[The Atlantic] Some people can walk into a room and instantly put everyone at ease. Others seem to make teeth clench and eyes roll no matter what they do. A small body of psychology research supports the idea that the way a person tends to make others feel is a consistent and measurable part of his personality. Researchers call it "affective presence." So it wasn't actually 'me', it was my dip bottle ?
This concept was first described nearly 10 years ago in a study by Noah Eisenkraft and Hillary Anger Elfenbein. They put business-school students into groups, had them enroll in all the same classes for a semester, and do every group project together. Then the members of each group rated how much every other member made them feel eight different emotions: stressed, bored, angry, sad, calm, relaxed, happy, and enthusiastic. The researchers found that a significant portion of group members’ emotions could be accounted for by the affective presence of their peers.
It seems that "our own way of being has an emotional signature," says Elfenbein, a business professor at Washington University in St. Louis.
It’s been known for some time that emotions are contagious: If one person feels angry, she may well infect her neighbor with that anger. But affective presence is an effect one has regardless of one’s own feelings‐those with positive affective presence make other people feel good, even if they personally are anxious or sad, and the opposite is true for those with negative affective presence.
[RealClear Politics] Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) warned of China's growing influence in the Middle East and Africa and that the U.S. is "falling behind" while the Asian nation is "overtaking us in every way." Ryan also said the U.S. isn't "even acting like we are in a competition with them."
"China is coming at us," Ryan said Wednesday on Hewitt's nationally-syndicated radio program. "They are in Africa. They are locking down long-term deals in Africa for raw materials. They’re building islands in the South China Sea. They’ve got very detailed, long-term programs like their One Belt, One Road, where they’re connecting Asia to the Middle East."
[TheFragrantHarbour] The projections are becoming a reality for the Chinese government -- 2018 was indeed the turning point for the country's population to drop significantly since 2000. Some economists are already calling it a "demographic crisis" that threatens China's currently struggling economic development.
The final figure for the number of births in 2018 will fall below 15 million, well below the government's estimate of 20 million.
While China's National Bureau of Statistics has yet to release the countrywide number, provinces have already recorded lower births.
A paper co-authored by Yi Fuxian, a researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and a long-standing critic of China's family planning policy, and Su Jian, an economist at Peking University, say this will have long-lasting effects on the country.
"The year 2018 will be remembered as a historical turning point for Chinese population," Yi and Su wrote in the paper. "The Chinese population has started to fall, the ageing problems has accelerated, and economic vitality has weakened.
"A great nation, which once upon a time accounted for nearly a third of the world's total population, is gradually degenerating into a small group of the old and the weak thanks to wrong demographic policies."
Hua Changchun, an economist with Guotai Junan Securities, wrote a research note saying the number of births across China could be as low as 14 million if there is a 20 percent drop in births nationwide.
He said the drop in births would not only impact China's social and economic development, but also lead to a drop in demand for property.
This last point led Ren Zeping who is the chief economist for property developer Evergrande Group, to be very concerned about the birthrate dropping and urged China to lift all birth controls "and encourage people to have babies".
China had hoped lifting the one-child policy in 2016 would lead to more births, but there was only an initial spurt, as many, especially in big cities cannot afford to raise another child, nor do they care to heed the call of the government to do their patriotic duty to procreate for the country.
#1
I have said for a while that it was going to be hard for China to field its traditionally large land army in light of its one child per family policy - and even harder to convince parents to willingly send their only child off to some questionable war. Hence - nukes or cyberwarfare.
#2
...and urged China to lift all birth controls "and encourage people to have babies".
We have that program here, its called welfare. Reproduce and get a full government subsidy, nothing expected in return (to include acting in a civilized manner).
#3
Meanwhile Major African expansion. Marry into local populations so as to have blood in the game. No limit of children here and they are taking full advantage of it. I would venture to say China has been purchasing everything they can get their hands on. I have heard 80% range of anything of value there. I say China because those who have arrived are totally loyal to China. Children however will be the real test in loyalty.
#4
Agrarian societies need children to work in the fields. But if you're a big city factory worker struggling to make ends meet in some tiny apartment the last thing you need is another baby to drain your time, energy and money.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
01/09/2019 11:53 Comments ||
Top||
#5
@Procopius2k
All that achieves is fertility redistribution, not more babies, just less babies by the productive more by the feckless.
