What Is Naturalistic Observation?
Posted 01 June 2010 - 07:25 PM
It's a long story; your husband might know the story.
People from my home town who went to KWSS in the 70's and 80's or were close to those who went to school then should know.
It was a guy who was trying to tell a then Indian Teacher of the school , Mrs. Lalita that he saw her at a town call Makeni, enquiring whether she saw him. Instead, he turned the tenses up-side-down, placing the past tense where the present tense should be, vise-vasa.
Instead of I saw you in Makeni yesterday did you see me? He said, I see you at Makeni yesterday did you saw me? So it became a joke for the pupils of the school and started saying it to one another.
Are you now in the States or you did you saw me at a Stadium in Australia? Just kidding but it is a true question. Did you see me?
I have to go. Talk to you soon.
Posted 03 June 2010 - 11:39 AM
"To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or, the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts."
Sir Isaac Newton
"I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."
Sir Isaac Newton
"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants"
Sir Isaac Newton
â€œYou know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named 'Bush', 'Dick', and 'Colon.' Need I say more?"
â€œPeople love others not for who they are but for how they make them feelâ€
â€œOur greatest happiness does not depend on the condition of life in which chance has placed us, but is always the result of a good conscience, good health, occupation, and freedom in all just pursuits.â€
â€œI've found out why people laugh. They laugh because it hurts... because it's the only thing that'll make it stop hurting.â€
â€œMany of us crucify ourselves between two thieves - regret for the past and fear of the future.â€
â€œLove is the condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.â€
â€œThose who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.â€
Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.
â€œIf you think education is expensive, try ignoranceâ€
â€œYou know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named 'Bush', 'Dick', and 'Colon.' Need I say more?"
Chris Rock quotes\
"Freedom is never dear at any price. It is the breath of life. What would a man not pay for living?"
Love is the condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.â€
â€œA generation which ignores history has no past and no future.â€
"Clarity of mind means clarity of passion, too; this is why a great and clear mind loves ardently and sees distinctly what it loves."
Blaise Pascal quote
Posted 05 June 2010 - 10:48 AM
There is so much to learn here if you want to know:
On the issue of Bambay and the Media, what I am here to talk about is that the facts are on the table. Is it hard therefore to join the pieces when there are facts that every human being has seen in the world; these same facts have been in existence before I was born and there have been facts about me ever since I was born? In essence, my history started since I was born and is what I did or is done to me or for me.
You may wonder why I am continuing this talk. The simple answer is that my life depends on it, my future, my freedom and human dignity, according to the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Chatter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Religious beliefs, depend on it.
How is it normal to try to prove to somebody that he or she is insane when you believe he is, in fact, insane? Food for thought. Think about and over it.
You may have noticed that over the years, since this Bambay and the media issue started in 1995, as far as I know, people have tried to make me believe in their judgments about the issue, even when I have told them, time and again, that my dream is not about a celebrity, a government functionary or a tycoon seeing or knowing me; rather, my goal is about holding them to their promises, firstly, the promise that the American Dream is achievable, whereby, I have applied myself in the best way possible, regardless of all odds against me, which is undeniable.
Further, that those who made the promises are endowed with the knowledge about human psychology since creation or evolution. They therefore, know certain key facts about what they expected would be the response from some people if the latter know that somebody has been eye-marked for greatness in their midst.
That these who made the promises are people who had set goals in life therefore, they would expect that I would be goal-oriented rather than a cheap popularity-seeking fool.
More so, that I am a Black man in America, which for centuries, various people in the national and international stage have agreed about its harshness and the difficulties involved in the effort to grow under normal circumstances and would expect worse under abnormal circumstances, as that involving allowing people to analyze through the use of conscience and justice. There are evidences to prove this unevenness and difficulty in the social growth of Black men in America but I have not thought of it as an impediment but rather, a continuation of that sad chapter in human civilization and how it must change. I presume these are the goals of all who fought for all the inhumane treatments of people around the world, particularly, the United States of America, where Civil Rights was fought since Slavery days.
Following are evidential links about it: http://www.msnbc.msn...=1&st=1&sm=user
However, though my God-given privacy is acutely enjoyed knowing that everything I try to do is sometimes monitored by people who are not in the list of tycoons, socio-economic and political stage, with an intent to stop that goal, who are making sad and irrational moves to prove to me their superiority, which again has not served as an impediment to my belief-system knowing that there are at any given time, two sides to a story, in which case, my focus has been and will always be, holding those who made and know of these promises to their words and blame them squarely for making the promise public, but willing to accept if the goals are intended for social change and personal enjoyment of justice as a judicial ideal that has been the norm among the civilized for millenniums.
Therefore, reasoning, I would confess, has been my greatest weapon in debunking these unreasoned projectiles. But in all these efforts, I have come to realize that those who perpetrate such behaviors are not taking certain factors into consideration such as:
(1) that I did not start the whole issue, it was initiated by the media responding to egregious acts of the unsophisticated and uninformed.
(2) the media must have a reason for doing it
(a) that such reasons must not have been as an investigation as no one from the federal nor state governmental agencies especially, the Law enforcement body has confronted me to ask questions about it, rather they left it to all human beings to see, hear, feel and judge from that.
( that since every human being is involved and cannot dodge seeing what I feel, hear, smell, taste, that there are greater probabilities that they want all to learn from a sociological and Psychological perspective, which is the ways people gain knowledge, resulting in an penultimate social change.
However, amidst all these horrors, I try to help by examining what has been the normal beliefs in civilized human relations as is expected that the ones at the forefront of the educational, economic and political social ladder are convinced should be the norm of their societies and the world at large.
In which case, I have found helpful tips to help people think and conform to civilization, ways one is sure to have respect from the aforementioned, their peers and I; with the understanding that people do not do or say what they do and say without a goal in mind. Whatever that goal is, read the following to help you make educative guesses to gain the respect you want and deserve:
Two Basic Types of Aggression
There are two basic types of aggression: overt-aggression and covert-aggression. When you're determined to have something and you're open, direct and obvious in your manner of fighting, your behavior is best labeled overtly aggressive. When you're out to "win," dominate or control, but are subtle, underhanded or deceptive enough to hide your true intentions, your behavior is most appropriately labeled covertly aggressive. Now, avoiding any overt display of aggression while simultaneously intimidating others into giving you what you want is a powerfully manipulative maneuver. That's why covert-aggression is most often the vehicle for interpersonal manipulation.
Acts of Covert-Aggression vs. Covert-Aggressive Personalities
Most of us have engaged in some sort of covertly aggressive behavior from time to time. Periodically trying to manipulate a person or a situation doesn't make someone a covert-aggressive personality. Personality can be defined by the way a person habitually perceives, relates to and interacts with others and the world at large.
The tactics of deceit, manipulation and control are a steady diet for covert-aggressive personality. It's the way they prefer to deal with others and to get the things they want in life.
