The Killer For Our Country

Author: JeffSolochek
Source: articledashboard.com

Several years ago Gillette relocated their manufacturing to China because the cost of labor over there is so much less. They are also the makers of Duracell. Because of this thousands of US workers lost their source of income. Wal-Mart has been buying factories in china because they are figuring that their cost will go down and yet their profits will rise. When their suppliers get wind of this it will be like when Vidal Sassoon started letting sachem sell their product, no body else wanted to carry it after that. Outsourcing is going to be the number one killer of the economy in the US.

There has been a lot of talk about the immigration problems over hear and how we need to strengthen our Border security but if the cost for labor over hear were the same as everywhere else then we would not have the problems of immigrants. The reason everybody wants to come to America is because of the higher wages. I once lived in Jaurez Mexico in a great apartment that only cost me $12 per month. Now I am paying almost $900 per month for my current residence.

One of the great things I have found out about a lot of the other countries is when you retire you make the same as your last job not like America where you work your whole life to retire on a small percentage in poverty. The reason immigrants do so well over here is because they take the jobs that us Americans don’t want. They then a lot of times eventually create a business from these what we call garbage jobs.

Here in the US we take too much for granted. If our air conditioning goes on the fritz we cry bloody murder where as in a country like India I’m sure that air conditioning is a luxury that they usually do without. Look at the selection of food that is available to us yet we will always find something to complain about. My brother is moving back out of this country because he has lived both in the US and abroad and he has decided that things are not a great over here. Sure he had to pay more of his income in taxes but as he has always said everything was taken care of for him and his family.

Instead of imposing all these penalties on immigrant workers we should penalize the companies that decide to move their operations to these third world countries. They are still keeping their corporations over here so we need to fine them if they move their production over to countries like China and India. We need to provide for our citizens not create jobs elsewhere.

I Think Gene Rodenberry was an unknown messiah because if we would follow the story of Star Trek and model our ethics, philosophies and everything else like Star Trek then we would be so much more wealthy at least spiritually. Eliminating poverty, greed, and war. How can we ever expect to meet visitors from another planet if there is so much fighting here on our planet. We have come so far over the last 100 years but we still have so much farther to go.

The Killer Of Our Country

Author: JeffSolochek
Source: articledashboard.com

Several years ago Gilette relocated their manufacturing to China because the cost of labor over there is so much less. They are also the makers of Duracell. Because of this thousands of US workers lost their source of income. Wal-Mart has been buying factories in china because they are figuring that their cost will go down and yet their profits will rise. When their suppliers get wind of this it will be like when Vidal Sassoon started letting sachem sell their product, no body else wanted to carry it after that. Outsourcing is going to be the number one killer of the economy in the US

There has been a lot of talk about the immigration problems over hear and how we need to strengthen our Border security but if the cost for labor over hear were the same as everywhere else then we would not have the problems of immigrants. The reason everybody wants to come to America is because of the higher wages. I once lived in Jaurez Mexico in a great apartment that only cost me $12 per month. Now I am paying almost $900 per month for my current residence.

One of the great things I have found out about a lot of the other countries is when you retire you make the same as your last job not like America where you work your whole life to retire on a small percentage in poverty. The reason immigrants do so well over here is because they take the jobs that us Americans don’t want. They then a lot of times eventually create a business from these what we call garbage jobs.

Here in the US we take too much for granted. If our air conditioning goes on the fritz we cry bloody murder where as in a country like India I’m sure that air conditioning is a luxury that they usually do without. Look at the selection of food that is available to us yet we will always find something to complain about. My brother is moving back out of this country because he has lived both in the US and abroad and he has decided that things are not a great over here. Sure he had to pay more of his income in taxes but as he has always said everything was taken care of for him and his family.

Instead of imposing all these penalties on immigrant workers we should penalize the companies that decide to move their operations to these third world countries. They are still keeping their corporations over here so we need to fine them if they move their production over to countries like China and India. We need to provide for our citizens not create jobs elsewhere.

I Think Gene Rodenberry was an unknown messiah because if we would follow the story of Star Trek and model our ethics, philosophies and everything else like Star Trek then we would be so much more wealthy at least spiritually. Eliminating poverty, greed, and war. How can we ever expect to meet visitors from another planet if there is so much fighting here on our planet. We have come so far over the last 100 years but we still have so much farther to go.

