Open Thread

[Mr A.Anderson]

Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins

Just out of curiousity, Fred; did you think highly of your mother?

I'm curious as to what would make a man of your age still like women as much as you obviously do.

I think men who value women highly must have valued their own mothers highly, and they tend to look at women through rose-colored glasses.

Is that the case?

I don't know if that is based upon anything or not. I didn't really value my mother highly, and don't have much of a relationship with her, or the other members of my family. We were not raised as a tight knit group. Funny, considering that we are raising our family completely the opposite. Yet, despite this, I still appreciate women who hold on to traditional family values. I don't know if that would be considered looking at them through rose-colored glasses or not.

[Fred O'Malley]

As for me, the female form is breathtakingly beautiful, when it's right and most of their charms are still where they are intended to be.

I love the "fun" in women, they aren't as tight-assed as men who place value on macho and abysmal thought. Gals let it all hang out and laugh about it, while men are afraid to look foolish.

Yeah, you could say that I appreciate women. I also enjoy the company of men who understand manhood, unlike these mouth-pissers who won't go outside because some kid's kite might fall on their heads.

Confidence is the key to a happy life, some of you should study the dictionary's opinion on confidence. Folks like Akins who constantly bemoan their own existence can be done without.

[Fred O'Malley]

Self-Confidence: Nature or Nurture?

Are you born with self-confidence?

Published on July 11, 2009 by Ray Williams in Wired for Success

Is self-confidence something that you're born with or is it taught and developed? It's the classic nature vs. nurture question. While current wisdom has been for some time that it's mostly nurture, there's some surprising new research that indicates we may genetically predisposed to be self confident.

Smart children on balance to do well in school. That may seem obvious, but there are a lot of exceptions to that rule. Some kids with high IQs don't ever become academic superstars, while less gifted kids often shine.

Why? Psychologists have focused on things like self-esteem and self-confidence—how good children think they are—to explain these outcomes. And the assumption has always been that such psychological traits are shaped mostly by parenting—by parents' beliefs and expectations and modeling. Researchers like Albert Bandura have argued that the initial efficacy experiences are centered in the family. But as the growing child's social world rapidly expands, peers become increasingly important in children's developing self-knowledge of their capabilities. So, until now, an individual's self-confidence was seen to be based on upbringing and other environmental factors.

Behavorial geneticist Corina Greven of King's College in London and her colleague, Robert Plomin of the Institute of Psychiatry, argue that self-confidence is more than a state of mind—but rather is a genetic predisposition. Their research, published in the June, 2009 issue of Psychological Science, is a rigorous analysis of the heritability of self-confidence and its relationship to IQ and performance.

They studied more than 3700 pairs of twins, both identical and fraternal twins, from age seven to age ten. Comparing genetically identical twins to non-identical siblings allows scientists to sort out the relative contributions of genes and the environment. Contrary to accepted wisdom, the researchers found that children's self-confidence is heavily influenced by heredity—at least as much as IQ is. Indeed, as-yet-unidentified self-confidence genes appear to influence school performance independent of IQ genes, with shared environment having only a negligible influence.

The fact that self-confidence is heritable does not mean it is unchanging, of course. Siblings share a lot of influences living in basically the same home and community, but there are always worldly influences pulling them apart. A genetic legacy of self-confidence merely opens up many possible futures.

Greven and Plomin also found that children with a greater belief in their own abilities often performed better at school, even if they were actually less intelligent. They also concluded that same held true for athletes, with ability playing a lesser role than confidence.

So this study, supporting the nature argument for self-confidence should put the cat among the pigeons with coaches, psychologists, trainers and parenting experts, who have argued for some time that nurturing had the most significant influence on developing self-confidence.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ure-or-nurture

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley

As for me, the female form is breathtakingly beautiful, when it's right and most of their charms are still where they are intended to be.

I love the "fun" in women, they aren't as tight-assed as men who place value on macho and abysmal thought. Gals let it all hang out and laugh about it, while men are afraid to look foolish.

Yeah, you could say that I appreciate women. I also enjoy the company of men who understand manhood, unlike these mouth-pissers who won't go outside because some kid's kite might fall on their heads.

Confidence is the key to a happy life, some of you should study the dictionary's opinion on confidence. Folks like Akins who constantly bemoan their own existence can be done without.

This one is for you, Fred:

You Tube

You Tube

[Fred O'Malley]

Thanks Akins, the chic in that video on the phone fits the profile, my kind of woman.

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

I don't know if that is based upon anything or not. I didn't really value my mother highly, and don't have much of a relationship with her, or the other members of my family. We were not raised as a tight knit group. Funny, considering that we are raising our family completely the opposite. Yet, despite this, I still appreciate women who hold on to traditional family values. I don't know if that would be considered looking at them through rose-colored glasses or not.

Expecting women to fulfill traditional roles and approving of their doing so (when you can find one that does) isn't what I mean by looking at them through rose-colored glasses.