The Process of Victimization
For a long time, I wondered why manipulation victims have a hard time seeing what really goes on in manipulative interactions. At first, I was tempted to fault them. But I've learned that they get hoodwinked for some very good reasons:
1. A manipulator's aggression is not obvious. Our gut may tell us that they're fighting for something, struggling to overcome us, gain power, or have their way, and we find ourselves unconsciously on the defensive. But because we can't point to clear, objective evidence they're aggressing against us, we can't readily validate our feelings.
2. The tactics manipulators use can make it seem like they're hurting, caring, defending, ..., almost anything but fighting. These tactics are hard to recognize as merely clever ploys. They always make just enough sense to make a person doubt their gut hunch that they're being taken advantage of or abused. Besides, the tactics not only make it hard for you to consciously and objectively tell that a manipulator is fighting, but they also simultaneously keep you or consciously on the defensive. These features make them highly effective psychological weapons to which anyone can be vulnerable. It's hard to think clearly when someone has you emotionally on the run.
3. All of us have weaknesses and insecurities that a clever manipulator might exploit. Sometimes, we're aware of these weaknesses and how someone might use them to take advantage of us. For example, I hear parents say things like: "Yeah, I know I have a big guilt button." â€“ But at the time their manipulative child is busily pushing that button, they can easily forget what's really going on. Besides, sometimes we're unaware of our biggest vulnerabilities. Manipulators often know us better than we know ourselves. They know what buttons to push, when and how hard. Our lack of self-knowledge sets us up to be exploited.
4. What our gut tells us a manipulator is like, challenges everything we've been taught to believe about human nature. We've been inundated with a psychology that has us seeing everybody, at least to some degree, as afraid, insecure or "hung-up." So, while our gut tells us we're dealing with a ruthless conniver, our head tells us they must be really frightened or wounded "underneath." What's more, most of us generally hate to think of ourselves as callous and insensitive people. We hesitate to make harsh or seemingly negative judgments about others. We want to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they don't really harbor the malevolent intentions we suspect. We're more apt to doubt and blame ourselves for daring to believe what our gut tells us about our manipulator's character.
Recognizing Aggressive Agendas
Accepting how fundamental it is for people to fight for the things they want and becoming more aware of the subtle, underhanded ways people can and do fight in their daily endeavors and relationships can be very consciousness expanding. Learning to recognize an aggressive move when somebody makes one and learning how to handle oneself in any of life's many battles, has turned out to be the most empowering experience for the manipulation victims with whom I've worked. It's how they eventually freed themselves from their manipulator's dominance and control and gained a much needed boost to their own sense of self esteem. Recognizing the inherent aggression in manipulative behavior and becoming more aware of the slick, surreptitious ways that manipulative people prefer to aggress against us is extremely important. Not recognizing and accurately labeling their subtly aggressive moves causes most people to misinterpret the behavior of manipulators and, therefore, fail to respond to them in an appropriate fashion. Recognizing when and how manipulators are fighting with covertly aggressive tactics is essential.
Defense Mechanisms and Offensive Tactics
Almost everyone is familiar with the term defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms are the "automatic" (i.e. unconscious) mental behaviors all of us employ to protect or defend ourselves from the "threat" of some emotional pain. More specifically, ego defense mechanisms are mental behaviors we use to "defend" our self-images from "invitations" to feel ashamed or guilty about something. There are many different kinds of ego defenses and the more traditional (psychodynamic) theories of personality have always tended to distinguish the various personality types, at least in part, by the types of ego defenses they prefer to use. One of the problems with psychodynamic approaches to understanding human behavior is that they tend to depict people as most always afraid of something and defending or protecting themselves in some way; even when they're in the act of aggressing. Covert-aggressive personalities (indeed all aggressive personalities) use a variety of mental behaviors and interpersonal maneuvers to help ensure they get what they want. Some of these behaviors have been traditionally thought of as defense mechanisms.
While, from a certain perspective we might say someone engaging in these behaviors is defending their ego from any sense of shame or guilt, it's important to realize that at the time the aggressor is exhibiting these behaviors, he is not primarily defending (i.e. attempting to prevent some internally painful event from occurring), but rather fighting to maintain position, gain power and to remove any obstacles (both internal and external) in the way of getting what he wants. Seeing the aggressor as on the defensive in any sense is a set-up for victimization. Recognizing that they're primarily on the offensive, mentally prepares a person for the decisive action they need to take in order to avoid being run over. Therefore, I think it's best to conceptualize many of the mental behaviors (no matter how "automatic" or "unconscious" they may appear) we often think of as defense mechanisms, as offensive power tactics, because aggressive personalities employ them primarily to manipulate, control and achieve dominance over others. Rather than trying to prevent something emotionally painful or dreadful from happening, anyone using these tactics is primarily trying to ensure that something they want to happen does indeed happen. Using the vignettes presented in the previous chapters for illustration, let's take a look at the principal tactics covert-aggressive personalities use to ensure they get their way and maintain a position of power over their victims:
Denial â€“ This is when the aggressor refuses to admit that they've done something harmful or hurtful when they clearly have. It's a way they lie (to themselves as well as to others) about their aggressive intentions. This "Who... Me?" tactic is a way of "playing innocent," and invites the victim to feel unjustified in confronting the aggressor about the inappropriateness of a behavior. It's also the way the aggressor gives him/herself permission to keep right on doing what they want to do. This denial is not the same kind of denial that a person who has just lost a loved one and can't quite bear to accept the pain and reality of the loss engages in. That type of denial really is mostly a "defense" against unbearable hurt and anxiety. Rather, this type of denial is not primarily a "defense" but a maneuver the aggressor uses to get others to back off, back down or maybe even feel guilty themselves for insinuating he's doing something wrong.
In the story of James the minister, James' denial of his ruthless ambition is massive. He denied he was hurting and neglecting his family. He especially denied he was aggressively pursuing any personal agenda. On the contrary, he cast himself as the humble servant to a honorable cause. He managed to convince several people (and maybe even himself) of the nobility and purity of his intentions. But underneath it all, James knew he was being dishonest: This fact is borne out in his reaction to the threat of not getting a seat on the Elders' Council if his marital problems worsened. When James learned he might not get what he was so aggressively pursuing after all, he had an interesting "conversion" experience. All of a sudden, he decided he could put aside the Lord's bidding for a weekend and he might really need to devote more time to his marriage and family. James' eyes weren't opened by the pastor's words. He always kept his awareness high about what might hinder or advance his cause. He knew if he didn't tend to his marriage he might lose what he really wanted. So, he chose (at least temporarily) to alter course.
In the story of Joe and Mary, Mary confronted Joe several times about what she felt was insensitivity and ruthlessness on his part in his treatment of Lisa. Joe denied his aggressiveness. He also successfully convinced Mary that what she felt in her gut was his aggressiveness was really conscientiousness, loyalty, and passionate fatherly concern. Joe wanted a daughter who got all A's. Mary stood in the way. Joe's denial was the tactic he used to remove Mary as an obstacle to what he wanted.