When Dad First Cried

Author: Craig Jones
Source: download

Dad was a simple man and lived a simple life. Nothing spectacular. Born in 1921, he had an older brother and a younger sister and attended school through the eight grade. He enlisted in the Army during World War II and spent time in Europe and Alaska. I came along in 1952 and my younger brother in 1958.
I remember mom and dad being quiet, almost passive people. We loved one another but I don’t recall those words ever being spoken. Of course as a kid there were many things I don’t recall. Like growing up during the warm and humid Arkansas summers without air conditioning. We had an attic fan, kept our windows open and drank plenty of water. Of course the water did not always come from the faucet. Growing up a short distance from a creek, there were plenty of times I quenched my thirst by leaning over and drinking from my hands that were cupped in the flowing water. We finally got a window air conditioner when I was a teenager but I don’t remember much about the days when we didn’t have it. I also did not remember how difficult it must have been for mom and dad to support a family with two growing boys. That may be why dad got a paper route when I was about 13. All I remember is having to get up at 5:30 every Sunday to go with him to pick the papers up and deliver them. I vividly remember the smell of newspaper print in the car, as dad would drive around. Having to roll the windows down in winter to toss the newspapers out was a mixed blessing. We got fresh air but it was very cold fresh air.
I got married when I was twenty and over the next few years we gave mom and dad three granddaughters that they loved dearly. With our ever-increasing busy lives we didn’t visit mom and dad as often as we should have. When we did, we normally took along at least two of the girls. On one of those occasions, dad wanted to show his granddaughters how a bunny hops. Dad had a sense of humor. On the living room floor he proceeded to get down on all fours with his chest facing up and in a semi-hopping motion, moved forward feet first with his hands alternately slapping his bottom as he moved. It was a sight to see and one I’ll not forget. Neither will they.
The unexpected does not always happen suddenly. With mom it happened slowly. It was more than just forgetting where she left her car keys. It was forgetting where she lived. I remember driving with dad and mom that day over to see the doctor. The doctor spent some time asking mom questions – then the doctor wanted to see dad and I alone. I can’t be sure, but dad may have expected the news since he lived with mom every day. He saw the changes in her everyday. The doctor also knew that dad wasn’t in the best of shape. Sixty years of nicotine use will do that to you. Dad had emphysema, which hindered his breathing.
The doctor told us that mom had developed dementia and recommended that we put her in a nursing home for care. That’s when I saw dad cry for the first time. Neither the doctor nor I realized how strong dad’s love for mom was and how that strength would carry dad for the next three years that he cared for mom in their home. I don’t know if dad’s reluctance to put mom in a nursing home was because of negative reports he had seen about a small number of nursing homes or if it was an economic reason. Whatever it was I think he aged many more years than just the three years he cared for mom. He was just worn out. Mom must have been wearing down to, with her constant pacing around the house.
Then another unexpected event happened, but this one was sudden. Mom fell and broke her hip. Now, after three years, dad could no longer take care of her. After there was nothing more the hospital could do we reluctantly put mom in a nursing home. Dad never went to visit her there. It’s probably best since this was the kind of nursing home dad objected to. My wife visited mom every day. A few years later this nursing home was closed down by the state. We kept trying to get mom into a nicer nursing home. After about three weeks she was transferred to the kind of care facility you wished everyone that needed it could be in. This facility was very clean and well lit and had no unpleasant odors as the first one did. Dad visited mom just once here. The thought of mom in a nursing home just broke his heart. Plus, it was hard for dad to get around. He was out of breath after just a few steps and had to carry an oxygen tank around with him.
God called King David a man after his own heart. David made some mistakes but he had a good heart and he loved God. That’s the way dad was. Many times when we would stop by for an unannounced visit he would be in his chair reading his bible. Dad had a good heart. He didn’t say much and he didn’t do much in his life, but he was a good man. He had a quiet love and a passion that I never noticed until mom became ill.
The adventure of life is seldom without pain. It’s difficult to know how much mom understood while she was ill. She could not express her emotional and mental pain while she was trapped in this cage called dementia. And she could not express her physical pain after she broke her hip.
I think mom was tired. They called us late one night from the nursing home and said when they checked on mom in her bed that she didn’t respond. The unexpected happened again suddenly. This time though, it was for the best. Now mom didn’t have any more pain. She wasn’t trapped any more.
Now we felt the pain. At mom’s funeral, dad cried again. We all cried. When dad’s worn out body quit working three years later, we cried again. The pain doesn’t leave. You just live with it.
I think I have a piece of dad’s heart along with his quiet love and passion. I don’t do it often enough, but I tell my girls that I love them. I cry sometimes too. Now I’m a grandpa. I tell my granddaughter that I love her. I even showed her how a bunny hops.
copyright 2005 Craig Jones
Craig Jones has been a small business owner since 1991 and a Realtor since early 2005. Check out his newest web site called http://www.The-Best-Websites-Guide.com. There you will find a collection of some of the most useful websites around. We list the top websites in over 15 categories that are jam packed with loads of free information that can save you time and money. We don’t overwhelm you with too many choices in each category — we only give you the cream of the crop.

The Killer For Our Country

Author: Jeffrey Solochek
Source: download

Several years ago Gillette relocated their manufacturing to China because the cost of labor over there is so much less. They are also the makers of Duracell. Because of this thousands of US workers lost their source of income. Wal-Mart has been buying factories in china because they are figuring that their cost will go down and yet their profits will rise. When their suppliers get wind of this it will be like when Vidal Sassoon started letting sachem sell their product, no body else wanted to carry it after that. Outsourcing is going to be the number one killer of the economy in the US.
There has been a lot of talk about the immigration problems over hear and how we need to strengthen our Border security but if the cost for labor over hear were the same as everywhere else then we would not have the problems of immigrants. The reason everybody wants to come to America is because of the higher wages. I once lived in Jaurez Mexico in a great apartment that only cost me $12 per month. Now I am paying almost $900 per month for my current residence.
One of the great things I have found out about a lot of the other countries is when you retire you make the same as your last job not like America where you work your whole life to retire on a small percentage in poverty. The reason immigrants do so well over here is because they take the jobs that us Americans don’t want. They then a lot of times eventually create a business from these what we call garbage jobs.
Here in the US we take too much for granted. If our air conditioning goes on the fritz we cry bloody murder where as in a country like India I’m sure that air conditioning is a luxury that they usually do without. Look at the selection of food that is available to us yet we will always find something to complain about. My brother is moving back out of this country because he has lived both in the US and abroad and he has decided that things are not a great over here. Sure he had to pay more of his income in taxes but as he has always said everything was taken care of for him and his family.
Instead of imposing all these penalties on immigrant workers we should penalize the companies that decide to move their operations to these third world countries. They are still keeping their corporations over here so we need to fine them if they move their production over to countries like China and India. We need to provide for our citizens not create jobs elsewhere.
I think Gene Rodenberry was an unknown messiah because if we would follow the story of Star Trek and model our ethics, philosophies and everything else like Star Trek then we would be so much more wealthy at least spiritually. Eliminating poverty, greed, and war. How can we ever expect to meet visitors from another planet if there is so much fighting here on our planet. We have come so far over the last 100 years but we still have so much farther to go.
Jeffrey Solochek is the Purple Cow of todays writers always adding his own unique wit and humor to everything. http://www.nosugarcoating.info

Top Speaker & Consultant Asks: Is Gas Mileage All That Important?

