The war on drugs is a punitive tragedy on society.

 Good article on the tragedy and corruption of the war on drugs. We have to remember that the war on drugs was started for 2 reasons: a) to control minority populations specifically the blacks/asians in the US, and b) to enable the empire-building ambitions of law enforcement. It had nothing, zero, nada, zilch to do with public safety. And as this article is outlining, it has had a punitive effect on society by incentivising the manufacture of stronger, more deadly drugs.

I mean, it's almost downright laughable that they demonise cannabis by spewing the tired old mantra of "well, cannabis is much stronger than back in the 60s" completely ignoring the emergence of these deadly and awful chemicals like ice and fentanyl, which have emerged as a direct result of this corrupt war on drugs. And these drugs will only get deadlier.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2022/aug/31/the-rising-appetite-for-powerful-drugs-like-fentanyl-is-a-direct-result-of-australias-failing-prohibition-policies

Advise for this journalist of women's rights... Stop shaming women.

If this isn't the most confusing article I've ever had the misfortune to read then I don't know. I don't get it. She complains about the history of strong women getting unjustly shamed and then proceeds to shame Kidman for getting strong.

And she uses ageism to do that shaming, somehow thinking that the fact that a 55yo woman has rightly decided that a) getting strong is the most important physical attribute that a older person can possess for quality of life, and b) getting strong to compete in her very competitive industry: movie-making, just the same as the women like Biles, Williams did in their industry for which the author selectively calls those women 'victims', is somehow demeaning. 

Demeaning to who? Well, after unfortunately having to read it twice, it seems her point is that it is demeaning to the hard-working women that don't have time to workout 5 times a week, calling it showing-off wealth/class. To hell with the fact that Kidman could use her public visibility to serve as a role-model that older women can be strong.

It's the same backlash of criticism from women that Billie Eilish got for making the grievous mistake of wearing baggy clothes when performing and thus angering the body-positive advocates. Cannibalism at it's worst.

And laughingly, she writes "an obsession with what has been lost", as though Kidman should be happy, at her age, sitting in a chair knitting. And her evidence to support this is to reference another actress Judi Dench, aged 87, who isn't 'obsessive' about strength and looks great for her age. Ok. So what?

And this is an author who has made a career writing about the rights of women. It is clear she has no interest in the rights of women to be who they are, if they mistakenly do not conform/abide to her own image. I thought this attitude is what these journalists supporting women's rights are fighting against. How hypocritical. I imagine the author seething over photos of 50+ actresses who have maintained their beauty.

I have some advise for this author of women's rights. Stop shaming women.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/28/fab-abs-nicole-kidman-frantic-effort-to-look-half-your-age-demeaning

An invitation from the universe.

Don't know if this is fake, but it doesn't matter because this is the evidence of how small little actions like this can radically change your life or create a lifepath that can branch-out in so many different ways. This is how to do it in life. This is an action where there is no risk, only possible positives. If no one had responded then she would have just experienced a beautiful day in nature. Hardly a risk.

Each of us should be always looking out for opportunities like this to create little new paths. Because, and this is key, you never know. And that uncertainty is the beauty of life. Consider doing these small actions as putting little feelers out there which test as to how the universe will respond. And if the universe responds with it's little invitation to explore this newly created path more fully, you should take it. 

Corporations sell discontentment

 

Well, isn't this ad so depressingly awful. This is what corporations are peddling. They aren't selling lipstick. They are selling discontentment. And it's not even subliminal any more, it's in your face. You are leading a boring life without this lipstick, or car, or whatever.

And what makes me almost laugh is that they are selling something you already have. We already have happiness; it just needs to be recognised and nurtured. But they are telling us that you alone is not enough; that you must place your faith of finding happiness externally in the type of lipstick you use.

They are sowing discontentment and that cannot be excused. When, in reality, the only thing missing is the realisation that we have everything we need already. You are already enough.

People have the wrong idea about motivation

I think people have the wrong attitude and perception about motivation. Motivation shouldn't be thought of as an aid to act because that's not where it applies and can even derail your efforts. Motivation applies when you are thinking and strategising about a particular issue, and it's required actions. The motivation is needed when you really want to view an issue from all angles, fully research it, remove any emotion from your thoughts, and think of solutions with a clear and expanded view. Because only then, can the 'right' solution result.