Selective Inattention â€“ This tactic is similar to and sometimes mistaken for denial It's when the aggressor "plays dumb," or acts oblivious. When engaging in this tactic, the aggressor actively ignores the warnings, pleas or wishes of others, and in general, refuses to pay attention to everything and anything that might distract them from pursuing their own agenda. Often, the aggressor knows full well what you want from him when he starts to exhibit this "I don't want to hear it!" behavior. By using this tactic, the aggressor actively resists submitting himself to the tasks of paying attention to or refraining from the behavior you want him to change. In the story of Jenny and Amanda, Jenny tried to tell Amanda she was losing privileges because she was behaving irresponsibly. But Amanda wouldn't listen. Her teachers tried to tell her what she needed to do to improve her grade: but she didn't listen to them either. Actively listening to and heeding the suggestions of someone else are, among other things, acts of submission. And, as you may remember from the story, Amanda is not a girl who submits easily. Determined to let nothing stand in her way and convinced she could eventually "win" most of her power struggles with authority figures through manipulation, Amanda closed her ears. She didn't see any need to listen. From her point of view, she would only have lost some power and control if she submitted herself to the guidance and direction offered by those whom she views as less powerful, clever and capable as herself.
Rationalization â€“ A rationalization is the excuse an aggressor tries to offer for engaging in an inappropriate or harmful behavior. It can be an effective tactic, especially when the explanation or justification the aggressor offers makes just enough sense that any reasonably conscientious person is likely to fall for it. It's a powerful tactic because it not only serves to remove any internal resistance the aggressor might have about doing what he wants to do (quieting any qualms of conscience he might have) but also to keep others off his back. If the aggressor can convince you he's justified in whatever he's doing, then he's freer to pursue his goals without interference.
In the story of little Lisa, Mary felt uneasy about the relentlessness with which Joe pursued his quest to make his daughter an obedient, all-A student once again. And, she was aware of Lisa's expressed desire to pursue counseling as a means of addressing and perhaps solving some of her problems. Although Mary felt uneasy about Joe's forcefulness and sensed the impact on her daughter, she allowed herself to become persuaded by his rationalizations that any concerned parent ought to know his daughter better than some relatively dispassionate outsider and that he was only doing his duty by doing as much as he possibly could to "help" his "little girl." When a manipulator really wants to make headway with their rationalizations they'll be sure their excuses are combined with other effective tactics. For example, when Joe was "selling" Mary on the justification for shoving his agenda down everyone's throat he was also sending out subtle invitations for her to feel ashamed (shaming her for not being as "concerned" a parent as he was) as well as making her feel guilty (guilt-tripping her) for not being as conscientious as he was pretending to be.
Diversion â€“ A moving target is hard to hit. When we try to pin a manipulator down or try to keep a discussion focused on a single issue or behavior we don't like, he's expert at knowing how to change the subject, dodge the issue or in some way throw us a curve. Manipulators use distraction and diversion techniques to keep the focus off their behavior, move us off-track, and keep themselves free to promote their self-serving hidden agendas.
Rather than respond directly to the issue being addressed, Amanda diverted attention to her teacher's and classmates' treatment of her. Jenny allowed Amanda to steer her off track. She never got a straight answer to the question.
Another example of a diversion tactic can be found in the story of Don and Al. Al changed the subject when Don asked him if he had any plans to replace him. He focused on whether he was unhappy or not with Don's sales performance â€“ as if that's what Don had asked him about in the first place. He never gave Don a straight answer to a straight question (manipulators are notorious for this). He told him what he thought would make Don feel less anxious and would steer him away from pursuing the matter any further. Al left feeling like he'd gotten an answer but all he really got was the "runaround."
Early in the current school year, I found it necessary to address my son's irresponsibility about doing his homework by making a rule that he bring his books home every night. One time I asked: "Did you bring your books home today?" His response was: "Guess what, Dad. Instead of tomorrow, we're not going to have our test â€“ until Friday." My question was simple and direct. His answer was deliberately evasive and diversionary. He knew that if he answered the question directly and honestly, he would have received a consequence for failing to bring his books home. By using diversion (and also offering a rationalization) he was already fighting with me to avoid that consequence. Whenever someone is not responding directly to an issue, you can safely assume that for some reason, they're trying to give you the slip.
Lying â€“ It's often hard to tell when a person is lying at the time he's doing it. Fortunately, there are times when the truth will out because circumstances don't bear out somebody's story. But there are also times when you don't know you've been deceived until it's too late. One way to minimize the chances that someone will put one over on you is to remember that because aggressive personalities of all types will generally stop at nothing to get what they want, you can expect them to lie and cheat. Another thing to remember is that manipulators â€“ covert-aggressive personalities that they are â€“ are prone to lie in subtle, covert ways. Courts are well aware of the many ways that people lie, as they require that court oaths charge that testifiers tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Manipulators often lie by withholding a significant amount of the truth from you or by distorting the truth. They are adept at being vague when you ask them direct questions. This is an especially slick way of lying' omission. Keep this in mind when dealing with a suspected wolf in sheep's clothing. Always seek and obtain specific, confirmable information.
Covert Intimidation â€“ Aggressors frequently threaten their victims to keep them anxious, apprehensive and in a one-down position. Covert-aggressives intimidate their victims by making veiled (subtle, indirect or implied) threats. Guilt-tripping and shaming are two of the covert-aggressive's favourite weapons. Both are special intimidation tactics.
Guilt-tripping â€“ One thing that aggressive personalities know well is that other types of persons have very different consciences than they do. Manipulators are often skilled at using what they know to be the greater conscientiousness of their victims as a means of keeping them in a self-doubting, anxious, and submissive position. The more conscientious the potential victim, the more effective guilt is as a weapon. Aggressive personalities of all types use guilt-tripping so frequently and effectively as a manipulative tactic, that I believe it illustrates how fundamentally different in character they are compared to other (especially neurotic) personalities. All a manipulator has to do is suggest to the conscientious person that they don't care enough, are too selfish, etc., and that person immediately starts to feel bad. On the contrary, a conscientious person might try until they're blue in the face to get a manipulator (or any other aggressive personality) to feel badly about a hurtful behavior, acknowledge responsibility, or admit wrongdoing, to absolutely no avail.
Shaming â€“ This is the technique of using subtle sarcasm and put-downs as a means of increasing fear and self-doubt in others. Covert-aggressives use this tactic to make others feel inadequate or unworthy, and therefore, defer to them. It's an effective way to foster a continued sense of personal inadequacy in the weaker party, thereby allowing an aggressor to maintain a position of dominance.
When Joe loudly proclaimed any "good" parent would do just as he was doing to help Lisa, he subtly implied Mary would be a "bad" parent if she didn't attempt to do the same. He "invited" her to feel ashamed of herself. The tactic was effective. Mary eventually felt ashamed for taking a position that made it appear she didn't care enough about her own daughter. Even more doubtful of her worth as a person and a parent, Mary deferred to Joe, thus enabling him to rein a position of dominance over her. Covert-aggressives are expert at using shaming tactics in the most subtle ways. Sometimes it can just be in the glances they give or the tone of voice they use. Using rhetorical comments, subtle sarcasm and other techniques, they can invite you to feel ashamed of yourself for even daring to challenge them. Joe tried to shame Mary when I considered accepting the educational assessment performed by Lisa's school. He said something like: "I'm not sure what kind of doctor you are or just what kind of credentials you have, but I'm sure you'd agree that a youngster's grades wouldn't slip as much as Lisa's for no reason. You couldn't be entirely certain she didn't have a learning disability unless you did some testing, could you?' With those words, he "invited" Mary to feel ashamed of herself for not at least considering doing just as he asked. If Mary didn't have a suspicion about what he was up to, she might have accepted this invitation without a second thought.
