#2
Izzadeen interrupted a speech given by the UK Home Secretary, John Reid, at Leytonstone, northeast London. Izzadeen yelled out: "I am furious. I am absolutely furious - John Reid should not come to a Muslim area. You are an enemy of Islam and Muslims.
Doesn't matter if they're hollow shells fronting for radicals, as long as they've got access to the mass-media, who are even supportive enough of their agenda(s) to edit reports when potentially embarrassing for them.
By Patrick Poole
A recent editorial in Investors Business Daily, The 8-Million Muslim Lie, took issue with population figures regularly bandied about by radical Islamic activists since the November 2006 elections as a supposed demonstration of Muslims collective political power. Because of the number of elections decided around the country with slim majorities, including critical congressional and senatorial races, the Muslim activists advancing this statistic contend that because of this fictionalized mass of Muslims, the radical agendas of organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim American Society (MAS), and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) must have their demands for the Islamization of American society catered to by political parties, government officials and law enforcement authorities. At least thats how their argument goes.
The IBD editorial completely deconstructs the methodology of the report used by these organizations to support their 8-Million Muslim claims. The report in question, The Mosque in America: A National Portrait, was published in April 2001 by CAIR, and was authored by CAIR National Board member, Ishan Bagby, who has no professional training in demography. The study concluded:
#2
Investor's Business Daily has produced a number of very interesting articles about Muslims, terror groups, and progress in the War on Terror since 9/11. I was gifted a sample 6-week subscription some years ago, and my thought at the time was, "What a pity they spend so many pages on matters financial!"
Daisuke Matsuzaka has yet to throw his first pitch for the Red Sox [team stats], but his beer-chugging sales pitch intended only for Japanese TV audiences is raising eyebrows and some concern half a world away.
A slick commercial for Asahi Super Dry beer features Matsuzaka donning a Red Sox jersey and throwing in full uniform in front of a simulated frenzied throng. In between those shots, Matsuzaka, in street clothes, is shown first taking a couple of gulps from a large glass of beer. After a quick cut, the shot returns to Matsuzaka downing the beer and, with foam on his lips, smiling and sighing contentedly.
Asahis beer is No. 1 in overall sales in Japan and the ad campaign, which also features the Yankees Hideki Matsui, is nothing unusual for Japan, where athletes are often used in beer endorsements and can be seen drinking on camera.
Continued on Page 49
Don't write off Giuliani's appeal to social conservatives.
By Brendan Miniter
The book on Rudy Giuliani is that he is too liberal on social issues to win the Republican presidential nomination. Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, put it succinctly: "I don't see anyone getting the Republican nomination who is not pro-life and a staunch defender of traditional marriage."
But Mr. Giuliani is running strong in Iowa and New Hampshire polls and leading most national surveys of Republicans. He's charming crowds of conservatives everywhere he goes, So it's worth wondering if Mr. Perkins is missing an undercurrent coursing through conservative politics.
Republicans have just experienced a bruising midterm election defeat. The president is suffering dismal approval ratings, and the party's erstwhile front-runner for the presidential nomination, Sen. John McCain, made his national reputation as a "maverick." The Giuliani rise evident now may be more than name recognition and residual support from his stalwart leadership following the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Giuliani's support may also arise from his having successfully moved an entrenched political culture in New York City, something national Republicans have not been able to do in Washington.
Mr. Perkins has publicly predicted that Mr. Giuliani's support will evaporate once voters learn more about him. And Mr. Giuliani's track record, both political and personal, may hurt him in the primaries. He's been divorced twice, opposes banning abortion, supports gun control, and for a time as mayor lived with two gay men and (as Time magazine noted recently) their frou-frou dog, Bonnie. None of this will endear him to the party's values voters. But it also may not be what tips the scales in the primaries.
Take South Carolina. The state's influence in presidential politics has only grown since it derailed Mr. McCain's Straight Talk Express in 2000. Two weeks ago, Mr. Giuliani made a trip to the state and struck a chord by speaking to a burning issue in South Carolina--a fight over school choice. This probably won't make the national evening news, but today some 5,000 people--many of whom are black and live in poorly performing rural school districts--are expected to descend on the state capitol in Columbia to rally for school choice. After lobbying their elected leaders, they plan to leave behind chocolates for Valentine's Day embossed with the words "another voice for school choice."
