attempt to right the wrongs.
Surely, it would have been easier to run diagnostic psych tests on persons who become doctors than pay out the vast sums of money demanded by the legal system to punish their behavior. We are not even paying out enough to repair the damage they create, let alone to insure prosperity in the wake of punishing the corrupt.
For an example, see Rick Scott, the Tea Party Governor of Florida. His company paid a HEFTY fine for defrauding medicare. Scott took the 5th amendment scores of times when held to account. Still, Floridians voted him in on the froth of a Tea Party wave in 2010. Let’s get rid of Rick, and all the other misery governors elected over the last 10 years with funds provided by the Koch Bros and others of their ilk.
Money should’t be used to moderate our access to food, water, shelter, and education. Those components, delivered in sufficient amounts nearly assure a healthy, well-adjusted family group.
by Olivia LaRosa, a former Republican, October 6, 2014
GOP, who do you think you’re kidding? Your party is waging a war on women, and also lying about waging a war on women. When your National Party Chair Reince Priebus says ridiculous things like the only thing that the GOP wants to stop is government paying for abortions on the air, you ought to hang your heads in shame.
That’s when Priebus either veered wildly off topic or outright misrepresented the law, depending on how you read it. “No, look, listen Chuck. The issue for us is only one thing,” he said. “And that’s whether you ought to use taxpayer money to fund abortion.”
…As for taxpayer funding for abortion, it has been barred under the federal Hyde Amendment since 1976, except for in cases of rape and incest. Some states provide their own Medicaid funding for the procedure, but Texas follows the Hyde standard. The law in question did nothing to change that.(1)
This front on your War on Women features the closure of legally and medically appropriate women’s healthcare facilities because someone you don’t know somewhere might get an abortion. Are you insane? Maybe not. Maybe you still believe there isn’t a little man behind the curtain.
I simply do not care about your arguments. These restrictions are murderous. Women will die without the services of these organizations. When women fall ill, children languish and all may die, even now. Is this real life suffering less important than that of a merely potential good match. I didn’t like being pregnant by my husband. He was a disgusting person. But I tolerated pregnancy well right up to Wendy’s birth and was a happy mommy. I was so excited to have you in my life.
The once-great state of Texas is now nearly bereft of women’s healthcare facilities because of an overly restrictive law making those facilities comply with expensive, difficult and time-consuming standards in order to continue operation.
Now, there are fewer than 10 clinics offering a full range of women’s healthcare services. This, in a state that contains Houston, a city larger than Los Angeles. (2)
Texas has a population of 26,448,000 (that’s millions!) of people. Let’s do the math. Divide population into quarters: adult men, adult women, male children, female children, for argument’s sake. 6.5 Million women/8 clinics=one clinic for every 812,500 women. (3)
Of course, my figures are an exaggeration. It doesn’t matter, because even if I was 90% off, the proportions would still be unacceptable.
Shame on you, GOP. At least, admit to waging the war. That would be the sporting thing to do. We would at least have a chance to duck.
(1) http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gop-chairs-abortion-flub 10-6-2014.
by Olivia LaRosa, October 6, 2014
As we are nearing this 2014 “off-year” election, I decided that I would take some time from my busy schedule to respond to right-wing candidates and their supporters in the hopes of straightening out the record.
Commenters at a website running an article about Joni Ernst, a US Senate candidate in Iowa, were trying to defend her views on Social Security. When a right-winger says they want to “strengthen and protect” Social Security Retirement, what they really mean is that they want to avoid the political heat that changing benefits for current retirees while supporting harmful changes to a functional and successful program.
Strengthen and protect means privatize and make it more difficult for today’s family to collect benefits when they hit retirement age. Some people think it’s a good idea to stop people from collecting until they are older.
Two reasons this is a bad idea: first, young workers are entering the workplace and jobs are scarce. Why keep a senior working longer than he or she wishes? Second: even though people are healthier now doesn’t mean they should work longer. The failures of old age will simply push people into the dysfunctional Social Security Disability system. People will die waiting for help.
They want to kick the can down the road by proposing changes that work against the best interests of both seniors and current workers. They want to pit the young against the old by proposing lower benefit for the younger workers.
Here’s my comment.
There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with Social Security itself. It is the most successful aid program we have developed, keeping millions of seniors housed and fed. The program only costs 1/2 of 1% of the fund total to administer. This low “load” makes mutual fund companies mad because they have to pay a bunch of lazy investment banker hotshots a lot more than that.
Back in 1968, my father told me that Social Security would not be around when he retired, so we should just get rid of it.
Well, wouldn’t ya know, the old man collected benefits for 20 years, until the day he died. All that need be done is tweak the formula so people pay in when thieir income surpasses the current $106,000 income cap. The only reason the fund is low is because Congress keeps borrowing against it. That’s the real problem.
by Olivia LaRosa, October 7, 2014
I have a lot to say about government. I started studying politics and economics in my teens. This interdisciplinary focus is called political economy. I went on to college while working full time and raising a family. I continued my studies. Then I got a degree in political science and went on to graduate from a top-tier law school with honors in public law.
So, when I talk about government, I have an impeccable knowledge base. It often seems as though I am a complainer. People ask me why I am so “negative.”
In reality, I am not negative. I appreciate the many benefits that my government and my society provide. But because I know how this is all supposed to work, I feel compelled to point out moves that take us in the wrong direction.
In other words, I am POSITIVE about my country. I want to help us be the best we can be. To encourage discussion about what is good, what is bad, and what could be made better, I copy a chunk from this article that talks about those who are intolerant of attempts to discuss how we can fix what’s wrong.
Another promising route that researchers are exploring involves the concept of “system justification.” Put simply, system justification arises from the deep-seated psychological need for humans to feel like the broad systems they are a part of are working correctly. It doesn’t feel good to know you attend a broken school or inhabit a deeply corrupt country — or that your planet’s entire ecology may be on the brink of collapse.
People tend to deal with major threats to their systems in one of two ways: taking a threat so seriously that they seek out ways to neutralize it, or “finding ways to justify away problems in order to maintain the sense of legitimacy and well-being of the system,” explained Irina Feygina, a social psychologist at New York University. This latter route is system justification.
Conservatives don’t have a monopoly on system justification, but there’s strong evidence they do it more than liberals. “There’s a lot of research that just goes out and asks people what their opinions and preferences are, and pretty consistently — I don’t actually know of any examples to the contrary — people who tend to report being further on the conservative end of the spectrum also report having greater confidence in the system and greater motivation to justify it,” said Feygina.
She and two colleagues looked into the connection between system justification and environmental beliefs for a series of studies published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin in 2009. They found that, among an undergraduate sample at least, there was a strong correlation between system justification (as measured by reactions to items like “In general, the American political system operates as it should”) and denial of environmental problems.
Please go to original HERE.
by Olivia LaRosa, October 4, 2014
The straps at the ankle control pivoting motions that might cause tripping or sprains.
Their gladiator look can add glamour for a day-to-evening outfit. Providing superior ankle support and a cushiony footbed, Earthies are a good choice in this $100-$199 price range.
Earthies can be found on eBay in either new or previously-owned condition for as low as $30.00. Pick up a used pair and see how they make you feel.