Author: Dr. Gary S. Goodman
Source: download

As a nation it seems we’re becoming fixated on the price of a gallon of gasoline.
To an extent, this is only natural. Can you name another product that we use every day that has spiked in price by nearly 50% during the last year or two, and that has nearly doubled from its lowest point during the last eight?
The price of crude oil topped $75 a barrel this past week, a record high, and developments in oil supply and shortages are widely reported, so it shouldn’t be a shock that people are hyper-sensitive to the topic.
Still, you have to wonder, are we overreacting?
For example, I’m not happy with the fuel economy of my smallish SUV. It has a six-cylinder engine, appears tiny next to a Navigator or Escalade, and it looks like a micro-car next to a Hummer.
With the air conditioning blasting on 100 degree days, as it has been lately, I’m getting about 11 miles to the gallon in the city.
I hate this.
Am I having an irrational reaction?
Was I promised a rose garden?
Yes and no. The EPA mileage estimate for the city was 16, which isn’t 11. But now, we know from recent disclosures that the phrase “Your mileage may vary” is really a hoot.
When the EPA does its tests, the air conditioning is off and highway speeds are no more than 55 miles per hour. I understand this will change, soon.
From an economic point of view, a $3.35 versus a $2.35 gallon of premium gas is statistically great, but financially modest, given the other fixed costs of driving.
I drive about 1000 miles per month. I’m consuming about 85 gallons, so more expensive gas is costing me $85 additional dollars per month. Given the fact that my payments for my lease, for insurance, for tires and maintenance come to about $1,000 per month, my overall added cost of driving has been a mere 8.5%.
My fixed costs are higher than many, but still, a 42.5% increase in the price of premium gas has made my overall costs only 8.5% higher.
So, what do those Escalade and Navigator and Hummer drivers, or I for that matter, have to complain about?
Even if I got 30 miles per gallon, my overall costs of driving wouldn’t drop significantly, all other things being equal.
As long as these sorts of economics inform the costs of driving, people will not have a significant incentive to economize, unless they’re concerned about global warming, geopolitics, and dependency on unstable, foreign nations.
Dr. Gary S. Goodman is the best-selling author of 12 books, over 700 articles, and the creator of numerous audio and video training programs, including “The Law of Large Numbers: How To Make Success Inevitable,” published by Nightingale-Conant-a favorite among salespeople and entrepreneurs. For information about booking Gary to speak at your next sales, customer service or management meeting, conference or convention, please address your inquiry to: gary@customersatisfaction.com

Behind the Cult of Chavez

Author: Samuel Logan
Source: articleage.com

I boarded a plane in Buenos Aires, Argentina for a long flight to Caracas, Venezuela. The plane was packed with Venezuelans. Some of them, judging from their dress, manner of speech, and number of electronic gadgets, had traveled to Argentina as part of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s security detail for the Mar del Plata Summit. The rest, farmers in shabby clothes with worn, wrinkled hands, had been sent to fill the stands with Venezuelan blood, hot enough to shout in favor of their leader.
The elderly lady sitting next to me said Venezuelan state agents had recruited her from her small family farm just hours before takeoff. She was to attend the summit as a Chavez fan, watching her leader stand side by side with Argentine President Nestor Kirchner and then-Bolivian presidential candidate Evo Morales to denounce US foreign policy in the region and promote Chavez’s region-wide call for socialism.
She and her husband referred to Chavez endearingly as “Huguito”, or “little Hugo”, and said state agents had instructed them as to when and how to cheer for “Huguito” in Argentina.
Observers have long talked about Chavez’s cult of personality, but it was the first time I had seen it first hand, and in the genuine, cheerful faces of these small-time farmers.
Chavez, who has served as Venezuela’s president for nearly a decade, faces elections in December 2006, and all indications are that he will secure another six years in power. For all intents and purposes, he is the president, the government, and all but an autocrat.
For six hours, the elderly couple talked about their beloved leader, who would one day deliver them from misery.
“Chavez represents the typical Venezuelan,” the couple explained. “He grew up in the county in a house with a dirt floor. Raised by his grandmother, Huguito was able to get into the military academy because he was an exceptional baseball player, not because he had money.”
Most Venezuelans are poor like Chavez was before he became president. This is the part of Chavez’s personality that the Venezuelan government promotes, and it is why so many Venezuelans love him.
Chavez has been harshly criticized by large parts of Venezuela’s middle and upper classes referred to as the “opposition”. He has been accused of electoral fraud, human rights violations, and political repression. He has survived a brief 2002 coup and a failed 2004 recall referendum. The poorer classes tend to view him as a socialist liberator, while the middle and upper classes tend to view him as an authoritarian demagogue. Regardless of the labels, Chavez is one of Latin America’s most complex and controversial figures.
From Mexico to Argentina, poor Latin Americans appreciate his rhetoric, his charisma, and talk of plans for a better future. He makes promises and keeps them. Within Venezuela, Chavez has setup medical clinics for the poor. Located in the shantytowns that surround Caracas, Cuban doctors run the clinics; service is free of charge. State-run markets, where the prices for basic food staples are controlled and very low, are popular with Chavez’s supporters. And his talk of land appropriation, a very difficult promise to keep, has moved forward, giving poor, landless Venezuelans hope that one day, they will have their own land.
Chavez is the keeper of the faith. He has spearheaded a movement in Venezuela and abroad, that, more than any other substantial outcome, has delivered hope to millions of impoverished Latinos.
At the airport outside of Caracas, one is abruptly introduced to the loud, badgering, and careening nature of Venezuelan culture. But amid the constant motion and liveliness, and despite the faith in Chavez, a growing sense of doom-and-gloom seems to have descended upon Caracas.
Having lived in major cities in Argentina and Brazil, I have grown accustomed to the red bricks and corrugated tin roofs of South America’s slums. But the shantytowns in Caracas were something different and more depressing. The sheer mass of slums and the length to which they spread forth from the hills surrounding Caracas, down the slopes, all the way to the coast, was depressingly impressive.
These shacks seem to cling to the side of the hill with little more than sheer will and some luck. Their inhabitants represent the mass of people who largely support Chavez. They are the first to praise their leader for the reduced prices of meat, chicken, bread, and eggs, and free medical care. Their children fill Chavez’s rank and file of loyal soldiers.
They love “Huguito”, placing all their hope in one very charismatic man who seems to have all the answers. Yet their votes are all that remain of Venezuelan democracy, which, with each election cycle, is chipped away at just enough to keep alarmists on their toes and pragmatists from worrying.
Talking to some of these Chavez supporters, I was surprised to learn that their allegiance was not as solid as it would seem. Many here love that he claims to represent Venezuela’s poor. But they are quick to add that it seems that only those who live in the cities – and a limited number of pockets of rural poverty – receive attention from the state. They are also quick to mention that the Cuban doctors are not what Chavez says they are. More than one Chavez supporter told me that the doctors in the Caracas slums were little more than medical students, trained to the level of a nurse.
Later on in my journey through Caracas, I met with representatives of the “middle class” who do not support Chavez.
I met with a former vice minister in the Venezuelan Energy Ministry at a downtown caf้, just far enough from the hustling street to make conversation without shouting. Sitting in a far corner of the air conditioned caf้, he ordered both of us round after round of coffee and explained in fast-paced Spanish the realities of living among the opposition.
The former vice minister worked in the nuclear studies section of Venezuela’s Energy Ministry and is now a professor with the Central University in Caracas. We spoke only a little about Chavez’s nuclear ambitions before falling into a topic that began with what many in Caracas simply refer to as “the list”.
Chavez’s nuclear ambitions are more talk than reality, he said, adding that there was really nothing to talk about because Venezuela did not have the scientific brain trust to make it happen.
“The poor bastards have all left,” he said. “Why? Because they were finished with working for the Chavez government, and the few who remained signed the list.”
The list is a record of signatures made by those Venezuelans who opposed Chavez’s presidency in late 2003. At the time, Chavez’s political opposition had enough momentum to attract millions of signatures needed to call a nation-wide referendum. Since the list was delivered to the National Electoral Council, those who signed it became persona non grata for the Chavez administration. And it was soon after the referendum vote in August 2004 that strange things started happening.
“Chavez took that referendum very personally,” the nuclear scientist said. “Everyone on that list is an enemy to Chavez and an enemy to the Venezuelan state in his eyes.”
Rumors are that those who signed the list became part of a register that represents the core of Chavez’s opposition.
Over time, members of that register noticed their lives becoming more difficult. Business licenses were not renewed, applications for passports and visas were “lost”, strange bills for unknown taxes appeared in the mail.
As I listened to the stories about this lawyer, and that merchant, the daughter of the cousin of some friend, and her boyfriend’s father, I realized that many of these stories may not be true, or were partial truths or rumors. But the fact remained that the former government employee sitting before me clearly believed those stories, and his speech was so fraught with anxiety that he brought his fist down on the table, spilling his coffee on my notepad.
While he failed to completely convince me of the veracity of these stories, he did manage to convince me that he, along with thousands or perhaps even millions of Venezuelans, believed them to be true. And that is what really matters.
If millions of middle class Venezuelans believe that their government is actively trying to make life more difficult for them, then they also believe there is no social contact between civilian and state. If Venezuelans believe the government should be changed, they have the constitutional right to organize a referendum and recall vote. The man sitting before me was convinced that he and millions of others had been punished for exercising their rights as citizens of a democratic state.
“What worries me the most is the future state of Venezuela for our children. What Chavez is doing to me and my peers now will only last a little while. Chavez will only last a little while, but what he is doing to divide Venezuelans, to destroy our economy, and to undermine our belief in our government and democratic system will take decades, maybe longer, to correct,” he said.
Returning to my hotel in the broad backseat of an old Chrysler, my taxi driver, an Italian who immigrated to Caracas over 40 years ago, complained about life under Chavez. When I asked about “the list”, he exploded in anger. He had signed the list and was convinced that was why he was still waiting for a tax receipt that would allow him to circulate in Caracas as a legal taxi driver.
Before the referendum, it took about two months for his tax receipt to come in the mail. This time around, he had already been waiting six months for his 2004 receipt, and the last time he called to complain, he was told he had never paid his taxes and would have to pay in full again or risk losing his driver’s license.
I asked him if he would vote in the upcoming elections. “Hell no, I’m a marked man in this town. There is no way my vote would be counted,” he said.
“They know my name is on the list, so it doesn’t matter who I try to vote for, they’ll just tell me I’m not registered to vote when I arrive at the [voting] station.”
By this time I was getting the feeling that abstention would become a big problem among the middle and upper classes.
The Venezuelan opposition is a relatively small group of middle- and upper-class Venezuelans who are divided and in need of direction. Compared to the very focused mass of Chavez supporters, the opposition is fragmented and more of a diaspora throughout the Western Hemisphere than a political force in Venezuela. Chavez supporters currently form a solid political base, and Chavez rewards them with cheap food, free medicine, and maybe a plot of land, for their support.
What Chavez does not preach about is the truth of his fragile economic situation. The Venezuelan economy shrunk in 2002 and 2003 by 8.9 per cent and 9.2 per cent, respectively. Current claims that the Venezuelan economy is growing may be true, but it’s still recuperating from years of shrinkage. Roughly one-third of Venezuela’s gross domestic product is from the sale of oil, some 80 per cent of Venezuela’s exports. The day the price of oil falls, Chavez will have a very hard time keeping the largesse of his social programs afloat.
When the well of socialist security begins to dry up, this whole system that Chavez has created will come crumbling down and his support base will revolt. If that day comes, those who form the core of his support base will revolt first, not the middle class Venezuelans who speak out against the president in a disorganized manner.
The first to revolt will be the taxi drivers, the bus drivers, the waiters, mechanics, and others who live in all but impoverished conditions, but who still hold on to hope that Chavez will be their deliverer.
The minute they lose that hope, they will take to the streets with all the firebrand fervor they now use to support “Huguito”.
Sam Logan (http://www.samuellogan.com) is trained as a political scientist, working as an analyst and investigative journalist. He has covered security, energy, politics, economics, organized crime, terrorism, and black markets in Latin America since 1999.