Mr. Giuliani delivered his South Carolina speech to several dozen conservatives. One woman who attended told me she wonders whether electing a president who successfully took on the mob in New York is what it will take to finally break through the entrenched education political culture. Christian conservatives make up the core of the school-choice movement in the state. If they come to the conclusion that Mr. Giuliani is on their side and has the leadership qualities to achieve lasting and meaningful change, he may prove a surprisingly strong contender.
Sen. McCain will have his own problems winning over Christian conservatives. A man who won media accolades by cutting against the base of his party will be ill-equipped to win the nomination. He's recently taken lashes in the media from Focus on the Family founder James Dobson and is reviled among some in the right-to-life movement for pushing through campaign finance restrictions that have made it more difficult for them to get their message out.
Christian conservative leaders will continue to be unhappy with Mr. Giuliani. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, recently laid into the former mayor for a shifting stance on abortion, saying that a politician who personally believes the practice is wrong but who refuses to ban it is more repugnant than someone who isn't morally troubled by the termination of a pregnancy.
He's right. But there is little the president can do directly about abortion. in weighing contenders for the party's nomination, will right-to-life Republicans be more worried about Mr. Giuliani's personal beliefs, or will they find comfort that he says he'll appoint judges in the mold of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who may actually overturn Roe v. Wade?? If Mr. Giuliani makes a convincing case that he'll also lend his efforts to school choice and other endeavors that will help win the other culture war under way in American politics--the one against an intransient political culture that is unresponsive to the demands of the public--Mr. Perkins could turn out to be mistaken.
Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com.
#1
I don't agree with any politician on everything (hell I don't even agree with myself on everything), but I like Rudy. He's got cojones and he doesn't melt in a crisis. He's seen the WOT up-close and personal, and he'll fight.
Remember last week, when Chris Bowers was strutting around like Mick Jagger in his prime talking up his mighty power over the Edwards campaign?
Well, a few short days later, Amanda Marcotte is no longer in the employ of Senator Edwards:
Amanda Marcotte has resigned as the blogger for the presidential campaign of Democrat John Edwards. She blamed her decision on Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League who last week demanded that Edwards fire her for anti-Catholic statements at the blog Pandagon.
Marcotte announced her resignation there. Here is an excerpt:
[The campaign by Donohue] was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign. No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless employee for them, and if I cant do the job I was hired to do because Bill Donohue doesnt have anything better to do with his time than harass me, then I wont do it. I resigned my position today and they accepted.
Unencumbered by her work for Edwards, she vowed to strike back. The main good news, Marcotte wrote, is that I dont have a conflict of interest issue anymore that was preventing me from defending myself against these baseless accusations. So its on.
Besides the obvious satisfaction of seeing a worthy comeuppance, three things strike me as particularly hilarious about this: one, that Marcotte apparently is giving us fair warning that she intends to become even more foul-mouthed and unpleasant now that she is no longer held back by her employment with Edwards.
Two, we can obviously see now the complete and utter insincerity of her apology.
Three, she actually thinks anyone is going to give a damn about her now! Its over, babe now youre just another foul-mouthed lefty, and I cant swing a cat without hitting three of those
UPDATE 9:53 p.m.: It gets funnier by the minute. Heres Matt Stollers incredibly blind take:
Bill Donohues attack on Edwards failed
It did? Marcotte resigned, and thats a victory??!!??? Even his own commenters arent buying that one
UPDATE 10:10 p.m.: Oh, heres a beaut from a Kos commenter:
I wish she would have stuck it out. Amandas viewpoints are pretty mainstream in my neck of the woods.
You can say that again!
UPDATE 11:38 p.m.: Bowers weighs in, no longer doing the victory dance:
Sadly, the inhuman still rules the world of American politics. We will all be a lot better off when there is a more prominent place for someone like Amanda Marcotte in our public discourse.
Yes, if there is one thing missing from our public discourse, its more people willing to describe the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit in a highly sexualized, wholly inappropriate manner Chris, you are just dead on, buddy
Very likely she was actuall fired last week, but she and the Edwards campaign engaged in a little PR Kabuki theatre under which she got to pretend to have resigned to spend more time F-bombing the filthy Jew-loving neoKKKon KKKristofascist breeder scum with the family, preserving what little dignity she may have remaining.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/13/2007 07:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"We will all be a lot better off when there is a more prominent place for someone like Amanda Marcotte..."
A scaffold would work.