#7
So the only thing concerning Ren Zeping is a drop in the demand for property?
Posted by: Crash Dark Lord of the Veal Cutlets1879 ||
01/09/2019 17:55 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Confucius say, "China once teeming
With steaming vaginas, eyes gleaming,
But Party start scheming;
When wake up from dreaming,
Hear ten million Chinamen screaming."
#9
There sang a young man -- call him Sean --
One morn, by the Bann, in the dawn:
"Oh, thank you, Red star!
Now I'll march off to war
Or grow ancient romancing Miss Han!"
[Daily Beast] One big question heading into Tuesday night’s big Oval Office address from President Trump was how much fact-checking would be done by the various networks. And on Fox, anchor Shepard Smith did not let the president get away with his lies.
Immediately following Trump’s approximately 10-minute speech, Smith broke down a "number of claims" that were deliberately misleading. While Trump issued scary warnings about murders by immigrants, Smith said, "Statistics show that there is less violent crime by the undocumented immigrant population than by the general population."
In response to Trump claiming his wall would stop drug trafficking across the border, Smith said, "Government statistics show much of the heroin actually comes not over the unguarded border but through ports of call."
The anchor also informed viewers that the number of illegal border crossings has been going "steadily down over the past 10 years" despite Trump’s assertion that they are on the rise and the government reports that "there is more outward traffic than inward traffic."
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/09/2019 16:09 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Sorry FOX, Didn't listen/Don't Care. Shephard "Shemp" Smith lost all credibility to me when he started grandstanding on the Gulf beaches during the BP oil spill. Like Geraldo as soon as the chyron identifies the segment his spiel is as predictable as clockwork. Big Business Bad!™ has transitioned seamlessly to Orange Man Bad!™.
[Canadian Free Press] Do you think that Democrats who are against building a security border wall on the border with Mexico, could or should be called or classified as "ignominious ingrates"? The definition of those terms by Merriam-Webster is as follows. "Ignominious" ‐ marked or characterized by disgrace or shame, despicable, and, "Ingrate" - an ungrateful person. Do those definitions describe the actions of the anti-wall Democrats and their flunkies in the main stream media?
Well, is that a fair description of the attitudes of Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and the majority of Democrats?
Just a few short years ago, those same Democrat leaders (including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) were in favor of building a wall, but now that President Trump is in office, the wall is now considered "immoral" and a complete waste of money. What has changed since then? You probably guessed it, Donald Trump is now president and they (the Democrats) don’t want to give him a victory on one of his signature proposals, even if it is good for the security of the country.
All of our professionals in the field of immigration enforcement (the Border Patrol, I.C.E., the Office of Homeland Security) are all in favor of erecting a wall to deter illegal immigration, the prevention and distribution of illegal drugs, and the illegal trafficking of young boys and girls for prostitution purposes. They point out that where a wall is in place, the aforementioned illegal activities are cut down precipitously. They claim that their job would be made much easier if a wall or barrier was in place. Shouldn’t we listen to the people on the front lines of trying to enhance our national security, instead of the political hacks who put party interests ahead of our national security?
In addition, most of those very same people who are against the border wall are also in favor of "sanctuary states and cities". That’s where the term "ignominious ingrates" applies and comes into play. Any sane person realizes that putting up a barrier (e.g.: a wall) will prevent or reduce illegal border activities by over 90% (those figures supplied by the Border Patrol).
So, by totally rejecting the funding of a border wall, it shows that the nay-sayers deserve to be called "ignominious ingrates".
How many more innocent citizens and law enforcement personnel must be injured or killed by illegal aliens before common sense kicks in?
During the previous presidential campaign, then Democrat candidate, Hillary Clinton, called her opponents "a basket of deplorables", but it should’ve been directed at her own supporters who were the advocates of that policy of no border wall but sanctuary cities and states.
Our national security is at stake and the sooner those "ignominious ingrates" put sane policy proposals ahead of their political party, the safer and better off our country will be. A country divided against itself is a recipe for disaster now and in the future.