Sources of Renewable Energy

Author: Lyneth Stone
Source: ezinearticles.com

Because of the many problems on the environment like climate change, almost destroyed ozone layer, and depleting fossil fuel deposits, many people are now considering to use renewable energy.

Well, many people believe that resorting to renewable energy is the answer to all of our problems on the environment. Basically, it is the kind that can be generated from natural resources like sunlight, wind, rain, tides and geothermal heat.

Many believe that use of renewable energy can somehow provide us with our daily energy need. About three years ago, almost 18% of global final energy consumption came from renewables, of which 13% came from traditional biomass like wood-burning. Next in line was hydroelectricity which was the next largest renewable source with 3%. Solar hot water/heating also made a record with 1.3%. While the modern technologies like solar power, geothermal energy, wind power, and ocean energy provided 0.8%.

Main Renewable Energy Technology

Renewable energy technologies of today promote use of wind power, water power, solar energy use, biofuel, and geothermal energy. However, majority of renewable energy technologies mainly promote use of solar energy.

Solar energy is the most effective alternative. It is the energy that is collected from sunlight and can actually be applied in a lot of ways. It can be used to generate electricity using photovoltaic solar cells and/or using concentrated solar power. It can also be used to generate electricity in geosynchronous orbit using solar power satellites and by heating trapped air which rotates turbines often used in Solar updraft towers.

With use of solar energy, hydrogen can also be generated using photoelectrochemical cells. By using solar chimneys, heat and cool air can also be produced. Also, the need of humans for heat water or air for domestic hot water and space heating won’t already be a problem through use of solar-thermal panels. Same goes with solar air conditioning.