Better yet, hang ALL these leftist assholes and we'll all be a LOT better off.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
02/13/2007 7:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
hey Amanda! F*ck you and the anti-Catholic pony that rode you
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/13/2007 7:36 Comments ||
Top||
#3
btw - doesn't this show how unfit the silky pony/breck girl is? Talk about not-ready-for-prime-time.....
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/13/2007 7:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Who cares about these frustrated pseudo-intellectual ex-KGB puppets?
#7
We will all be a lot better off when there is a more prominent place for someone like Amanda Marcotte...
We don't have literal laughingstocks anymore.
Seriously, Marcotte cannot write, and she cannot think. All she can do is curse and rage, and to many people that's an adequate substitute for thought. I remain mystified over Edwards choosing her, but I'm sorry she resigned. She would have been so much fun.
#10
F***ing Update: The other f***ing anti-Christian blogger, Melissa F***ing McEwan f***ing resigned from the f***ing Edwards campaign. Edwards comment - "Why'd I f***ing hire those f***ing losers. Now I'm f***ed".
Tim Hames It has been a mere 97 days since this writers last prediction on American politics (that the Republicans would not lose control of the Senate) proved so badly wrong that he was obliged to honour his pledge to eat his words with a dash of Tabasco sauce.
This was not without compensations. For one, I received a sympathetic letter from Paul C. P. McIlhenny, president of the company that makes Tabasco, along with a bottle of it large enough to last a lifetime. Next, the inept Democrats have already been so incompetent and incoherent since securing their majorities on Capitol Hill that they must secretly be wishing that they had lost.
More personal humiliation is invited. On Saturday Senator Barack Obama entered the battle for the White House. He did so to the backdrop of a media swoon. He trumpeted the themes of his recent volume, The Audacity of Hope. That his candidature is essentially audacious and relies an awful lot on hope was ignored by most of those who reported it. Someone has to point out that this balloon has hype not helium inside it. I will do so.
Meshaal, Haniyeh, and Abbas prepare to take part in a ritual homosexual orgy in the Great Steambath of Mecca.
It is still too early to judge whether the Mecca Agreement between Fatah and Hamas will stop members of the various Palestinian militias in Gaza killing each other; it is equally questionable whether the convoluted language of the agreement lives up even to the minimal standards the international community has put forth as a condition for renewing aid to the Palestinian Authority.
I'm guessing the language is intentionally convoluted, lending itself to as many varying interpretations as possible and as close to being a semantic null as it's possible to get without leaving nothing but spaces between all the periods and commas.
What is, however, beyond doubt is that the various Palestinian factions, each commanding numerous armed militias and security services, have totally failed to work out a political system based on ballots, not bullets. The January 2006 Palestinian elections only proved that neither the minority, nor the majority, knew how to function within the rules of representative government. Only an outside player - the Saudis - with their standing and lucre were able to achieve what negotiations, not shootings, lynchings and killings, are supposed to achieve in any orderly society.
Strictly until the money runs out again. Then it's back to square zero.
This raises anew the question of how far Palestinian society is able to carry out nation-building under the difficult conditions in which it creates for finds itself. Some of these difficulties are undoubtedly a consequence of Israeli occupation. But many have to do with the structure of Palestinian society itself, lacking the basic ingredients of tolerance, legitimized pluralism and the understanding that differences are not to be decided by force and coercion. That the major achievement of the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat was, rather than social reconstruction, the establishment of a dozen security services testifies to this structural failure.
Depends on what one wishes the structure to produce. The Paleo pathologies were not created for a peaceful, stable society. They were created as weaponised paranoia, designed to be the knife held to the throat of the West. And they would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling Neocons.
The idea has merit, if for only one reason: the Paleos are going to riot and bomb and do their Paleo thing no matter *who* is paying the bills; I'd prefer they be spending ol' Ibn-Saud's inheritance than my tax dollars.
The time has perhaps come to consider that the Palestinians may need a guiding hand, able to lead them in what they have until now totally failed: nation-building. Some Jordanian statesmen recently expressed in private the idea that perhaps the Hashemites could now somehow come back and provide such guidance. Egypt has already played an important, though only partially successful role, in negotiating a cease-fire of sorts between Israel and some Palestinian militias in Gaza. The Saudis have now proven that maybe they are the addressee. The Mecca Agreement is at the moment a mere piece of paper; it will be tested in its implementation. It may not be unkind to suggest that once President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh return to their respective headquarters, the bickering - and perhaps shooting - will resume. In any case, it would be helpful if a robust Saudi presence, perhaps helped by Egypt, could be established in Gaza.
