Sunday, December 8, 2013

6 Ways a Poor Night's Sleep Messes with You

Real Clear Science ^ | December 6, 2013 | Ross Pomeroy 

We all know how we feel when sleep-deprived: tired, groggy, and grumpy. But have you ever considered all of the ways just a single poor night of sleep may be messing with you? Science has revealed a great many ramifications that you've probably never thought of.
1. You're more depressed and anxious. In 2008, researchers assessed 226 individuals who had six or more hours of sleep the previous night and 112 individuals who had less. The "poor sleep" group scored significantly higher in levels of stress, depression, and anxiety compared to those that slept longer.
2. You pee more the next night. During the night, urine production naturally declines, permitting us to achieve uninterrupted sleep. But if you're sleep deprived from the night before, this mechanism doesn't work as efficiently. Examining 10 male and 10 female subjects over a 48-hour period, scientists found that when sleep deprived, both genders produce "markedly" larger amounts of urine, potentially translating to additional nighttime visits to the bathroom.
3. You eat more, and more unhealthily. What happens if young men get four hours of sleep instead of eight? They consume about 560 additional calories the following day. Moreover, when both men and women are sleep-deprived, they choose foods like pizza or doughnuts over healthier fare. According to researchers at Berkeley, a lack of sleep seems to dampen activity in the brain's frontal lobe -- an area tied to complex decision-making -- and elevates activity in the reward centers.
4. If you're a man, you think that women want to have sex with you. Compared with rested men, men deprived of sleep for one night rate women as more interested in having sex. The researchers warn that this more risqué perception could lead to increased incidents of inappropriate advances and sexual harassment.
5. You look sadder and less attractive. In two separate studies undertaken by Tina Sundelin at Stockholm University, untrained observers compared photographs of subjects who had been awake for 31 hours with photos of the same subjects after eight hours of sleep the night before. Observers were blinded to the conditions and viewed the pictures in random order. In the first study, observers rated sleep-deprived people as less attractive. In the second study, sleep-deprived people were deemed to looker sadder.
6. You feel more excluded. According to sleep researcher Tina Sundelin, "Pretty much everyone gets upset if they feel others are excluding them, but... a sleep-deprived person reacts even more strongly to social exclusion than their well-rested peers do."

SACP confirms Nelson Mandela was a member (South African Communist Party)

Business Day Live ^ | 06 December 2013, 19:05 | Natasha Marrian 

Former president Nelson Mandela was a member of the South African Communist Party’s (SACP’s) central executive committee at the time of his arrest in 1962, the SACP and the African National Congress (ANC) confirmed on Friday.
Even though it had always been denied, the ANC and the SACP confirmed that Mr. Mandela had served on the party’s central executive committee in their statements paying tribute to the anti-apartheid icon. There had been much debate about the issue among historians and academics.
SACP deputy general secretary Solly Mapaila on Thursday said he was a member of the party, but it was denied at the time for “political reasons”. …
(Excerpt) Read more at bdlive.co.za ...

How can newspapers be saved? First, fire the journalists.

Examiner.com ^ | Nov 22, 2013 | Bruce Deitrick Price 

Newspapers are losing circulation and advertising revenue. Many old-time publications are going out of business.
There’s no question that selling newspapers has gotten more difficult because of the Internet. Fifty years ago people settled down for an hour every day with their newspapers. That pattern is disappearing.
Equally, there is no question that newspapers have made their situation worse. They insist on being politically correct, liberal, progressive, or whatever you want to say. What they don’t insist on doing is telling the facts and letting readers think for themselves. Perish that thought
The problem across America is that the so-called mainstream media is not mainstream at all. It’s liberal media, and they produce a predictable, flat, boring product consisting of roughly 85% politically correct views mixed with a scattering of 15% non-politically correct views. And that’s on an adventurous day.
There used to be people called reporters who would knock down doors to get a story. We don’t have those people anymore. Now we have political operatives called journalists. They are trained to package and manipulate the news, not to report the news.
On a day (Oct. 9, 2013) when Obama’s approval rating dropped to 37% (which is the real story), liberal media were screaming that the public’s approval of Congress had dropped to 20%. But that second statistic is almost meaningless. A big block of people are mad at Congress for opposing Obama. But probably a similar number are mad at Congress for NOT opposing Obama. So why would any self-respecting journalist emphasize the 20% number and ignore the 37% number? Because they are journalists.
The Far-left (a.k.a. “Commies”) always try to seize control of education and media. They do a great job of seizing control. So now a degree in journalism means a degree in progressive ideology...
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...

Obama has shown how a future GOP president can gut Obamacare

Washington Examiner ^ | December 5, 2013 | PHILIP KLEIN 

Having watched President Obama and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius over the past several months unilaterally alter or outright ignore major portions of the law, I now believe that a future Republican president would have greater latitude to gut Obamacare than I once thought possible.
Obama has turned his signature legislative accomplishment into a constantly evolving wikilaw, with editing privileges restricted to himself and a few administration officials.
As businesses barked about the requirement that they provide qualifying health insurance or pay a fine, Obama decided not enforce the law’s employer mandate in 2014, even though the law explicitly states that’s when it’s supposed to kick in.
As technological problems mounted, HHS delayed the implementation of some income verification requirements for those applying for federal health insurance subsidies, without delaying the subsidies.
When Big Labor griped about a “reinsurance fee” that would be imposed on some union health care plans, HHS simply redefined the universe of health plans subject to the fee so that it excluded unions — forcing others to provide the lost revenue.
In the face of a public backlash over millions of Americans having their health insurance policies cancelled despite the president’s repeated assurances that it wouldn’t happen, Obama announced that he simply wouldn’t enforce the requirements on insurance policies that are clearly spelled out in the law.
In pursuing all of these desperate measures, Obama seems to have lost sight of the fact that Republican presidents have lawyers, too.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...

The Effects Of Environmentalist and Climate Alarmist Crying Wolf Begin To Appear

Watts Up With That ^ | December 7, 2013 | By Dr. Tim Ball 

The cover story of the November 25, 2013 Canadian weekly magazine Macleans pictures self-appointed Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki.
The caption reads, “Environmentalism Has Failed--David Suzuki loses faith in the cause of his lifetime.”
Suzuki doesn’t realize he‘s the cause of the failure as a major player in the group who exploited environmentalism and climate for a political agenda. Initially most listened and tried to accommodate, but gradually the lies, deceptions and propaganda were exposed. The age of eco-bullying is ending. Typically Suzuki blamed others for the damage to the environment and climate but now he blames them for not listening to him. He forgets that when you point a finger at someone three are pointing back at you.
Environmentalism was what academics call a paradigm shift, which Thomas Kuhn defines as “a fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions.” It was a necessary new paradigm. Everybody accepts the general notion it is foolish to soil your own nest and most were prepared to participate. Most were not sure what it entailed or how far it should go. Extremists grab all new paradigms for their agenda but then define the limits for the majority by pushing beyond the limits of the idea. Environmentalism and the subset climate are at that stage pushed there by extremists like Suzuki. Instead of admitting the science is wrong they double down and make increasingly extreme statements, just like the IPCC. It underscores the political rather than the scientific agenda. For example, Suzuki, apparently frustrated that politicians were not listening to his demands for action on climate change said they should be jailed. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at wattsupwiththat.com ...

Baggage

Skeet Shooting