Perhaps next to solar use is the wind power which of course involves conversion of wind energy into a useful form like electricity through use of wind turbines. There are a number of renewable energy technologies that promote use of wind energy which have been used to propel those huge sailing ships, pump water or grind grain.

Lyneth Stone greatly supports Earth 4 Energy.

http://www.earth4energysecret.com/

5 Steps Toward Sustainable Building Design in Schools

Author: Robert J. Hartl
Source: ezinearticles.com

Schools are often the most outdated and neglected in terms of building improvement and maintenance. Millions of children walk the halls each day in buildings that suck vast resources in the form of energy, water, and waste products. Sustainable building design and eco-friendly developments in everything from rainwater irrigation to green exit signs can help cut costs, improve health and safety, and teach our children that green is good.

Here are five money-saving ways to “green” our schools:

1. Photoluminescent Products: School districts spend thousands of dollars each year on operation and maintenance of school emergency exit signs, and examples of how to reduce these costs include the use of photoluminescent products. These signs are powered solely by the ambient light from standard fluorescent lighting. There are no electrical parts. There are no toxic, self-luminous agents. These green exit signs are 100% recyclable and reduce CO2 emissions by nearly 500,000 pounds annually, per 100 signs installed.

2. Highly-reflective and Green Roofs: Sustainable building design can start right at the top of the building with the use of non-standard roofing materials. Simple high-reflection roofing has increased durability over that of common roofing, and it also allows a bounce-off effect of direct sunlight, reducing cooling costs. Green Roofs, or full roof gardens, reduce the costs of air conditioning further, increase roofing longevity by 30-50 years, and provide valuable “green space” for students to utilize and enjoy.

3. Clean Air Design: Previous generations thought nothing of opening a classroom window. In the rush to build cheap schools that meet a baseline of building codes, the simple operable window has nearly perished. Ventilation in standard schools is managed through the recycling of existing in-building air supplies, circulating cold and flu viruses through the population. Greener technology brings back the open window, draws fresh air through roof venting, and utilizes heat energy from stale, expelled air to reduce energy costs. Health savings to the community can add up to millions.

4. Solar Energy: Active solar panels clearly reduce emissions and energy costs. Solar power even allows schools to make money by feeding excess power back into the public grid. Passive solar power, through use of large windows and skylights, is another way to save. This technology draws from the natural warmth of sunlight to reduce the need for powered fixtures and mechanical heating.

5. Rainwater Collection: One average-sized school saves 2 million gallons of water and 1,000 pounds in nitrogen runoff when employing rainwater collection. Tank-stored rainwater is typically used to power flush toilets, irrigate school grounds and, when properly filtered, provide tap water for the entire building. The annual cash savings can total in the tens of thousands.

Despite popular belief, sustainable building design in schools is not expensive. The total cost increase over standard design is less than 2%. Lower energy use alone can quickly counter these costs. Schools that are sustainably built benefit the community, the children, and the planet in many ways. Start your district on the path to sustainable schools, today!

To learn more about how photoluminescent exit signs can help your company become more eco-friendly and save energy dollars in the process, visit us today at http://www.GloBriteSystem.com

Cities, States and Others Step up Action on Climate Change, Despite Federal Reluctance

Author: Elizabeth Autumn, MBA
Source: articlecity.com

Last year, Pentagon defense adviser Andrew Marshall issued a harsh warning of the consequences of climate change: mass chaos, national security crises and food shortages. If climate change occurs abruptly, the report declared, there could be a catastrophic breakdown in international security. Wars over access to food, water, and energy would likely break out between states. Even if climate change is more gradual, recent studies have argued that as many as one million plant and animal species could be rendered extinct by 2050 due to the effects of global warming.

Climate change is the most serious challenge facing the international community. In order to plan for a sustainable future – one that meets needs today without compromising meeting the needs of future generations – global warming must be addressed. We have arrived at a stage in human evolution that requires international cooperation – a stage which demands that world leaders put world priorities ahead of national political agendas in order to halt the peril threatening humanity.

In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) asked all nations to renew their commitment to implement policies based on the three pillars of sustainable development – economic, environmental and social – in order to arrest environmental deterioration and revive world economic growth. In particular, the report stated, poverty has played a major role in environmental degradation. Not only is it our moral obligation to eliminate poverty, the report revealed it is essential to protecting and improving the environment. Further reports have concluded that environmentally unsound technology has been exponentially far more detrimental to sustainable development than even population growth. In order to achieve sustainable development, the Commission reported, our cities must be considered in the global concerted effort.

Rural-to-urban migration and its negative impacts must be stopped, or better, as Urbanist Kaarin Taipale puts it, we must “transform urban growth into an engine of sustainability.” Since three-fourths of the global warming pollution could be solved if we decreased burning fossil fuels, one of the most effective ways to transform urban growth is by switching to alternative energy sources. Fortunately, there are many means of harnessing energy which have less damaging impacts on our environment than fossil fuels, and we already have developed all the technological resources needed. Now we must admit there is a problem and start working in the direction to make this transition. If our current leaders do not want to face this pressing challenge with integrity, then as Leonardo Dicaprio urges, we need to vote for leaders who care about the environment and our health and the future generations who will bear the burden long after the Administration is gone.

A Call to Action

On October 25, 2005, Senator Hillary Clinton (NY) called for a national energy strategy enlisting the oil industry in a process that would help consumers while making the transition to alternative energy technologies. Her plan redirects the hidden “tax” that Americans are already paying to OPEC and the oil companies, but she explained “lasts only long enough to kick-start the alternative energy market that we all know is out there.”

Speaking to Cleantech Venture Network, a group of venture capitalists who recently were named by Wall Street Journal reports for their success in developing clean energy as a viable investment category, Clinton emphasized the immediate concern which is how to help citizens pay their bills and keep the economy moving in the face of dramatically higher energy costs. There is no question, she said, that our failure to make better energy choices is sapping our pocketbooks, limiting our competitiveness, threatening our environment and even our national security. “Hurricanes Katrina and Rita made that brutally clear.”

The far reaching problem we face, Senator Clinton stated, is coping with the impacts of massive economic development and competition for oil in other parts of the world such as India and China in the next twenty years. “Loosening environmental standards or opening up a new oil field or two is not going to offset this seismic shift in energy demand,” she explained. Her plan unburdens the American people of foreign oil dependence, investing a portion of the profits into the U.S. energy future, instead of regimes we would never choose to subsidize.