My reference to men who view women through the lenses of rose-colored glasses pertains to that sort of man who thinks that all women are wonderful, that they are the best thing since sliced bread, that they can basically do no wrong and are worth every penny of your money - guys like Fred.

[Fred O'Malley]

Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins

My reference to men who view women through the lenses of rose-colored glasses pertains to that sort of man who thinks that all women are wonderful, that they are the best thing since sliced bread, that they can basically do no wrong and are worth every penny of your money - guys like Fred.

You're confused.

I see women as people who are far more stimulating in their physical appearance and levity than are all men. I see them as different than men in many regards; appearance, cordiality, sweetness, (some types of) strength, and a willingness to put themselves out front with balls of brass. They also have some limitations as well, but I won't go into that here.

Mostly, they are the ones who cause my brain to release endorphins in a massive and all-consuming explosion which leaves me nearly lifeless. Pleasure only they can give.

You're too tense and narrow, broaden your horizons, end your myopia.

[America First]

Huey P Long on the difference between Democrats and Republicans - YouTube

Huey P Long on the difference between Democrats and Republicans - YouTube

5.0 out of 5 stars Important, February 3, 2001
By A Customer

This review is from: Silent Coup: The Removal of a President (Hardcover)
The previous reviewer's statement that, "even if every word in it is true, none of it matters that much; the coup was a good thing" is ridiculous, and an absurd "the ends justify the means" logic. Yes, Nixon should have been removed BUT HE SHOULD HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO HAVE BEEN HEARD DURING AN IMPEACHMENT HEARING instead of being manipulated into resigning by Al Haig. But Al Haig was frightend about what would come out about HIM in an impeachment hearing, so manipulated Nixon into resigning. Despicable. Just this week that I write this, a defamation suit regarding this book against G. Gordon Liddy was dismissed by the judge. So the truth of this book has been held up in a court of law. It's one of the most incredible books I've ever read.


8 of 11 people found the following review helpful
Well researched, disturbing hypothesis - but is it correct? January 3, 2010
By Earth that Was
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase"Silent Coup" is an important work of "Watergate Revisionism" that brings the Radford spy ring into the picture. In short, senior Pentagon officials at the Joint Chiefs of Staff level authorised what amounted to an "unofficial" spy operation targeted at the White House. They wanted to keep tabs on Kissinger and his secret diplomacy. Kissinger's moves were shaking the way US foreign policy had been conducted for a generation, the Chiefs believed they were being left out of the loop.

The authors see US national security chiefs as going beyond this illegal, unconstitutional and somewhat amateur snooping on Kissinger to a more sinister, and ultimately successful, effort to remove Nixon, or at least, deflect fall-out from the downfall of an administration already heading for a crash, away from themselves. Central to their thesis are the numerous links between various Watergators and the CIA, a VIP Call Girl ring (itself under CIA influence) used by the DNC and the past relationship between former USN briefing officer Woodward to both Admiral Radford and General Alexander Haig, whom the authors picked as "Deep Throat". The label "coup" however may be somewhat misleading. The authors are not so much talking about a Latin American putsch so much as political jujitsu by Haig and the Joint Chiefs.

Much of this material is discussed by other Watergate revisionists, for example, Jim Hougan in "Secret Agenda", although often framed in a different explanatory narratives. "Silent Coup" to it's credit provides numerous references and attachments as evidence, especially for the Radford spy ring. This isn't always the most enjoyable reading experience.

There are some benefits beyond Watergate revisionism too. In detailing the Radford spy ring they outline some of Kissinger and Nixon's tactics in laying the foundations for detente. We learn, for example, that the US tilt towards Pakistan in the Indo-Pakistan dispute was related to Kissinger's use of Islamabad as a back channel to Peking. This tilt became important under later administrations as Pakistan's General Zia emerged as the empressario of US-UK- Chinese support for the Afghan rebels. As the US may be drawn deeper into Pakistani politics in the years ahead, this episode may receive greater attention from historians.

During the Nixon / Frost interviews, Nixon mentions a national security dimension to Watergate. Was he alluding to the Radford spy ring?

Since "Silent Coup" the identity of Deep Throat has been revealed to be the FBI's Mark Felts, not Haig. But as Jim Hougan has pointed out via his web site, Felt was formerly the head of the Bureau's controversial "Cointelpro" program. So Hougan casts reasonable doubt on the explanation that Deep Throat's motives were those of an outraged constitutionalist.

Despite more recent developments and revelations, "Silent Coup" is likely to be a valuable reference for students of the Radford affair and Watergate generally, even if some of the authors' more disturbing conclusions are themselves due for revision.
Comment | Was this review helpful to you?Yes
No

Amazon.com: Silent Coup: The Removal of a President (9780312051563): Len Colodny, Robert Gettlin: Books

Amazon.com: Silent Coup: The Removal of a President (9780312051563): Len Colodny, Robert Gettlin: Books