Playing the Victim Role â€“ This tactic involves portraying oneself as an innocent victim of circumstances or someone else's behavior in order to gain sympathy, evoke compassion and thereby get something from another. One thing that covert-aggressive personalities count on is the fact that less calloused and less hostile personalities usually can't stand to see anyone suffering. Therefore, the tactic is simple. Convince your victim you're suffering in some way, and they'll try to relieve your distress.
In the story of Amanda and Jenny, Amanda was good at playing the victim role too. She had her mother believing that she (Amanda) was the victim of extremely unfair treatment and the target of unwarranted hostility. I remember Jenny telling me: "Sometimes I think Amanda's wrong when she says her teacher hates her and I hate her. But what if that's what she really believes? Can I afford to be so firm with her if she believes in her heart that I hate her?" I remember telling Jenny: "Whether Amanda has come to believe her own distortions is almost irrelevant. She manipulates you because you believe that she believes it and allow that supposed belief to serve as an excuse for her undisciplined aggression."
Vilifying the Victim â€“ This tactic is frequently used in conjunction with the tactic of playing the victim role. The aggressor uses this tactic to make it appear he is only responding (i.e. defending himself against) aggression on the part of the victim. It enables the aggressor to better put the victim on the defensive.
Returning again to the story of Jenny and Amanda, when Amanda accuses her mother of "hating" her and "always saying mean things" to her, she not only invites Jenny to feel the "bully," but simultaneously succeeds in "bullying" Jenny into backing off. More than any other, the tactic of vilifying the victim is a powerful means of putting someone unconsciously on the defensive while simultaneously masking the aggressive intent and behavior of the person using the tactic.
Playing the Servant Role â€“ Covert-aggressives use this tactic to cloak their self-serving agendas in the guise of service to a more noble cause. It's a common tactic but difficult to recognize. By pretending to be working hard on someone else's behalf, covert-aggressives conceal their own ambition, desire for power, and quest for a position of dominance over others. In the story of James (the minister) and Sean, James appeared to many to be the tireless servant. He attended more activities than he needed to attend and did so eagerly. But if devoted service to those who needed him was his aim, how does one explain the degree to which James habitually neglected his family? As an aggressive personality, James submits himself to no one. The only master he serves is his own ambition. Not only was playing the servant role an effective tactic for James, but also it's the cornerstone upon which corrupt ministerial empires of all types are built. A good example comes to mind in the recent true story of a well-known tele-evangelist who locked himself up in a room in a purported display of "obedience" and "service" to God. He even portrayed himself' a willing sacrificial lamb who was prepared to be "taken by God" if he didn't do the Almighty's bidding and raise eight million dollars. He claimed he was a humble servant, merely heeding the Lord's will. He was really fighting to save his substantial material empire.
Another recent scandal involving a tele-evangelist resulted in his church's governance body censuring him for one year. But he told his congregation he couldn't stop his ministry because he had to be faithful to the Lord's will (God supposedly talked to him and told him not to quit). This minister was clearly being defiant of his church's established authority. Yet, he presented himself as a person being humbly submissive to the "highest" authority. One hallmark characteristic of covert-aggressive personalities is loudly professing subservience while fighting for dominance.
Seduction â€“ Covert-aggressive personalities are adept at charming, praising, flattering or overtly supporting others in order to get them to lower their defenses and surrender their trust and loyalty. Covert-aggressives are also particularly aware that people who are to some extent emotionally needy and dependent (and that includes most people who aren't character-disordered) want approval, reassurance, and a sense of being valued and needed more than anything. Appearing to be attentive to these needs can be a manipulator's ticket to incredible power over others. Shady "gurus" like Jim Jones and David Koresh seemed to have refined this tactic to an art. In the story of Al and Don, Al is the consummate seducer. He melts any resistance you might have to giving him your loyalty and confidence. He does this by giving you what he knows you need most. He knows you want to feel valued and important. So, he often tells you that you are. You don't find out how unimportant you really are to him until you turn out to be in his way.
Projecting the blame (blaming others) â€“ Aggressive personalities are always looking for a way to shift the blame for their aggressive behavior. Covert-aggressives are not only skilled at finding scapegoats, they're expert at doing so in subtle, hard to detect ways.
Minimization â€“ This tactic is a unique kind of denial coupled with rationalization. When using this maneuver, the aggressor is attempting to assert that his abusive behavior isn't really as harmful or irresponsible as someone else may be claiming. It's the aggressor's attempt to make a molehill out of a mountain.
I've presented the principal tactics that covert-aggressives use to manipulate and control others. They are not always easy to recognize. Although all aggressive personalities tend to use these tactics, covert-aggressives generally use them slickly, subtly and adeptly. Anyone dealing with a covertly aggressive person will need to heighten gut-level sensitivity to the use of these tactics if they're to avoid being taken in by them.
You have not been convincing and undemocratic minded:
Psychology of Convincing Someone
Convincing someone to believe what you say is no more than simply convincing this someone to either accept a new idea or update his knowledge or belief about an existing idea. Not all people will accept your ideas with the same degree, however there are still rules that every person is subject to and if used correctly, will increase your chance of convincing other people to believe what you say.
If the person you want to convince already has prior knowledge or experience of what you're trying to convince him with, then your primary goal is to shake his beliefs and proving him false and only then present him with your own idea. If the person does not have a previous idea about that thing, you can just start by presenting your own view right away.
Why Can't I Convince Other People?
Before learning how to convince someone to believe in something or to accept your idea, you should first know the reasons that generally make people oppose ideas:
â€¢ Belief Conflict: If one of your friends told you that the earth does not in fact orbit the sun, what would be your response? There would be no way you could believe him since you already know that all eight planets orbit the sun, something which you have seen proven time and time again. You already have an opposing belief so the first obstacle facing your friend when trying to convince you is your own belief system.
â€¢ Knowledge: The greater a personâ€™s knowledge about something, the harder will it be to convince him of something different. What do you think will happen if you tried to convince an astronomy professor that the sun is only 1000 km away from the earth? He'll never believe you because he already has deep knowledge of the subject and might have proven it scientifically himself. Thus the second obstacle to convincing people are their level of knowledge about what you're going to say. As you may have already noticed, the first two obstacles (prior belief and knowledge) can be grouped under one thing: having another belief that is contradicting with yours.
â€¢ Skeptics: Skeptics are people who doubt almost everything and everyone. They just never accept anything unless they are truly sure of it. If you are dealing with a skeptic person then this will add further difficulties.
