TresSugar

Study Reveals Shopping Linked to Periods - Who Cares?

CitizenSugar — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:30:03 -0700

A lot of times research studies reveal conclusions that make me say duh. Did you know science proves that men remember the bodies of women clad in bikinis better than those of fully clothed women?

Today the British Psychological Society revealed that in the 10 days before their periods, women are more likely to go on a spending spree. The revelation that women make hormone-induced bad decisions has me thinking: can some "studies" double as useless and detrimental to society?

The study, which surveyed women about their spending habits, concluded that women were more likely to buy on an impulse during the later stages of their menstrual cycle, thanks to a reaction to intense emotions and hormonal changes. More than half overspent by about $50.

Do you need a study to tell you to put the credit card back in your wallet? You don't really want that new pair of shoes, you're just being hormonal! Is this study eye-opening or does it simply further a stereotype?

Source

GOP Senator Questions Obama's Citizenship

LibertySugar — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:00:24 -0800

Proven-American (I assume) senator Richard Shelby has an issue with his President. Saturday the Republican from Alabama said:

Well his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate. You have to be born in America to be president.

Shelby was responding to a question from a constituent about whether there was any truth to the rumor that Obama wasn't a US citizen.

He has since said that it was a "throwaway line" and that he doesn't have any doubt that Obama is eligible to be president. Still, why would he choose to perpetrate this line of "attack" on the president. No other president has had his citizenship questioned, even in a "throwaway line."

Is this "he's not one of us" narrative dangerous, or do you think Shelby's comments were harmless?

Source

Problem With Private Prisons: Judges Jailed Kids For Money

LibertySugar — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:30:39 -0800

The sentencers have become the sentencees in a Pennsylvania courtroom, where two judges pleaded guilty yesterday to accepting over $2.6 million from private detention centers in exchange for handing down long sentences to hundreds of juveniles.

Between 2003 and 2006, teens who came before the judges received time in detention centers for minor crimes. In exchange, the judges got paid. One teen received three months for shoplifting.

These individual judges are nothing less than criminals, but perhaps their crimes expose the bad incentives involved with the whole system of private prisons. For each prisoner they house, a private company receives money from the government. Just like every other business, private prisons want to make as much money as they can.

Thus there's an incentive to keep more people in prison for a longer period of time. The well-financed and organized prisons can lobby to make sentences harsher. Last November, the prison lobby in California helped kill a plan for recidivism-reducing programs that could have saved $2.5 billion in spending and reduced the prison population.

Do you think privatizing prisons is part of the problem?

Source

Bank Failures: Does Sorry Go a Long Way?

CitizenSugar — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:01:42 -0800

The perpetrators of the US financial crisis - the bailed out fat cats on Wall Street or greedy bankers - have managed to stay pretty anonymous during this entire saga. Bernard Madoff has become a poster boy for the era, but he represents crime not incompetence. And criminal or not, I can't remember any individual offering profound apologies to the American public on whom they now rely.

In the United Kingdom the tale of failed banks has characters, and apologetic ones at that. Yesterday the former heads of the UK's biggest failed banks came before Parliament to confess their sins. Their direct and simple remorse contrasts the attitudes of some bailed-out American corporations, who still defend ongoing extravagance as business decisions.

The former head of HBSO, which is now 40 percent owned by the government, said: "The bonus system has proved to be wrong. Substantial cash bonuses do not reward the right kind of behavior." The former CEO of the Royal Bank of Scotland said he "could not be more sorry" for his bank's over-leverage and ultimate failure.

When the public offers its support to these institutions, can a heartfelt sorry lessen the pain? Perhaps an acknowledgment of mistakes will prevent history from repeating itself.

Source

Michael Phelps Drug Use Might Make a Case For Legalization

CitizenSugar — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 00:01:04 -0800

It's common knowledge that the last three US presidents have experimented with drugs. In fact, when asked if he ever smoked (and inhaled) marijuana, Barack Obama answered: "I inhaled . . . frequently. That was the point." And now we have proof that golden boy Michael Phelps has hit a bong before.

When it comes to marijuana, hypocrisy can grow like a weed in US society. Over the past year few people, if any, received more acclaim for their life accomplishments than Barack Obama (the first black president!) and Michael Phelps (he won eight gold medals!).

If such exalted individuals have used marijuana, can we really arrest regular people for it? The realization that our greatest role models have broken this law might be a sign that marijuana use isn't the sort of bad judgment we want to criminalize.

Do you think it's time to reconsider the ban on marijuana?

Source

Nancy Pelosi: Birth Control Will Stimulate the Economy

LibertySugar — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:00:57 -0800

Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the inclusion of hundreds of millions of dollars for family planning services in the stimulus bill yesterday, by arguing that birth control will help the economy. On ABC's This Week Pelosi said:

The family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education, and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.
While Pelosi's comments could come off as characterizing children born to poor families as nothing more than a burden on the government, there could be some logic to her argument. Unplanned pregnancies can level significant financial burdens on parents, who may turn to the government for assistance if they do not have the means. By increasing access to contraception, lower-income families would have the freedom to plan their families just like those with access to contraception. Still, others point out that population growth typically helps economic growth, and in places like Japan, the government actually encourages citizens to have more kid-producing sex.