And once you have the 'right' path, the actions don't require motivation. Your actions should just become a habit because your path is clear and these are the actions necessary for that path. People have it backwards. You can't get fired-up in order to perform the actions, you can only perform the actions and get fired-up.

An analogy of this is deciding to hit the gym. Motivation must be used to sit down with yourself, logically think, come to the realisation that you need to work on yourself physically, and research/plan it. If you require motivation each day to get in the car and head to the gym then this life-direction will probably not work in the long run. What happens if you don't have the motivation that day? No, you have to develop this into a habit where you just unthinkingly pack your gear, get in the car, walk into the gym, and start because these are simply your necessary actions.

The respect we show Christians who disrespect

 

So 7 Manly players have stood themselves down and will not play this weekend's critical game because Manly has decided to replace their usual white stripes on the jerseys with the rainbow pride colours to support inclusion.

It's just beyond my mental capabilities how Christians can continue their history of bigotry, and even worse that it is somehow accepted within society by showing respect to their thoughts in their heads which disrespect and cause real harm for 5% of the population. Society must feel that the disrespect and harm to the gay/trans community is less of an evil than the disrespect of the bigoted Christians. It has to be this way. There can be no other conclusion that my little brain can come up with.

And imagine if I am a Manly player and I come to the coach and say I can't play because the rainbow pride colours are the war colours of my god Urassty on the planet Delobus and I can't anger him. What do you think would happen?

No, society is inching slowly forward towards an inclusive future and constantly bumping into the bigotry of people using 2,000yo words in a book to attempt to retain the power and privilege the white Christian had solely because of, well, being white christians.

But let me repeat my message which must be sickeningly correct for society to operate like this. Society must feel that the disrespect and harm to the gay/trans community is less of an evil than the disrespect of the bigoted Christians.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jul/26/nrls-pride-jersey-debacle-compounded-by-sports-power-imbalance

Abortion bans have nothing to do with the unborn child.

 Well, the US has now banned abortions at the federal level, returning their society to dirty back-alleys, mutilated and dead women, and secret visits to their 'Aunt' in another more progressive State.

This is a very worrying sign, not only because of the impact on women, but because it is the judicial system taking rights away. And yet 61% of Americans want abortion legal (Joe Biden became President with less support), so the motives of this decision are certainly not based on the will of the people.

We also have to remember that Row vs Wade was not about abortion per se. It was about the right of privacy; that a citizen has the right for privacy in matters which pertain solely to their own lives, and therefore the State could not intrude in those decisions. So it is indeed worrying that the US Supreme Court somehow justified this decision which erodes this basic human right which is the foundation of being free.

Therefore their motives must be darker. And they are. 

1) For American Christians, abortion was never an issue before the 1950s. It was deemed a 'Catholic problem' by even the most evangelical Christian churches. However, that all changed when the civil rights movement gained power in the 50s, and it culminated when the Supreme Court ruled against segregation of schools in Brown vs Board of Education. This decision incensed the whites of the Southern States of course and they needed a platform to rally the troops to fight against these progressive measures. Now they couldn't fight against integration, so they needed a new issue to fight which, without actually saying it, promoted the white supremacy ideals. And that was abortion.

And abortion was chosen because they knew it was an issue that affected the poor and people of colour disproportionally more than whites. Whites knew that regardless of an abortion ban, whites could get their precious Tiffany a safe abortion when a 'mistake' was made. So the roots of the abortion debate is racism.

2) And today, the US Supreme Court knows this and doesn't care. They know that the poor and people of colour are the victims of this decision. They know that it does not impact the rich at all. In fact, it favours the rich immensely. Because this decision puts more financial pressure on the people who can least afford it. And these people, who are forced to bear another child, now have even less freedom and therefore less ability to live free independent lives, and most importantly, mount any opposition to the rich. In other words, the abortion bans allow the rich to engage in slavery without the beatings and chains.

Don't think it has anything to do with the unborn child.