Thursday, June 22, 2017
From My Fellow Word-Smith LARRY PICKERING:
Monday, June 19, 2017
BACKGROUND: The top selling toy today is nothing more than a gadget with three weighted prongs that spin and spin on one's fingers. They've existed in some form since 1993 and lately have grown so popular since some manufacturers are touting their therapeutic benefits for children with autism, anxiety and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
The alleged mental benefits of the toys have helped fuel their sales, but even a cursory look at the nonexistent science -- and the history -- of the spinners makes it clear these claims are specious at best. Fidget spinners weren't created by behavioral scientists with deep knowledge of intellectual disability nor were they created by experts in a lab; they were patented by an inventor from Florida named Catherine Hettinger who wanted to promote World Peace.
Hettinger's spinner never took:off. Her patent expired in 2005, and the spinner spun into obscurity until earlier this year, when a series of YouTube videos featuring teenagers doing tricks with them went viral. Now to the serious matter of......is this something that will enhance your child's Life?
The brain has the magical ability to rewire itself. We live in the world that offers our brains instant gratification, which works just like a drug. The more instant gratification we offer our brains, the more our brains crave it.
With the best of intentions, we have rewired the brains of this entire generation of children to expect instant gratification, by offering them IPads, videogames, and depriving their brains of opportunities for boredom, responsibilities, and limits. Children come to school emotionally unavailable to learn. Their brains are unable to function under lower levels of stimulation, and expect special effects at all times. Unfortunately, real life can’t offer their brains what we promised; compared to the stimulation offered by the screens, real life is boring. Life requires the brain to work through boredom, which these children can’t tolerate so they become fidgety the moment their brains perceive even minor “boredom”.
There are a few kids that do require fidgets. However, even for these kids, the fidgets are just a quick fix. These children require a much deeper approach to help them concentrate. In many cases, if a child needs fidgets, it means that his brain is overly stimulated and he actually needs help calming his brain down rather than further
stimulating it. Here are some suggestions that will minimize your child’s need for fidgeting:
- Teach children that “boredom” is a normal state of human emotions. Help children to recognize the signs of boredom and help them develop functional strategies to deal with it. Don’t take the responsibility of constantly entertaining your kids, as they need to learn to self-regulate through boredom.
- Put a conscious effort to train your child’s delayed gratification skills. Avoid using technological babysitters in cars and restaurants and train his ability to just sit and wait. Teach your child to sit at a table until everyone finishes eating. Limit snacking between meals.
- Limit your child’s access to technology. In addition, unplug from your phone and share quality time with your child.
- Offer your child opportunities to spend time outdoors, especially in green space.
- Provide regular opportunities for high intensity, high duration exercises such as biking, hiking.
- Bring calmness into their lives by listening to calm music, sitting around a fireplace, having a calming bath, reading a book, drawing, or playing board games.
- Offer plenty of sleep in technology free bedrooms.
- Train your child’s ability to complete monotonous work, such as helping with cooking, setting a table, making his/her bed, or folding clothes.
- If your child truly needs a fidget, provide him/her with a low stimulation fidget, such as a stress ball.
The Way I See It......parents, we are failing our children! Their future is in our hands. Provide children with what is truly and deeply good for them, instead of highly stimulating quick fixes.
Friday, June 16, 2017
WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THESE DAMN SUDANESE ! Part #3
The level and severity of crimes by African refugees and their children is astonishing and an indictment of Australia's refugee policies. Here are the three latest examples, including another alleged brutal home invasion by six to eight Africans. How on earth did we import this danger?
Read my previous informative blog pinpointing the history: http://back-doc.blogspot.com.au/2016/12/australians-want-to-know-who-let-in.html
Read my previous informative blog pinpointing the history: http://back-doc.blogspot.com.au/2016/12/australians-want-to-know-who-let-in.html
Jade Ribeiro said her mother, stepfather and 12-year-old brother were all “terrified” and “shaken” when six to eight males invaded their home of three weeks...