Do you think Nancy Pelosi's argument that birth control can help the economy is far-fetched?

Source

TV Networks Reject Ad Questioning Obama's Citizenship

CitizenSugar — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:30:04 -0800

Oh, that liberal media and its gatekeeping television networks. They won't let the professional-looking ObamaForgery.com spend its American dollars on air time. The ad compiles all the Obama-isn't-an-American-citizen rumors into one minute, most of which I can't find credible sources for - on either side. Though the citizenship dispute is disproved on FactCheck.org.

What are the allegations?

Obama refuses to release his original birth certificate.
His Kenyan grandmother said she remembers him being born in Kenya.
Obama (or is he?) attended school in Indonesia under his stepfather's last name, Sottero.
He traveled to Pakistan in 1981 when it was illegal for US residents.

The ad works its way up to the final crescendo: "Fact: The Constitution still matters." Except, maybe, that's really more of an opinion. To see the video, read more.

Source

Should the Senate Confirm Hillary Clinton?

CitizenSugar — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:30:53 -0800

While Hillary Clinton's confirmation hearing seems like little more than a technicality, some argue that the Senate should use its power to prevent the wife of the ex-President from becoming Secretary of State.

Yesterday, commentator Christopher Hitchens provided an argument for taking a second look at Hillary as top diplomat. Not buying Bill Clinton's statements that he plans to stay in the shadows, Hitchens wrote:

Picture, if you will, Hillary Clinton facing a foreign-policy conundrum. With whom will she discuss it first and most intently: with her president or her husband? (I did tell you that this wouldn't be difficult.) Here's another one: Will she be swayed in her foreign-policy decisions by electoral considerations focusing on the year 2012, and, if so, will she be swayed by President Barack Obama's interests or her own?

Hitchens continues by pointing out that countless international oligarchs, royal families, questionable businesspeople, and special interest groups have access to Bill Clinton, and thus Hillary, thanks to their donations to his foundation. He even calls Bill the "great influence-peddler."

Are these concerns dead on, or is he just overreacting?

Source

Shrinking W: Is He a Puppet, Fool, or Sadist?

CitizenSugar — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:00:00 -0800

Since W the movie failed to figure out George W. Bush, a psychiatrist who's studied him is giving it a go. Justin Frank, MD, the author of Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President, says President Bush is not Dick Cheney's puppet nor is he a well-intentioned fool in over his head but a sadist who will revel in watching the world clean up his mess from his Crawford couch.

Dr. Frank believes the mess Bush has left is the result of giving a destructive personality extraordinary power. He shrinks Bush down to a wounded child, a boy who enjoyed killing frogs who grew into a man - to steal a phrase from everyone's favorite VP candidate - hellbent (unconsciously) on destroying the world. To see what he said, read more.

For Bush, the roots of his bad-boy sadism run deep. As a young boy, he identified with his harsh and often cruel mother (ed., Barbara!), whose inability to provide necessary maternal early nurturing culminated in her withdrawal after George’s young sister’s illness and untimely death. He was a ruthlessly teased, learning-disabled little boy who was criticized by teachers for not being able to keep up in class. And he was left behind by an emotionally distant father who reinforced the message from his mother that it was pathetic for a 7-year-old to show grief about his sister’s death. All of these factors contributed to an unrelenting self-hatred that made him feel weak and ashamed, things he tried to deny by posing as superior, exploiting weakness in others and becoming a bully.

Yesterday we heard President Bush defend his accomplishments (depending on how you look at it) and admit his mistakes at his last press conference. He was charming - but aren't all sociopaths? - and appeared sincere, giving the impression that he never meant to do anything but his job well.

So, who's crazy now?

Source

Should Bailed-out Banks Disclose What They Do With Money?

LibertySugar — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:00:29 -0800

Out of the 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money, none would answer four simple questions posed by the Associated Press: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what's the plan for the rest?

When asked, a spokesperson for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in taxpayer money, said: "We've not given any accounting of, 'Here's how we're doing it.' We have not disclosed that to the public. We're declining to." The $700 billion given to the Treasury Department to buy stock in banks is intended to encourage banks to lend money. Yet lawmakers put in no mechanism or consequences to make sure that happens.

Meanwhile, the AP also reports that the 116 banks that have received a bailout spent $1.6 billion on top-tier executive compensation in 2007. So while their banks faced impending collapse and a need for billions in bailouts, the leaders of the banks received millions in salaries. And now - they won't even tell us where our money is going! I think some executives, and lawmakers who let the bailout go through without any strings, have some explaining to do.

Source