#1
They were never in favor of building a wall. If they had been, it would have been done. They claim the wall will be ineffective but I think they are deathly afraid that it will be effective. Without a steady stream of new voters from the Third World they will lose power and they know it. That's why they are fighting the wall for all they're worth. For them it's a life and death power struggle. This matter will not be easily resolved.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
01/09/2019 12:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Trump should ALSO ask for aid money for Mexico's wall further south.
[RealClear Politics] TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Happy New Year. Newly-elected Utah senator Mitt Romney kicked off 2019 with an op-ed in the Washington Post savaging Donald Trump’s character and leadership. Romney’s attack and Trump’s response this morning on Twitter are the latest salvos in a longstanding personal feud between the two men. It’s even possible that Romney is planning to challenge Trump for the Republican nomination in 2020. We’ll see. But for now, Romney’s piece is fascinating on its own terms. It’s a window into how the people in charge, in both parties, see our country.
Romney’s main complaint is that Donald Trump is a mercurial and divisive leader. That’s true of course. Beneath the personal slights, though, Romney has a policy critique. He seems genuinely angry that Trump might pull American troops out of the Syrian civil war. Romney doesn’t explain how staying in Syria would benefit America. He doesn’t appear to consider that a relevant question. More policing in the Middle East is always better. We know that. Virtually everyone in Washington agrees. Lengthy
Mitt Romney may have pleased Democrats and the media with his recent op-ed criticizing President Trump, but Republican voters by a better than two-to-one margin line up with the president.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 63% of Likely Republican Voters think the Republican Party should be more like Trump.Link
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/09/2019 16:16 Comments ||
Top||
Satire, or is it ?
[Babylon Bee] U.S.‐An insider report from those close to notorious antisemite and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan indicated Monday that Farrakhan will not rule out a 2020 run for president on the Democratic ticket.
Farrakhan has become allied with many key figures on the left, and is reportedly so encouraged by the warm reception he's received by the Democratic party that he's "thinking hard" about a presidential bid.
"I thought my blatant racism and horrifying comments about Jews would be enough for Democrats to distance themselves from me, but I guess not," Farrakhan said. "It seems they're sticking with me, so I may just give the old White House run a shot."
After the rumored presidential run was made public, the nation waited for Democrats to denounce Farrakhan, but he was only denounced by a large band of chirping crickets.
[American Thinker] There is nothing like a government shutdown to illustrate clearly the priorities of the two opposing sides to the standoff. On one side is President Trump, keeping a campaign promise to build a wall, to keep crime, sex-trafficking, drugs, and terrorism, not to mention the unfunded burden of illegal aliens, out of America.
On the other side are the Democrats, hell-bent on keeping 25 percent of the government closed for business rather than funding border security, a concept they wholeheartedly supported a decade ago.
Who's winning and who's losing the battle? If you watch cable news, it's clear that the president is on the ropes, having backed himself into a corner. Reality sings a different tune. How did we get here?
Donald Trump, announcing his candidacy for president in June 2015, rode down the escalator at Trump Tower and said, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best." He went on, "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
These were among his first pronouncements that day and have been a constant theme of his rallies and tweets since then ‐ including this tweet from a few days ago
[Breitbart] President Donald Trump delivered an address to the American people from the Oval Office on Tuesday, speaking about the crisis on the Southern border.
"This is a choice between right and wrong, justice and injustice," Trump said in his eight-minute address, describing it as "a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul."
The president detailed the ongoing migration and illegal immigration crisis but did not declare an official State of Emergency, which would allow him to shift funding to fund border security without Congress.
"This is the cycle of human suffering I am determined to end," he said.
He noted that migrant women and children were "victims" of the broken immigration system, specifically citing the more than 20,000 children brought illegally into the United States.
"These children are used as human pawns by vicious coyotes and ruthless gangs," he said.
The president described the ongoing problems with drugs and crime coming across the border, endangering the lives of Americans.
He again stated his request for a $5.7 billion wall, but said that it would be a "steel barrier instead of a concrete wall."
"This is just common sense," he said.
He defended the concept of a border wall, disputing that it was "immoral" as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted.
"Why do wealthy politicians build walls, fences, and gates outside their home?" he asked. "They don’t build walls because they hate the people on the outside but because they love the people on the inside."