It would be more helpful if they weren't attempting to do this with actual Paleos.
The Palestinians need help to help themselves.
Just ask Allan.
At the moment the idea that the dozens of Palestinian security services, militias and clan gangs - all thuggish and armed to the teeth - can become a basis for a more or less functioning body politic is totally unrealistic. The Palestinians need a transition period in which a higher authority will guide them toward nation-building and state-formation.
Someone like...Prince Nayef!
This cannot be done by the EU or the UN. Only a legitimate Arab regime, one with enough power and money, can do it - and the Saudis may be the best candidate for the role, especially as it may also fit into their own overall view of trying to destabilize the region. In other words, and without beating around the bush: the Palestinians have to come out from under Israeli occupation, but they are unable to create the infrastructure that will give their political entity the necessary stability. A Saudi protectorate could be the way out of this conundrum, and the notion should be seriously addressed by all concerned.
Plus the entertainment value when the Paleos turn their seething on the Soddies when the well runs dry...
Posted by: Fred ||
02/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
SHLOMO AVINERI is one of Israel's leading moonbats (and our moonbats are the best in the World).
#2
Something major is going on diplomatically. I suspect that Condi Rice is behind it.
First of all, the Saudis are taking the helm and directing all of the Paleos in the territories, which they are willing to do to push out Iran. The US does not mind having Iran pushed back north.
Second, I suspect that other Sunni governments, especially Jordan and Egypt, are joining the Sunni bandwagon. With all three invested, this will seriously moderate the actions of the Paleos.
On top of that, the EU is in on the deal, because once the Saudis are in charge, they can send aid to the territories without it immediately being used to kill Israelis.
The only person who could have assembled such a plan is Condi Rice. This explains why the US is so quiet and in the background on the deal.
The wild cards are Lebanon, Syria and Iran. I find it hard to believe that Iran, especially, would sit back and let this deal happen without seriously trying to upset the apple cart.
This would mean Syrian intelligence assassinating a lot of Paleo leaders, infiltrating a lot of Hezbollah into the territories, and trying to create a lot of trouble. Why they haven't done this I have no idea.
#3
Egypt and Jordan should take over Gaza and the West Bank respectively. As administrative districts or sucked back into their nations entirely. The Saudi's should pay with cash, because they have cash, so they can be a big player.
The Arabs could beat down the Palestinian gangs in a way a Western military could never get away with. They could get rid of the refugee camps and constant conflict and allow people to get on with their lives to some extent.
It won't happen because it's too useful a tool to beat Israel with.
#7
#2 'moose: "On top of that, the EU is in on the deal, because once the Saudis are in charge, they can send aid to the territories without it immediately being used to kill Israelis."
Gee, that's a huge downside for the EU - but maybe they'll go along with the plan anyway.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/13/2007 18:16 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Sure, the Saudis could send aid that wasn't to kill Israelis, but that doesn't fit into their jihad mindset very well.
As I watched the Dixie Chicks win their five Grammy Awards on Sunday night for an album staggeringly inferior to its rivals in the same categories I couldnt help but think back to the same night four years earlier, when I was being taught how to apply a tourniquet to a gunshot wound, as part of my pre-Iraq journalists training. Back then, Id never even heard of the all-female country music trio from Texas. That changed a few weeks later the morning after Natalie Maines, the groups lead singer, told an audience in London that she was ashamed to be from the same place as George W. Bush.
Overnight, Maines became a pariah: treated back home as a traitor on the scale of Mata Hari. By then, Id relocated from an SAS training centre in Hereford to a military camp in Kuwait, where I was being taught how to use a gas mask. I was terrified. Within days of Maines apologising to President Bush (too late to stop the threats, the CD-crushings and the careers of DJs who played the Dixie Chicks records), the invasion had started and I was on my way to Baghdad, embedded with an artillery division of the United States Marines.
I mention all this because theres something about the way the Dixie Chicks handled the Iraq war controversy (which included a naked appearance on the cover of Entertainment Weekly, a documentary called Shut up and Sing and the allegation that the Red Cross turned down a $1 million donation from the band, when in fact the donation was conditional on the Red Cross endorsing their tour) that makes me reluctant to cheer them too loudly. In fact, the bands carping about the lack of freedom of speech in America always struck me as a bit dishonest.