How to Convince Someone to Believe in Something
Based on the previous obstacles we can come up with counter techniques that can highly increase the probability of success when convincing someone. Those techniques are:
â€¢ Shaking His Existing Belief: The more assertive and confident you are while talking about your idea, the higher the possibility of shaking the other person's belief about that thing (given that he does not have much knowledge about it). Speak in a confident way, use confident body language and gestures and use a confident voice tone and you will find that the other person may start to doubt his own idea.
â€¢ Undermine His Knowledge Base: Even if you were confident while talking, the other person's knowledge base could act as a barrier to your ideas. Thatâ€™s why convincing him that you know more than him is more important than trying to convince him of your idea itself because if you manage to convince him that you know more than he does, you will become a trusted source for his subconscious mind and it will become much easier to program him (see subconscious mind programming for more information on this). You donâ€™t need magic to do this, you just have to be ready with proper documentation and clues. The more clear your evidence is, the more you will be able to undermine his own knowledge base and so convince him to see your point of view.(See the power of knowledge in negotiations).
â€¢ Provide Proof for the Skeptic: Contrary to common belief, skeptics can be made to believe in something new provided you have clear evidence to prove your idea. The more clues you can provide to strengthen your argument, the less skeptic the other person will be and so the easier he will be convinced.
â€¢ Program His Subconscious Mind: The subconscious mind can be programmed by repetition: the more a command is repeated, the more it can shake an already existing belief provided that either the conscious mind is absent or that the source of the idea is trusted. For more information on programming someoneâ€™s mind check out this guide. You can even program someone into falling in love with you, in my book, how to make someone fall in love with you i pointed out how can repeating certain words or phrases result in making someone fall in love with you. Its no magic, beliefs are formed by repetition and if you managed to repeat a certain belief enough times, the other person may actually start to believe in it too
â€¢ Believing in Your Idea: Do you notice that when a person really believes in an idea he usually takes it to the light? The entrepreneur who always believed that his idea is worthy usually succeeds in building a very good business. The more you believe in your idea the more confident and, most importantly, convincing you will be when talking about it.
The Power of Believing
The more you believe in your idea, the stronger the effect your way of talking, your gestures and your tone will have on others. The more you believe in your dreams and what you are saying, the more you will shake the preconceptions of the person in front of you, forcing them to question their own beliefs.
The main idea behind convincing someone to believe in your dreams, ideas or in yourself is to shake his own beliefs about them. This won't happen unless you strongly believe in them first. The more assertive you are while describing your idea, the less assertive the other person will be about opposing you. Similarly, the more confident you appear when describing it, the less confident he will become in opposing it.
Itâ€™s a game of convincing him that you know more. If you convince a person of your superior knowledge, he will believe what you have to say even if he was skeptical at first. Display as much confidence as you can while talking. Shake his beliefs and let your own ideas force themselves upon him!
2knowmysef is not a complicated medical website nor itâ€™s a boring online encyclopedia but itâ€™s a place where you will find simple, to the point and effective information that is presented in a simple and obvious way. If you think that this is some kind of marketing hype then see what other visitors say about 2knowmyself.The book How to make someone fall in love with you was released by 2knowmyself.com; the book will dramatically increase your chance of letting someone fall in love with you.
Did that help?
How peer pressure affects teenagers
In my previous article How peer pressure affects you I explained how a personâ€™s performance can highly be influenced by his peers either positively or negatively.
I have also explained how people tend to perform well at a task that they are used to when audience are watching and how people perform badly in difficult tasks when they are supervised or watched.
In this article I will explain one of the most dangerous aspects of peer pressure which can reduce a teenâ€™s self confidence and prevent him from feeling worthy.
How peer pressure affects self confidence of teenagers
Everyone wants to be accepted and loved and thatâ€™s why most teens try to conform to the group they belong to by wearing similar clothes and adopting similar behavior.
But do you know that peer pressure donâ€™t just force teens to act in a certain way but it can also affect their self confidence in a bad way?
If a teen lacks self confidence then he is most likely to interpret social situations in a negative way that matches his beliefs about his own self worth. In the Solid Self confidence program I explained how people make biased interpretations of situations for the sake of supporting what they believe in.
That teen is also most likely to give negative interpretations to situations that happen to his friends. For example, if someone didnâ€™t say hi to a teen in a good way his friend who lacks confidence might tell him something like "take care, I believe this guy doesnâ€™t like you"
This false interpretation will be absorbed by the friend and will affect his self confidence in a negative way!! So after all if one friend lacks self confidence he might lower the confidence of the whole group and vise versa.
Did that help?
This is why I paste ideas from those who know more than you and I. One as evidence of why I should stand where I stand and two to help you view the issue from their perspective and stop talking about cake and low things and start talking about what actually matters.
Have a pleasant weekend and know that we are not thinking the same way or from the same perspective therefore, I must help you or live you to wallow in the shadow of darkness knowing that we are being watched and I am always reminded even if I do not watch T.V.
Out of sight out of mind is for fools especially if it is about a very importan issue involving these:
Think about that and see if your art is actually selfish?
Did you give them the chance or ran ahead to prove your point? I would wait too to see how far you can go with it and when you see yourself maybe, you will relent.
Posted 06 June 2010 - 10:16 AM
Posted 07 June 2010 - 01:51 PM
â€œFor other uses, see Satellite (disambiguation).
Ladies and gentlemen. Let us talk about how did they make it possible for me to talk for you to hear, I see, you see, and feel you feel. It is a difficult situation considering that I am a shy guy besides, I know, you reading will not want anyone to know any of your secretes. Thankfully, I have never had one that I should be afraid or ashamed about, personal or public. All this time we have discussed why they could have done it now let us find out how they do it maybe, that will help us see the seriousness of it to know why.
But what is important here? You as a reader, have you questioned and wonder at the advancement of science for such a thing to happen? How do they do it has always been on my mind not whether I am poor or rich, handsome, sane or insane that is something the world will have to deal with in latter years the same way we are dealing with issues such as Slavery, Colonialism, Tribal wars, our personal histories and so on; because I never went to Scientistsâ€™ offices to be told, â€œUh, Mr. Kamara, it is we that have called you hear today, we want to have everybody in the world hear and see everything you hear and do, think and hear, feel and see.â€ What do you think could have been my reaction? No be honest with yourself, what could have been my reaction?
I know Senator Kerry will not sit in such a meeting to be told we want to put satellite on a poor African boy so that we can all laugh and he stands for it and so is any Congress man or woman, Senator or Parliamentarian in the world. So there has to be something serious than what we ordinary people might think.
If you never knew and have not travelled, but from my travel around the world, you may have noticed that it is internationally felt, heard and seen sometimes secretly done; if you know what I mean. How was it! Therefore, it goes without saying, because you did not see me having a meeting with God about it therefore, Satellite must have been involved. Did you see or do you see me carrying a microphone or Paparazzi cameras following me? Yes, Satellite is involved.
Let us take this moment to see how what this satellites are, how they might have affected you and I, as you are the receptors therefore, are connected some how but as no wires are connected to you, so are they not connected to me..