The oil industries can choose to either reinvest their profits into America’s energy future or contribute to a new Strategic Energy Fund, she said. The Strategic Energy Fund would help consumers cope with spiraling energy costs, promote adoption of existing clean energy and conservation technologies, while stimulating research and investment by the private sector. She also recommends assessing an alternative energy development fee for those companies deciding not to directly reinvest in our energy future. That fee, she explained would help fund energy transition.

“The Fund could generate as much as $20 billion a year to help with home heating oil costs and develop new energy strategies.” In this way, she explained, we would reduce our reliance on fossil fuel, make existing alternative technologies more affordable, jump start our technology, and regain U.S. world leadership. It’s got “Made in America” written on it, in addition to providing a role model for developing nations.

The “energy revolution” can be as big and important as the industrial revolution and the explosion of the information age. However, we have to do what America has always done when faced with a big challenge, she said, “roll up our sleeves and dedicate this country to finding a solution.” In effect, she explained, “the country that put a man on the moon can be the country to find new lower cost and cleaner forms of energy. Our nation needs it. Our planet needs it.”

Addressing Climate Change in the Environment of a Hostile U.S. Administration

The Rio de Janeiro Summit in 1992 articulated the need to include humanity as well as environmental protection in the sustainability equation. Hence, it concluded, the critical problem of poverty must also be addressed. When the United Nations authorized the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, it had already realized poverty had deepened and environmental degradation had worsened since the 1992 Summit. The world needed a new summit of actions with results, and not just intent.

Managing urban environmental conditions ultimately belongs with national governments, businesses, scientific bodies, and communities working together; but history shows us U.S. involvement has always sped and strengthened global progress in improving urban environmental conditions for sustainable development. Although U.S. partnership is needed to meet the increasingly urgent demands to make cities livable, the Bush Administration has not been forthcoming.

While the 2002 WSSD Johannesburg Summit was the highest attended conference by world leaders, President Bush was sorely missed. According to original plans, explained participant Kaarin Taipale, “the 2002 WSSD summit would have coincided with the first anniversary of 9/11.” Conference dates were changed at that the last minute in order to make it easier for the President to attend. Instead, Secretary of State Colin Powell traveled to Johannesburg to speak on the President’s behalf, where as Taipale recalls, “he was infamously booed.” Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky soon retorted by telling Summit attendees to focus on actions, “actions being better than words.”

U.S. action has been remiss, explains Vice Chairman of Friends of the Earth Tony Juniper. “The United States has a lot to answer for what has gone wrong since the Rio de Janeiro Summit in 1992. Many trends that were categorized as urgent at that summit – such as poverty, biodiversity loss, deforestation, and overexploitation of renewable resources – had either stayed the same or become worse. First, the U.S. refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol at the 2002 Summit – the single most important environmental treaty to stop Climate Change,” Juniper said.

Although the United States makes up four percent of the world’s population and produces 22 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases, it’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol’s call for reductions in the greenhouse gases merely underscores Federal unwillingness to address climate change. Claiming that the treaty would raise energy prices and kill five million U.S. jobs, the Administration has even raised questions about the scientific legitimacy of climate change. As British Petroleum CEO John Browne put it, “The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be discounted.”

The Union of Concerned Scientists, a group of 6,000 scientists, including 48 Nobel laureates, warns that the Bush administration’s overtly anti-science bias undercuts scientific integrity. This bias was clear when the The New York Times reported that a White House official who once led the oil industry’s fight against limits on greenhouse gases had repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emission and global warming. The White House response: the reports were “scientifically sound.” As Journalist and author Chris Mooney explained, the Administration relied on those energy interests who have a documented history of muddying the role that humanity plays in climate change while consciously strategizing to “sow confusion on the issue and sway journalists.”

According to a study published by Princeton professors Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala, the U.S. could reduce emissions to below the 1970 levels just with its current technology. “We in fact already have everything we need to face this challenge,” Vice President Gore has said, “save perhaps political will. But in our democracy political will is a renewable resource.”

Because the Federal government has failed to get involved internationally, state and local officials have been left alone to address the gravity of excess greenhouse gas emissions. Without Federal direction, Senator Clinton has warned, the varying standards that result from the differences in local policies could create havoc for the private sector.

To make matters worse, approximately 100 high-level Administration officials who help regulate industries they once represented – as lobbyists, lawyers, or company advocates – are all part of an effort to avoid addressing global warming. (2004, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)). London’s “Guardian” has further reported that the environmental group Greenpeace obtained documents indicating President Bush’s global climate policy was heavily influenced by Exxon, Mobil and other oil companies. In briefing papers given to U.S. Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky between 2001 and 2004, “the administration is found thanking Exxon executives for the company’s ‘active involvement’ in helping to determine climate change policy, and also seeking its advice on what climate change policies the company might find acceptable.” Quietly, in the background of policy change, by mid August 2004 the Administration had already rolled back more than 400 major environmental mandates, causing the protection of our nation’s air, water, public land and wildlife to be severely weakened.

This anti-environment spirit, reports Robert Kennedy, Jr., pervades virtually all of the Sub-secretariats today, including the Department of Agriculture, Interior, and Energy. In contrast to entering public service for the public interest, these officials are motivated by the intent to specifically subvert the very law they are now charged with enforcing. “The current Administration,” he says, “has put the most insidious polluters in charge of all the agencies that are supposed to protect the American people from pollution.”

One notable exception was Christine Whitman, appointed by Bush to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In 2002, she released a report stating that Climate Change was an urgent problem created by human activity that would quickly create other problems unless immediately addressed. A public relations crisis ensued when Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute declared “someone should be fired” over this. Apparently, White House Chief of Staff on Environmental Quality and former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute Philip Cooney did not see (edit) the report before it was released. President Bush publicly discounted the report by calling it a report from “the bureaucracy.” Whitman resigned from the EPA soon after.

At the Clinton Global Initiative, a summit of actions and results held by President Clinton in New York last September, Al Gore reported that some of those who benefit from unrestrained pollution from global warming also spend millions of dollars each year creating pseudo-studies that cloud the issue. This is not the first time this type of swaying from industry lobbyists has occurred. After the Surgeon General warning of the dangers of smoking, Gore noted, the tobacco industry hired ‘scientific prostitutes’ to argue that smoking was good for people. While such actions can be understood, he said, they are not acceptable, “not when the fate of the earth – rather, the fate of a habitable earth for human beings — is at stake.” He quoted muckraker Upton Sinclair who wrote more than a century ago: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding it.”