He argued that the steel barrier would pay for itself, and paid for indirectly by the new trade deal with Mexico.
Trump blamed Democrats for the government shutdown, noting that leaders used to support the idea of more border security.
#1
I almost didn't recognize Schumer without seeing the top of his head
Posted by: Jan ||
01/09/2019 11:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I watched as much as I could of the Chuck and Nancy show in response to Trump's speech but I had to turn if off before they were finished because I couldn't take any more of the bullshit.
When Nancy said we all agree on the need for border security, I almost gagged. If she and her fellow Democrats agreed on the need for border security, the border would be secure, there would be no caravans, no MS-13, no meth, no cocaine, no heroin and no fentanyl. When Baraq was president, she was Speaker of the House and Harry Reid was Senate Majority Leader they could have easily secured that border. But they didn't. So that was a lie that Nancy told and she lost me right there.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
01/09/2019 12:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Democrats should come to Hollywood so we can change their image.
Posted by: M. Night Shyamalan ||
01/09/2019 13:07 Comments ||
Top||
[BBC] Two gadgets that analyse the gases in people's breath in an effort to reveal how they should improve their diet are being showcased at the CES tech show in Las Vegas.
Lumen and FoodMarble are both pocket-sized devices that users blow into.
They each pair with a smartphone app that tells people how well they are digesting food or burning calories.
But one expert said such technology has yet to be properly validated by scientists.
Lumen has raised almost $2m (£1.57m) on the crowdfunding site Indiegogo. It has designed an inhaler-shaped product that measures carbon dioxide levels in the user's breath.
The firm says this provides a way of monitoring a person's metabolism - the chemical processes that, among other things, convert food into energy.
"You don't need to guess how much sugar was in that kung pao chicken or how many calories you did on that run," explained founder Dror Cedar.
Instead, he told the BBC, the app simply explains whether the user is burning carbs or fat. It then suggests recipes that help burn fat and, over time, Lumen learns what diet is most appropriate for each user.
#4
There is actually good science behind this. Works to diagnose some diseases too. Problem is that the FDA rules make it impossible to do anything medical on a smartphone.
Satire warning.
[Babylon Bee] SYRIA‐Local US servicemember Joshua Reynolds reported Thursday he was "extremely disappointed" that Trump has announced a withdrawal from Syria, as he was looking forward to hanging out in the country for "another 20 or 30 years."
The infantryman expressed his sadness over the early US withdrawal, stating that it felt like he'd only just arrived. "You just start to get to know a place, and then before you know it it's time to move out."
"If they'd just let us stick around for another decade or two, we can solve all of the Middle East's problems," he lamented as his squad received orders to begin packing. "It's just really sad that I have to say goodbye so soon."
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.
[The Atlantic] Some people can walk into a room and instantly put everyone at ease. Others seem to make teeth clench and eyes roll no matter what they do. A small body of psychology research supports the idea that the way a person tends to make others feel is a consistent and measurable part of his personality. Researchers call it "affective presence."
The projections are becoming a reality for the Chinese government -- 2018 was indeed the turning point for the country's population to drop significantly since 2000. Some economists are already calling it a "demographic crisis" that threatens China's currently struggling economic development.
[Canadian Free Press] Do you think that Democrats who are against building a security border wall on the border with Mexico, could or should be called or classified as "ignominious ingrates"? The definition of those terms by Merriam-Webster is as follows. "Ignominious" ‐ marked or characterized by disgrace or shame, despicable, and, "Ingrate" - an ungrateful person. Do those definitions describe the actions of the anti-wall Democrats and their flunkies in the main stream media?
[RealClear Politics] TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Happy New Year. Newly-elected Utah senator Mitt Romney kicked off 2019 with an op-ed in the Washington Post savaging Donald Trump’s character and leadership. Romney’s attack and Trump’s response this morning on Twitter are the latest salvos in a longstanding personal feud between the two men. It’s even possible that Romney is planning to challenge Trump for the Republican nomination in 2020. We’ll see. But for now, Romney’s piece is fascinating on its own terms. It’s a window into how the people in charge, in both parties, see our country. 
[BBC] Two gadgets that analyse the gases in people's breath in an effort to reveal how they should improve their diet are being showcased at the CES tech show in Las Vegas.