What are Satellites?
An animation depicting the orbits of GPS satellites in medium earth orbit.
A full size model of the Earth observation satellite ERS 2
In the context of spaceflight, a satellite is an object which has been placed into orbit by human endeavor. Such objects are sometimes called artificial satellites to distinguish them from natural satellites such as the Moon.
The first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, was launched by the Soviet Union in 1957. By 2010 thousands of satellites have been launched into orbit around the Earth. These originate from more than 50 countries and have used the satellite launching capabilities of ten nations. A few hundred satellites are currently operational, whereas thousands of unused satellites and satellite fragments orbit the Earth as space debris. A few space probes have been placed into orbit around other bodies and become artificial satellites to the Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:navigation, search
U.S. military WGSS communications satellite
A communications satellite (sometimes abbreviated to COMSAT) is an artificial satellite stationed in space for the purpose of telecommunications. Modern communications satellites use a variety of orbits including geostationary orbits, Molniya orbits, other elliptical orbits and low (polar and non-polar) Earth orbits.
For fixed (point-to-point) services, communications satellites provide a microwave radio relay technology complementary to that of submarine communication cables. They are also used for mobile applications such as communications to ships, vehicles, planes and hand-held terminals, and for TV and radio broadcasting, for which application of other technologies, such as cable, is impractical or impossible.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:navigation, search
"Broadcast" redirects here. For other uses, see Broadcast (disambiguation) and Broadcaster.
Broadcasting is the distribution of audio and/or video signals which transmit programs to an audience. The audience may be the general public or a relatively large subset of the whole, such as children or young adults.
Broadcasting antenna in Stuttgart
The original term "broadcast" referred to the literal 'sowing of seeds' on farms by scattering them over a wide field. It was first adopted by early radio engineers from the Midwestern United States to refer to the analogous dissemination of radio signals. Broadcasting forms a very large segment of the mass media. Broadcasting to a very narrow range of audience is called narrowcasting.
Nowadays, many people are discussing much about satellite radios, and there's even a possibility that people would talk about them more due to latest advancements in the their field. They are mostly used by people who love listening to uninterrupted crystal clear music. Satellite radios have a slightly different working system from the technology used in traditional radios. In ordinary radios, large towers send radio signals from its transmitter that is on the ground, to the radio which then converts the frequencies into audio signals. Whereas in satellite radios, satellites, in the geostationary orbit directly send digital frequencies to stations on the ground. In USA, the 2.3 GHZ band is used for transmission. The transmitted signal is so effective that it doesn't require a satellite dish antenna to receive it, a small antenna itself does the needed job.
Satellites are large devices in space that orbit the earth, and are capable of receiving and transmitting frequencies around the world, instead of just a specific region. In relation to satellite radios, a satellite transmits radio signals to hundreds of thousands of satellite radio users around the globe. The convenience of these smart radio devices have made them a huge hit among the masses who use this technology in their daily lives.â€
Now you see, I am not ignoring you but you are not joining us to think and continue doing things in this issue that I would not expect my daughters to think and do. And I donâ€™t mean that in a bad way. Not at all. I love you! Call me! Come again next time you hear.
Posted 07 June 2010 - 03:03 PM
Think about it>
Now go yo yahoo or goole and type anything with the name Bambay Lansana Kamara. If you have done it in the past, it remains the same and have a nice day. Don't you have a sense of humor? Smile a little.
Posted 08 June 2010 - 09:27 AM
People of religious fate especially Christians, do you believe in these words, are you practicing them do you even believe?
Try to put these words into perspective vis-Ã -vis the Bambay and media issue, taking everything that when you are before your Christ you will not deny:
Matthew 7 >>
New International Version
1â€œDo not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3â€œWhy do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brotherâ€™s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, â€˜Let me take the speck out of your eye,â€™ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brotherâ€™s eye.
6â€œDo not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
Ask, Seek, Knock
7â€œAsk and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
9â€œWhich of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
The Narrow and Wide Gates
13â€œEnter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
A Tree and Its Fruit
15â€œWatch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheepâ€™s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21â€œNot everyone who says to me, â€˜Lord, Lord,â€™ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, â€˜Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?â€™ 23Then I will tell them plainly, â€˜I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!â€™
The Wise and Foolish Builders
24â€œTherefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.â€
28When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.â€
Do you value stopping Christiana Aguileraâ€™s supposed interest in a poor man to compromise your dignity and your belief, if you even have one?
What is faith according to Christians?
So if I should believe him, who are you?
Men have come and gone but what they stood for is what remains:
Man on the Moon: The U.S. Space Program as a Cold War Maneuver
Rita G. Koman
Reprinted from the OAH Magazine of History
8 (Winter 1994). ISSN 0882-228X
Copyright © 1994, Organization of American Historians
"Houston, Tranquility Base here, the Eagle has landed," Neil Armstrong announced (1). On 20 July 1969, he told the universe by way of Mission Control that the Apollo II lunar module had landed safely on the moon. When Armstrong took his historic first steps for mankind on the lunar surface, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) realized it had triumphed over the U.S.S.R. in the Cold War space race and had fulfilled the national mandate established by President John F. Kennedy in 1961.
Kennedy, after a thorough investigation by an appointed Space Council chaired by Vice President Lyndon Johnson, decided to "shift our efforts in space from low to high gear" in order to maintain a positive image of world leadership (2). At that time, NASA was a fledgling three-year old agency struggling to create a top-notch national space program with limited funds. Earlier, a presidential transition task force led by Science Advisor Jerome Wiesner warned Kennedy about the potential military dangers and disadvantages to the West if the Soviet space lead went unchallenged. Intrinsic to the warning was the fear that other nations would assume that such a lead in space implied a lead in the building of missile weapons as well.
To Kennedy, the political and psychological impact of being considered second-rate or in second place was inconsistent with national security, the U.S. role as a world leader, and his vision of a New Frontier for Americans. Thus, in a dramatic statement in his second State of the Union message of May, 1961, he pledged the United States would land a man on the moon and return him safely to earth "before the decade is out" (3). Believing that such an accomplishment would require the contributions of the entire nation, Kennedy made the space program the "highest kind of national priority" (4). Historically, the space program became the embodiment and expression of America's core national values and aspirations (5).
In 1950, an Army team stationed in Huntsville, Alabama led by German expatriate Werner von Braun built upon the pioneer achievements of Robert Goddard by developing a series of Redstone rockets. These were tested at Cape Canaveral Air Force base for structure and performance while Air Force personnel nearby worked to perfect the Atlas, the first U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) (6).
Meanwhile, the U.S.S.R. also had a team of German expatriate scientists working on rockets and missiles. On the heels of their success in producing an atomic bomb in 1949 and long-range bombers in the early 1950s, the Soviets successfully tested an H-bomb (1954) and were mass producing the medium-range ballistic missile, SS-3. By 1957, they had fired an intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of over five thousand miles. American officials were shocked by the speed at which these accomplishments occurred, but the American public became fully aware of the Soviet potential only after the successful launching of Sputnik. The first artificial space satellite was sent into orbit with the same rocket engine as the SS-3 on 4 October 1957. Two hundred thousand pounds of thrust had propelled the two hundred pound spacecraft into orbit. The Soviets now had the ability to deliver a nuclear warhead anyplace in the world (7).