Embracing the Urban Challenge

The former Vice President challenged the notion that addressing the problem of climate change would harm our economy. “Incredible opportunities in addressing climate change are available that would help, not hurt, our economy,” he said. Citing how the city of Portland, Oregon, independently decided to reduce greenhouse emissions below the Kyoto limits, Gore reported that Portland has come within a hair of achieving its goal “and has prospered economically while doing so.”

Since urban issues have been basically ignored in the summits for sustainable development and the Federal government has failed to provide sufficient federal leadership, mayors across the country created a coalition of their own to deal with climate change. More than 160 cities have already made commitments and are involved in combating global warming by reshaping their cities through innovative programs and technologies.

Worldwide, cities and provinces are working together to end global warming: 675 localities in thirty countries are now documented participants. Moreover, 152 U.S. cities and counties and 100 Canadian localities have joined in Cities for Climate Protection program created and run by ICLEI. Scores of major U.S. cities have already reduced their emissions below 1990 levels, saving $600 million through efficiency measures. These coalition mayors say they have made urban living more eco-friendly while creating local jobs. They have also agreed to pressure Congress to pass the bipartisan Climate Stewardship Act, which would establish a national emissions trading system.

Critics say U.S. government efforts are coming too slowly. According to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the Administration is spending $2 billion on initiatives to promote renewable energy, clean-coal technology, hydrogen-powered vehicles, and nuclear power. President Bush’s energy bill, which went into effect in August 2005, calls for industry to slow emission increases, but it still does not demand an overall reduction.

Every time those in the Senate present plans to implement federal standards, or set targets, they have consistently been thwarted either by Republicans in Congress or the Whitehouse. Senator Clinton explained emphasis must not only be placed on increased use of alternative energy sources, but the federal government must offer direction by setting clear, measurable goals. In this way, she said we can assume leadership in solving our energy crisis. Therefore, as part of her national energy strategy, she is calling on Washington to replace its entire fleet of government vehicles with fuel-efficient cars and trucks by 2010.

Urbanist Kaarin Taipale explained what’s wrong with the tempo of the forthcoming energy mandates from the Bush Administration. “They are just now calling for gas efficiency changes, not only are these efforts coming as too little, too late; they only save a few gallons of gas while cars are heavier, using more energy through electronics and air conditioning.”

Besides, she said, making cars more energy efficient will not solve our urban problems alone. “Cities must be made to have mass transportation accessible, viable, and not just for the poor,” she stated. We need to build cities where people do not depend on their own private car. “I’m not talking about green ideology; where we use bicycles and suffer – or where we all live provincial and primitive lives,” she explained. She then cited Manhattan as an example: even though it was not originally purposely planned to be energy efficient, the city offers a great transportation system. In most cities in America – and even more in the rest of the world where buying American cars imitates the American Dream – the car is a status symbol, a signal telling people how well you are doing. “But in Manhattan,” she said, “this is not the case. Everyone takes some form of public transportation, not just the poor.”

Addressing Climate Change at the Clinton Global Initiative –Thinking Outside the Barrel

“We face a global emergency; a deepening climate crisis that requires us to act.” — Al Gore

The Clinton Global Initiative, which took place in Manhattan on September 14 -16, 2005, served as a catalyst for spurring community-level development while providing a supportive atmosphere from which to facilitate pro-development policies at regional and national levels.

During the session on Climate Change, Senator Clinton remarked that while the Federal government has avoided responsibility for climate change, state and local governments have been providing models for action. The very large disadvantage of this state and local leadership, Senator Clinton warned, “is it could lead to a patchwork of regulation, which I think would be very unfortunate and would pose extra burdens on the private sector.” In effect, she said, it is the private sector that has a big stake in pushing for a real national response – one that will actually deal with the problem, not continue to deny it or postpone it.

Senator Clinton described her visit to Barrow, Alaska, where she met with a number of the scientists who have been charting climate change for 30 years. While ‘off the radar’ for many of us, the situation there is having very problematic effects for all of us. One professor studying the effects of Permafrost thawing explained that, as the Permafrost melts, it releases carbon and methane which makes our global warming worse. When Clinton asked him what an individual citizen could do to solve the problem, he responded, “plant more trees.” Trees have a sequestering ability. They absorb the excess carbon dioxide in that atmosphere and in return give back clean oxygen. That’s something every one of us can do, she added, alone, with family, group, neighborhoods, and communities. And the other is: each of us can make decisions that insure we are as energy efficient as we can be in our homes and in our places of business and try to make better choices about transportation. While these individual choices might seem very small in and of themselves, she told us, in the aggregate, they can also influence policy.

Tom Roper, retired Victorian Parliament and current Project Director of the Global Sustainable Energy Islands Initiative (GSEII), represents a group that must rely on the International community. While the small island developing states (SIDS) are collectively the least responsible for greenhouse gas emissions through fossil fuel use and deforestation, Honorable Roper explained, they are most impacted by climate change. In addition, island states contain a disproportionately high amount of below poverty level income citizens. “Most SIDS are ill-equipped to deal with their existing environmental problems,” said Roper, let alone the predictions of rising sea levels. The 43 members of the Alliance of Small Island States represent 50 million citizens. No where are people more at the mercy of international inaction. Roper is supervising projects on the small islands to serve as a role model of sustainability which incorporates energy efficiency and renewable energy. “They are tackling their own economic and social issues as well as environmental,” Roper said. “These nations are not just complaining; they are taking action,” he added.

Pennsylvania and Perhaps Louisiana . . .

Kathleen McGinty, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and former principal environmental advisor to President Clinton, offered a project to reduce greenhouse gases in Pennsylvania. The project is committed to providing the resources to enable a clean energy future in Pennsylvania through up to $1 billion in tax-free bond financing to build renewable and efficient power plants and fuel production facilities.

Governor Rendell’s administration has committed itself to: adopting greenhouse gas tailpipe standards, replacing dirty, inefficient power plants, and securing passage of one of the most far-reaching clean energy laws in the nation.

On a final note: at the Clinton Global Initiative, many found one recommendation most compelling – rebuilding New Orleans as a model of energy efficiency. The city of New Orleans, like older cities, was not built to withstand the effects of a level 5 hurricane. It flourished during a time when the effects of global warming were not yet known. Global warming, however, has been increasingly creating erratic weather patterns with more frequent, extremely severe storms. What better way to target climate change and create hope than by turning New Orleans into a model city for a new, more intelligent tomorrow. As one Climate Change session participant put it, “we’ve got to think outside the barrel.”