What they really seemed upset about was the cost to their popularity. Certainly, the threats, the blacklists and the CD-crushings were appalling, but anyone who trades in opinion (columnists included) understand this as a necessary cost of doing business. The Dixie Chicks, on the other hand, seemed to believe that they should be able to say exactly what they want, no matter how divisive, and that the public should unquestioningly continue to contribute to their millionaires lifestyles.
Perhaps Im biased: when youre on the front lines of an invasion, the last thing you want to hear is a celebrity back home, miles from the bullets, telling you the conflict itself is wrong or pointless. I remember the morning of March 24, 2003, when I woke up in a trench in the Iraq marshlands, mortar shells flying overhead, listening to Michael Moore giving his infamous antiwar Oscars speech. He had every right to express his opinion. But the Marines I was with also had every right to be riled by it.
And that, to me, is what the Dixie Chicks utterly failed to grasp. In a democracy, speech may be free. But wherever you go in the world Texas included an opinion worth holding will always cost you something.
#1
...Well, quite frankly, anyone who didn't expect the DC to win ( or for that matter, isn't betting the farm on Al Gore winning the Nobel) simply doesn't understand how this sort of thing works.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
02/13/2007 20:52 Comments ||
Top||
#2
isn't betting the farm on Al Gore winning the Nobel
Don't tell me there is a Nobel Prize for Ass-hattery.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/13/2007 21:50 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The dhemmicrats won control of Congress. They have been emboldened. Jane Fonda, Sean Penn and the rest of the traitors are having peace demonstrations in Washington. Global warming and stop the war has become the mantra. Al Gore is no longer an idiot but a scientific genius. The dixie chicks have been vindicated except in country music which the DC say they are not. The dhemmicrats and liberals like to give each other lots of awards. I've never seen such a silly lot. WTF is next?
A craze called 'The Secret' blends Tony Robbins with 'The Da Vinci Code,' telling people to have it all without trying. Wow. Sounds interesting. Tell me more...
WHEN MY SISTER arrived from New York over the holidays, she plopped a hand-tooled leather satchel on my piano bench and said, "See the beautiful bag I manifested for myself?" Gorgeous, indeed. But manifested? Well, I suppose that's easier than dealing in cash.
"Manifesting," for those outside the self-help loop, is the big buzzword from "The Secret," a new DVD with a tie-in book featuring the ancient idea of having it all without trying very hard. If "The Secret" had a plot, it might go something like "Tony Robbins uncovers the Judas Gospel and learns to use the Force."
The DVD is screened regularly at gatherings of the energy-healer crowd. The video opens with a "Da Vinci Code"-style shot: A man in a ragged tunic makes off with a hot papyrus. A voice-over assures us that an ancient secret, hidden from most of mankind, is about to be revealed. (Insert little conspiracy montage: A medieval priestly type privately unrolls the secret scroll; men in suits scheme in a smoke-filled boardroom.) Then motivational speakers take turns elaborating on this idea: If you want something, think of it with loving and positive feelings and it will "manifest." The concept apparently stems from the work of Esther Hicks, a famous channeler. Famous, huh? How come I've never heard of her?
I never would have heard of "The Secret" if it weren't for my sister, the sort of person who has a spirit guide and professes to "massage energy." (Friends say the wrong sister moved to California.) But apparently it has found major cultural traction. It was featured on "Oprah" last week. The book is No. 4 on The Times' nonfiction bestseller list and No. 2 on Amazon (with the audio CD set No. 3). At my local Barnes & Noble, it was sold out. Oh, well...Oprah. Must be legit. Oprah wouldn't screw me...
Americans are never too jaded for another get-rich-quick chimera. In "The Secret," real and sustained effort is unnecessary, even frowned on. The scheme lays out a "law of attraction" a strange misreading of quantum physics that asserts that the universe grants your wishes because you are the "most powerful transmission tower on in the world." Send out "wealth frequencies" with your thoughts and the universe's wealth frequencies will be pulled to you. Who thought this up, Al Gore?