The apparent vulnerability of U.S. cities and bomber forces to Soviet attack shocked American officials into forcing a speedup to close the "missile gap" and launch an American satellite (8). The twin securities of monopolistic possession of nuclear armaments and extensive multilateral economic assistance that maintained international U.S. power in the late 1940s were now definitely gone (9). The boldness of Soviet scientists demanded more risk-taking on the part of American scientists and creative militaristic directions to match their initiatives. The Army's first satellite launch failed but a second attempt sent Explorer 1 up successfully on 31 January 1958. Reflecting the public concern that action be taken, President Dwight Eisenhower submitted a bill to Congress that was quickly passed and signed into law in late July, creating the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). That October, NASA began consolidation of all of the nation's diverse programs and interests in space exploration under its auspices. Included as one of NASA's major responsibilities was the development of a program to put a man in orbit (10).
Within two months of its establishment, NASA launched Project Mercury, a manned space program. In April 1961, however, one month before the well publicized launch of Alan Shepard into space, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gargarin was launched without fanfare and orbited around the earth (11). Once again the Soviets had upstaged the Americans and they bragged about it internationally. Newly inaugurated President Kennedy vowed that "this generation of Americans intends to be the 'world's leading spacefaring nation'" (12). He obtained congressional support to double the space budget, and the program to put a man on the moon went into high gear.
There is little doubt now that the project to put a man on the moon was a key maneuver in Kennedy's Cold War strategy. By giving NASA programs top priority, his actions essentially played on American fears of communism and implicitly inferred that the Eisenhower administration had not done enough to meet the Sputnik challenge. Too many Americans were beginning to feel a need to vindicate the "long-standing communist boast that theirs was the superior system for galvanizing human productivity" (13). Kennedy did not want to see the Soviets get to the moon first and govern it with "a hostile flag of conquest" when American scientists and technology could put "a banner of freedom and peace" there leading to "knowledge and understanding . . . for the progress of all people" (14). That the man on the moon project ranked high on defense and ideology priorities was bore out by a memo from Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and NASA Director James Webb to Kennedy in May, 1961 stating: "It is vital to establish specific missions aimed at [building] national prestige" (15). Kennedy also carried the additional burden of redeeming himself after his recent Bay of Pigs debacle. The Eisenhower plan, which aimed simply to orbit a man in space, now grew to also include bringing him safely back.
Developing Space Strategy
In the 1960s, NASA became the instrument to project the American international image of a "pioneering, technologically advanced, risk-taking, high-achievement society." It was a "feel good about yourself" propaganda program for Americans (16). After Kennedy's untimely assassination, the project took on the aura of near-sacredness as President Johnson pushed for its completion in the name of the slain president in spite of growing skepticism from many scientists who felt unmanned flights would accomplish more scientifically (17). In order to accomplish Kennedy's mandate before the decade was out, however, the man on the moon program reorganized the space operations into three phases: Project Mercury, with six missions into outer space; Project Gemini, an intermediate program; and Apollo, the largest and most ambitious of the three (18).
The most celebrated highlight of the entire program was Armstrong's Apollo 11 moon walk on 20 July 1969 when J.F.K.'s New Frontier vision was realized by beaming the action back to earth through international television satellites. Apollo had six additional moon landings, however, that continued until 1972. The Apollo project was also responsible for the launching of Skylab and a docking exercise with the Soviet ship Soyez, a welcomed 1975 thaw in the Cold War (19).
As the space program grew in sophistication and accreditation in the 1970s, NASA began to feel a greater tightening of its budget belt. The Soviets had been surpassed and the international recognition of American ingenuity and technology accomplished. Questions were raised only about the feasibility of government sponsored technological developments as U.S. financial and military involvement in Vietnam escalated and changed the public's focus. A scaled-back version of endeavors designed to provide scientific information and breakthroughs under cost-effective regulations that could be justified became the new modus operatum (20).
An analysis of the success of the space program as a Cold War maneuver must consider numerous factors. From a psychological standpoint, the program unquestionably boosted national self-esteem and American pride to an all-time high at the time of the first moon landing. It provided a ray of hope shining on an otherwise gloomy landscape. This was especially true in late 1968. During this period, Americans witnessed their nation's international stature plummet over the Vietnam buildup in general and specifically over the Tet Offensive of 1 January 1968. Additionally, the assassinations of Martin Luther King (April) and Robert Kennedy (June) on the heels of Tet and the riots and burning of many inner cities caused many Americans to question what their nation really represented. The Apollo 11 landing on the moon and Neil Armstrong's walk provided a needed boost to morale. Thus, a swell of pride over the man on the moon project's success was indeed a pleasant reprieve to savor and seemed to serve as a reminder for Americans of their basic national values. By the mid-seventies, the U.S.S.R. did become more receptive to American overtures for cooperative exchange of scientific data. Downplaying the missile buildup after the Cuban Crisis allowed Soviet space operations to become a type of comfort zone within the on-going Cold War scenario.
One cannot, however, ignore the fact that the race to put a man on the moon became a part of the general arms race with the Soviets. To achieve the successes of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions, acceleration costs of space efforts rose. At the same time that the nation geared up to escalate the Vietnam involvement, NASA was operating at break-neck speed to reach the moon. Unquestionably, speed blinded those involved to potential dangers of cutting corners and stressing manned flights rather than those devoted to scientific development. While every flight added a building block, enabling a successful finale for all of the projects, there was a pricetag. The strict adherence to a 1970 deadline goaded in large measure by Cold War posturing literally blew up in NASA's face when the flash fire of 27 January 1967 took the lives of three astronauts. It also gave voice overtly to critics who attacked NASA for speed they felt unjustified even by Cold War conditions. In retrospect, there were 33 flights involving 59 astronauts, some of whom took repeated trips, with the approximate cost of $392.6 million for Mercury, $1.3 billion for Gemini, and $25 billion for Apollo. No dollar amount can be placed on the lives of the three astronauts lost in the 1967 flashfire of Apollo 2 (21). The continuing contribution of communication and weather satellites, scientific experimentation and knowledge gathered from flights, and the multitude of other spinoffs from NASA operatives, while difficult to calculate in dollars and cents value, should also be kept in mind (22).
With the conclusion of the Cold War, it remains to be seen whether the U.S. will be able to maintain the space program, given its economic implications. In the meantime, NASA needs to put into focus one of its greatest challenges as it redefines its vision and realizes its creative edge while the nation moves toward the twenty-first century (23).