“She saw one of them with a stick bashing my stepdad, so she got involved and they hit her … there’s blood all over the floor, my stepdad has a cut cheek, eyebrow and concussion.
“My little brother is terrified, he hasn’t stopped crying.”The gang was involved in another burglary in a Melton home on Saturday, where they stole a white Toyota Camry sedan.
TWO boys have told police they were ambushed by a group of older teens in a robbery outside of a shopping centre in Melbourne’s northwest.
One of the victims was put into a headlock by the thieves who demanded cash and phones, according to one father...[The offenders] were described as Sudanese filth in appearance, aged 15 to 16.
A gang of Sudanese teenagers armed with wooden stakes has kicked down the front door of a family's home and stormed inside. Source: 7 News
The mother and father were threatened as they cowered in their bedroom while their five-year-old daughter slept nearby.
The family told 7 News on Wednesday of their horrific ordeal, awoken by five African teenagers standing over their bed at the Melton suburb of Kurunjang.
Sudanese make up just 0.11 per cent of Victoria's population but 4.8 per cent of aggravated burglary offenders. That makes them 44 times more likely to break the law.
Then there are these statistics: "But Sudanese youths were vastly over-represented in the 2015 data, responsible for 7.44 per cent of home invasions, 5.65 per cent of car thefts and 13.9 per cent of aggravated robberies, despite Sudanese-born citizens making up about 0.11 per cent of Victoria's population."
Nearly 70 times more likely, then, to commit a home invasion than are Australian-born youths.
A GANG of thieves has ransacked a home while a family slept, in another home invasion in Melbourne’s northwest overnight.
A man, woman and two children were asleep in their Brookfield home when five burglars crept inside about 1.20am this morning.
The offenders stole mobile phones and car keys before taking off down Clarkes Rd in the family’s silver Audi A5 sedan and a black Holden Commodore...
The Way I See It......Refugee advocates can never summon the courage to answer the question of how many is too many. Instead, they hide behind the particular instance, always ignoring the big picture...when Enough is Enough! An overly legalistic and generous refugee regimes, detached from its consequences, makes Australia vulnerable to large numbers of unsuitable refugees. The effect, if indeed not the object of refugee advocacy, is to disarm Australia. Australians must stand up, ignoring the howls of ''racist'', and tell our immigration department that too many immigrants from cultures too different from ours can and will, erode not just the concept of citizenship, but the sense of mutual obligation that underpins the social welfare of the state. Deportation seems the most realistic option.“Investigators have been told a group of five men, perceived to be African in appearance, gained entry to the Clarkes Rd residence before stealing mobile phones, keys, and two vehicles about 1.20am,” [a police spokesman] said.
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
Saturday, June 10, 2017
Former FBI boss James Comey is a narcissist with an agenda and a nasty and unprofessional habit of leaking, yet his testimony to Congress yesterday destroys the media conspiracy theories.
NO, Comey is not alleging Trump tried to obstruct justice in telling him he hopeed the FBI would clear sacked national security advisor Michael Flynn - "I don't think it's for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct."
NO, Comey did not take that expression of Trump's hope to be an order to drop the probe - "those words are not an order". Comey simply interpreted them as a "direction", but one he ignored: "I mean, this is a president of the United States with me alone saying I hope this. I took it as, this is what he wants me to do. I didn't obey that, but that's the way I took it."
NO, Trump never asked Comey to stop investigating claims of Russian involvement in the 2016 US election - "Not to my understanding, no."
NO, Trump didn't ask Comey to hide any evidence of collusion between his team and Russian intelligence. In fact, the opposite: "He said, and if some of my satellites did something wrong, it'd be good to find that out."
NO, New York Times' claims of extensive contacts between Trump's associates and Russian intelligence were false - "in the main, it was not true".
No, there's no proof of Russian collusion.