Here was my favorite bit: "Food is not responsible for putting on weight. It is your thought that food is responsible for putting on weight that actually has food put on weight." It's a position that seems to have a lot in common with President Bush's ideas about global warming. Carbon emissions warm the Earth only if you worry that they will. Ah. You knew an LA Time columnist had to sneak one in. Although, I think I'd see more democrats going for this. Something for nothing? Not my fault? What a deal... On the flip side, nothing nothing happens to people that isn't brought to them by their own persistent thoughts, and the book strongly implies that this includes those killed in the Holocaust and the World Trade Center. Under this philosophy, why bother contributing to Oxfam or worrying about Darfur? What a guilt-reliever.
Near as I can tell, the whole idea is just a new spin on the very old (and decidedly not secret) "The Power of Positive Thinking" wedded to "ask and you shall receive." So it's not surprising that its author, Australian TV producer Rhonda Byrne, is best known for a show called "The World's Greatest Commercials." Warming over others' old work appears to be her area of expertise. She took the well-worn ideas of some self-help gurus, customized them for the profoundly lazy, gave them a veneer of mysticism and she tapped right into that wealth frequency. What a pro. Maybe she's right. After all, Rhonda will probably get rich. See. There's your proof.
Strange to say, people are buying it. Not just the book and DVD. The message. Therapists tell me they're starting to see clients who are headed for real trouble, immersing themselves in a dream world in which good things just come. The therapists obviously ought to visualize smarter clients. This surprises her?
My sister says I'm over-intellectualizing. She, after all, had manifested a fine leather satchel. And I have to admit, if there were designer leather goods to be had out of this, I was interested. The reality was drat it all far more prosaic. Watching the DVD gave her the idea that she could afford this bag if she really wanted it, and so she went ahead and charged it. I say, if you need an Amex card to make a handbag appear, you're an amateur. Sounds like a scam...but that's just me.
#2
This concept has been bandied about for years, but it has a flip side. The basic concept is that everything in the universe is either a "push" or a "pull".
People continually pull in events and things they want to experience "in their space", *or* push away events and things that they don't want to experience.
This is done throughout the day to overcome the boring situation of life. That is, if we didn't do this all the time, then life would be very, very boring, with people endlessly hoping to be in the right place at the right time, and catching a chance event. We would still be living in caves without it.
It is done so naturally that people aren't aware they do it, and if they do become aware of it, then they consciously interfere with the process, bungling it up.
Again, while everybody has to both push and pull, most people are better at one than the other. Either getting more activity and stuff around them, or leading a more sedate life with fewer things by pushing events and stuff they don't want away.
It also behaves like a single shot pistol, in that the energy used to pull or push has to recharge between uses. People also do it as a group, for bigger projects; even most of a nation might do it, for some international reason, like a war.
As silly as it sounds, proponents of the idea are big on experimenting to find out if its works for an individual.
Nothing much to it, really. Just start small and visualize some unusual, if not rare, object arriving in your immediate area, within 8-10 feet of yourself. After you do this, then think about other things while doing some unrelated activity for a length of time. This takes your mind off of it, helping the process to work.
Alternative, if there is some onerous activity you wish to avoid, imagine it being canceled with you being notified soon enough so you can miss out.
In theory, one or the other, or both of these things might happen.
Some people feel strangely guilty about doing this, which interferes a great deal with their ability.
On a final note, a friend who believed in this years ago noted that they thought they were really good at "pushing" stuff away, far better than "pulling". So he said he shouldn't ever "Visualize World Peace", as he would push it away and help to start a war. In his case, he felt he should "Visualize Thermonuclear Annihilation."
#2
I read Goodman's column in our local paper before using it to line the litter box. Like so many other liberals the column was long on opinion and short on fact. In fact there were no facts. The article was one of the most vacuous articles I have ever read.
#3
DRUDGE > US INFO WIRE [USG] > Even iff
"Aggressive Actions" are undertaken in near-future to combat Global Warming, will likely be wholly inconsequential = ineffective to stop or hinder it. IOW, MANKIND AT PRESENT DOESN'T HAVE THE MEANS TO FIGHT THE SUN, AND WON'T FOR MANY YEARS AND DECADES TO COME. Iff Secularist Intellectuals-Scientifists can't fight the Sun = natural forces/elements of the Universe, how do they expect to fight GOD, let alone control God???
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
It has been a mere 97 days since this writers last prediction on American politics (that the Republicans would not lose control of the Senate) proved so badly wrong that he was obliged to honour his pledge to eat his words with a dash of Tabasco sauce. 