And They Didn’t Even Know I was Looking: Lessons on Love from My Parents

Author: Laura Young
Source: download

I came from good people.
I didn’t always know that.
You know, it’s funny. When I was 18 I sustained an eye injury. (Okay, maybe it wasn’t THAT funny.) The coral I was sterilizing for my fish tank overheated and exploded. I was hit in the eye, scratching my cornea and the rebound of the hit resulted in what the medical folks among you will recognize as a contra-coup lesion of my retina. Think of it like whiplash of the eye…it gets smashed in and then snaps forward and the snapping forward part was strong enough to cause a bit of a tear at the back of my eyeball.
That wasn’t the significant part though. The significant part was when the doctor told me I had “the retinas of a 60 year old.” During the exam they discovered I had little deposits on both my retina, called drusen, that signify the early stages of macular degeneration. Macular degeneration is a condition that ultimately results in a person losing the center of their field of vision so they can only see things around the edges or periphery. At 42, I still see fine. Full field of vision. No need for you to worry. (You were a little worried, weren’t you?)
Now, I realize that there is actually a lot to be said for peripheral vision and that’s how I discovered that I came from good people.
When you look at my parents straight on, this is what you might see:
My father is a retired heating and air conditioning wholesaler from the South Side of Chicago. He’s mostly a hermit who is happy with his dogs and his garden. He doesn’t call. He’s not a social butterfly. Never a gabby man, his hearing loss has made him even less so over the years. My mom had 4 kids and a high school education and when the apartment complex she worked for was bought out by a new company and she was let go the only job she could find at age 60 was as a pit clerk in a casino in Northwest Indiana.
Pretty simple people, really. You might notice them shopping at Sears or seated at the table next to you at The Wagon Wheel ordering the Country Breakfast.
But when you start to shift your gaze, you see in my father a man who passed up a chance to attend the Art Institute of Chicago to run a heating and air conditioning warehouse so he could support his family. You’d see a 73 year old man who still talks to his best friend from 1st grade nearly every day. A man with the touch of St. Francis (his name is Frank by the way) who could probably get a grizzly bear to eat from his hand.
And you would see in my mother a woman who turned away from a full college scholarship because she wanted to be a mom. And you’d hear her laugh. And you’d notice how no matter where she went somehow people in need would always see that she was someone who would listen to them and they would readily seek her advice. You’d see a woman who, although she can’t always afford it, appreciates craftsmanship and quality and the history behind an artfully wrought object.
And if you kept going and shifted your gaze as far as you could, until you could only see the farthest periphery…the things that you might so easily miss if you were the least bit distracted this is what you would see…this is who they really are when they don’t know anyone is looking…
My earliest memory of my father was when we were still living in Chicago, so I was probably 4. It was late and there was pounding on the door of our flat. A drunken man had lost his way home and had mistakenly tried to enter ours. My father answered and I remember, even as a small child as I watched from the landing above, my father’s compassion and the soothing way he re-oriented the man and got him on his way.
While that memory might well be questioned due to my age I can tell you this was not a unique event. When we moved to Indiana we had a woman on our block. In retrospect I understand she must have been schizophrenic but as a child all we knew was that she was crazy. She was unkempt and usually quite docile but periodically she would grab a very large stick and march down the street going from house to house. You had better believe we ran like the dickens when we saw that…you just don’t want to hang around when you see a crazed and wild looking woman in mismatched clothes coming at you with a big stick.
But you see, it wasn’t a club. It was her scepter. And the towel on her head…well, it was a crown of sorts. She was the Queen of our Land and all she wanted to do was to visit her subjects and find out how things were going for us. I know that because my father was the one person who decided that the best way to understand her was simply to talk to her. So, he would go outside and they would talk for a while about the state of things in the neighborhood and he would reassure her that there was peace and when they were done he would come in and say, “Well, she is just as sweet as peaches and cream” and that would be it. And we stopped being afraid of what we didn’t understand. And sometimes we kids would sit on the porch with her and just talk about stuff. And when my younger sister told her that she had a headache and was advised to place a towel on her head and you saw them both sitting there draped as they were it just made sense. And old, crazy woman and a young slip of a girl with towels on their heads on a summer afternoon just talking about stuff and enjoying the day. It’s one of my favorite memories.
Fear was never my father’s first reaction.
Do you have ANY idea what a gift it was to be taught that lesson?
You know what’s funny about this? I didn’t even realize until sitting here, at age 42, right this very moment when I typed that sentence what it was that my dad had shown me. I’ve spent a lot of my life looking head on. Even though the lesson influenced me profoundly it hadn’t been something I could see directly. (Now maybe you understand why my heart starts to get happy when I sit down to write this every month.)
One of the memories I have of my mother was of her getting off a long phone conversation. It was maybe an hour long call.
A call from a wrong number.
Yes, my mother could talk just as long to someone she didn’t know, with just as much laughter and enthusiasm as someone she had known for years. And it almost appeared to dawn on her later, with a little surprise when she saw in everyone else’s reactions, that this was probably not typical. As if she had never considered that “wrong numbers” were mistakes and such mistakes needed to be corrected as soon as possible because one simply doesn’t talk to strangers for no good reason. She always found a good reason for them to have called her, mistake or not. She might even give them a good recipe while she was at it.
“Stranger” was never my mother’s first assessment of people.
And do you have any idea how much love has come in to my life by learning THAT lesson?
It’s ironic because had you looked at them as a couple, in the center of your vision, you would have seen two people who simply co-existed in our house for a long, long time. My parents divorced after 28 years of marriage. Why they weren’t able to give each other what I saw them make available to strangers time and time again, I don’t know. Maybe it’s like the sun. Maybe real love is that strong…you can only handle the periphery of it. Maybe there is a risk that if you go fully, directly in to the belly of the thing that it will consume you.
I don’t know. But I do know that a lot of times people shy away from intimacy. How long are you willing to let someone just sit silently, openly looking you directly in the eye before you look away? We don’t always like to be seen that fully. We can’t always handle the direct focus. Maybe for some of us, the periphery is the only place we really feel safe enough to let ourselves connect.
For myself, I want to practice using my full field of vision while I have that option.
I want to practice approaching people from all angles and just look, as much as I can, without judgment.