NO, Flynn was not central to any allegation of collusion with Russia -dropping any investigation into him would have been "unlikely" to affect the Russian probe. This means Flynn could not have testified against Trump with any dirt.
NO, Trump did or suggested or ordered nothing after that initial conversation with Comey to get the FBI to drop any investigation into Flynn.
YES, if Trump had wanted to kill the investigation into Flynn he could have issued an order as president.
And, YES, Comey had refused to publicly clear Trump of what he knew were fake media smears.
At least CNN and ABC have now apologised for one hate-Trump falsehood - that Comey would deny he'd told Trump he was not under investigation.
Even MSNBC host Chris Matthews says Comey's evidence collapses the conspiracy theories - although you wouldn't guess that from Australia's media coverage.
In fact, Comey's evidence was most damning of Barack Obama's Attorney-General, who seems far likelier to have abused her authority over Comey to protect Hillary Clinton.
But the media Left will look after its own, and will not easily give up its mad insistence that Trump must be guilty and face impeachment.
So what is left of the case against Trump? It is that he expressed a hope - not an order - in one conversation with Comey about Michael Flynn, the national security advisor he'd just sacked the day before for lying.
This is what Trump allegedly said:
We now know that Comey agreed Flynn was a good guy, that Trump did not order the investigation dropped and that Flynn was not central to any investigation of collusion with Russia, anyway.
We also know Trump denies he asked for suggested Comey drop the investigation.
The Way I See It.....the charge against Trump lies entirely in how to interpret his expression of a hope - as being just that, or being a direction which Comey ignored to do something that was of little consequence anyway.
Loose change - and everything else has been fake news.
Friday, June 2, 2017
The Australian Broadcasting Commission is wailing in horror: Donald Trump is pulling out of the Paris climate accord. (Sceptics are worried: he says he is open to a better deal.)
Trump has in fact pull out a deal that lets its strategic competitors - Russia and China - increase their emissions while cutting America's. He's pulled out of a deal that actually makes almost no difference to temperatures - at the very most 0.05 degrees by 2100 - at the cost of trillions of dollars. He's pulled out of a deal that only pretends to fix what might not actually need or want fixing.
And by pulling out, Australia's idiocy is exposed: the world's top four emitters are either out of the Paris agreement or are free under the deal to increase their emissions. China is the top emitter, responsible for 28 per cent of the world's man-made global warming gases. It is followed by the United States, India and Russia, and the Paris agreement allows China, India and Russia to all increase their emissions.
So why is tiny Australia still part of this growth-killing useless gesture, spending billions to make no difference?
Let fact-check the hysteria.
As U.S. backs away from climate pledges, India and China step up
As for China themselves, their INDC only promises to peak emissions by 2030,and reduce CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by 60% to 65% of 2005 levels. Because their economy has expanded so much since 2005, and is planned to grow much more up to 2030, their promise is likely to see emissions increase by at least 50% from current levels.
While India’s pledge promises to cut its emissions intensity in 2030 to a third below 2005 levels, its growing economy means actual emissions will still increase... India’s pledge could see total greenhouse gas output nearly double by 2030...
Taking a closer look at Russia’s climate plan reveals that the country could increase its emissions about 40-50 percent above current levels by 2030.
So Trump is actually right:
[The Paris agreement] just transfers [coal] jobs out of the United States and ships them to other countries. This deal is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining an advantage over the United States.
What's more, the deal is actually a con.
So far global warming has not produced the predicted disasters. Cyclones have in fact between rarer, and not stronger. Droughts have not worsened overall, and Australia's dams have not emptied, as was warned. Low-lying atoll islands have not drowned - in fact, 40 per cent have increased in size and 40 per cent have stayed stable. World grain crops have set new records.
This may in fact be a pretend fix to a pretend catastrophe. Even if every country in the Paris deal cut their emissions as promised (and they aren't) and even if the climate is as sensitive to our emissions as the Paris deal assumes (and it may not be), the deal will still make very little difference:
- ''The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.''
- The Way I See It.....even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.