1. To understand the impact of the Cold War on the space program.
2. To analyze space program goals in relation to expanding Cold War endeavors in Southeast Asia.
3. To evaluate the significance of the space program in meeting national Cold War goals.
1. Take a quick survey for general knowledge about the space program by asking students what they know about it.
2. Reproduce and provide copies of above information beginning with â€œBackgroundâ€ up to â€œExamining Outcomesâ€ for students to read. Then ask students:
a. What made Ameri-cans so shocked and fearful about early Soviet space accomplishments?
b. Why was President Kennedy determined to make the space program a political rather than a purely scientific endeavor?
c. Why do you think the space program was able to sustain positive support from the public in spite of the controversies emanating from Vietnam and civil rights issues?
3. Briefly explain that while NASAâ€™s positive and highly publicized profile for the Space Program made Americans proud, there were critics who became especially vocal after Apollo 2â€™s disastrous fire. Then provide students with reproduced copies of Documents 1, 2, and 3 to read and analyze. Some questions to ask might include:
a. Document 1:
1. What does Lippmann think is NASAâ€™s central objective?
2. What does Lippmann think NASAâ€™s purpose should be?
3. What claim does the scientist Lovell make according to Lippmann?
4. How do Lippmannâ€™s views oppose Cold War objectives?
b. Document 2:
1. What earlier indications pointed to possible cover-up of problems at NASA?
2. Who does the article blame?
3. What does the cartoon mean?
4. Do you think sabotage of Cold War goals was involved?
c. Document 3:
1. What is the main argument made by Dreher?
2. Is there a policy conflict between arms and space producers?
3. What social problems are introduced that Dreher thinks might be better aided by NASA programs?
4. Was the U.S. spread too thin by all of these Cold War activities?
4. Provide students the dollars and cents information of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo by listing it on the chalk board. Add in the three lives of the lost astronauts with question marks. Have students figure an approximate total. Then ask them to evaluate the program's significance as a Cold War maneuver:
a. Was the goal President Kennedy defined worthwhile to pursue?
b. Was it beneficial? To whom? For the nation? The world?
c. Should this program have been shelved in favor of increasing the Southeast Asian War budget?
Note: The space program, largely overlooked in textbooks, can be discussed as part of a general review of the Cold War period. See the chronology of Cold War and Space Program on page 46. Allocation of one or two class periods should be considered adequate unless related activities are pursued.
Some Related Activities
1. Have students complete research and either give an oral report to the class or write a written report on:
a. One or more of the first astronauts and what they did.
b. One of NASA's sixteen installations around the country.
c. The Challenger explosion of 1986.
d. Current programs--what they are, costs, manned v. unmanned crafts.
2. Have students interview a parent or older person who can describe what they were doing and thinking on the day that the arrival of the first man on the moon was televised.
3. Take a field trip to a NASA installation if nearby.
4. Invite a former or current astronaut to visit with classes about their space experiences if possible.
5. Show a NASA video on space travel. (See Bibliography for NASA address.)
6. Stage a debate on whether space exploration continues to be viable and/or cost effective today.
7. Plan an interdisciplinary lesson with science and math departments. (NASA has information to help do this.)
1. NASA, NASA Facts: Mission Control Center (Houston: L. B. Johnson Space Center, 1986), 1.
2. Theodore C. Sorensen, Kennedy (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 525.
4. Ibid., 526.
5. Peter Carlson, "Is NASA Necessary?", The Washington Post Magazine (Washington: The Washington Post, 1993), May 30, 1993, p.22.
6. National Park Service, Man in Space Study of Alternatives (Denver: Denver Service Center, 1986), 17-18.
7. Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (New York: Random House, 1987), 387-88.
8. Ibid., 388.
9. Melvyn P. Leffler, A Preponderance of Power (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992), 498-99.
10. National Park Service, 19.
12. Sorensen, 528.
13. T.A. Heppenheimer, "Lost in Space--What Went Wrong With NASA?" American Heritage 43 (November 1992): 62.
14. Sorensen, 529.
15. Carlson, 23.
17. William O'Neill, Coming Apart (New York: Times Books, 1971), 52.
18. NASA, The Early Years: Mercury to Apollo-Soyez (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991), 1-7.
20. Heppenheimer, 64-68.
21. The Early Years, 2-7.
22. NASA, Spinoff, 1991 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991).
23. Carlson, 27.
Anderson, Frank W., Jr. Orders of Magnitude: A History of NACA and NASA, 1915-1980. Washington D.C.: NASA, 1981.
Beggs, James M. Our First Quarter Century of Achievement--Just the Beginning. Washington D.C.: NASA, 1983.
Heppenheimer, T.A., "Lost in Space--What Went Wrong With NASA?", American Heritage (Vol. 43, #7, November, 1992), p.62.
McCurdy, Howard E. Inside NASA: High Technology and Organizational Change in the American Space Program. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Educational Publications Service, LEP, Washington, D.C. 20546.
Von Braun, Wernher and Frederick I. Ordway. History of Rocket and Space Travel. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1975.
Wilford, John Noble. We Reach the Moon: The New York Times Story of Man's Greatest Adventure. New York: Bantam Books, 1969.
Wolfe, Tom. The Right Stuff. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1979.
Rita G. Koman taught American history and government for seventeen years. She currently lives in Manassas, Virginia where she works as an educational consultant.
Iridium is currently engaged in studies to build and launch a second generation of satellites, consisting of 66 satellites and six spares. These satellites will incorporate features such as data transmission which were not emphasized in the original design. The current plan is to begin launching new satellites in 2014. Satellites will incorporate additional payload such as cameras and sensors in collaboration with some customers and partners. Iridium can also be used to provide a data link to other satellites in space enabling command and control of other space assets regardless of the position of ground stations and gateways.
The existing constellation of satellites is expected to remain operational until at least 2014, with many satellites expected to remain in service until the 2020s. Iridium is planning a new generation of satellites with improved bandwidth to be operational by 2016. This system will be backward compatible with the current system. In August 2008, Iridium selected two companies â€” Lockheed Martin and Thales Alenia Space â€” to participate in the final phase of the procurement of the next generation satellite constellation. On June 2, 2010 the winner of the contract was announced as Thales Alenia Space, in a $2.9 billion deal underwritten by Compagnie FranÃ§aise d'Assurance pour le Commerce ExtÃ©rieur.
The main patents on the Iridium system, U.S. Patents 5,410,728 and 5,604,920, are in the field of satellite communications, and the manufacturer generated several hundred patents protecting the technology in the system. Satellite manufacturing initiatives were also instrumental in the technical success of the system. Motorola made a key hire of the engineer who set up the automated factory for Apple's Macintosh. He created the technology necessary to mass-produce satellites on a gimbal, taking weeks instead of months or years and at a record low construction cost of only US$5 million per satellite. At its peak during the launch campaign in 1997 and 1998, Motorola produced a new satellite every 4.3 days, with the lead-time of a single satellite being 21 days
Posted 08 June 2010 - 07:18 PM
CLICK ON THE PHOTO TO ENLARGE IT.
"As 39 citizens who will soon become the next group of Sierra Leone Peace Corps volunteers came together for a group photo at Wednesday's send-off celebration, the wide smiles on every single face captured the emotions reverberating through Shriver Hall at Peace Corps Headquarters. Excitement. Energy. Anticipation."
Posted 08 June 2010 - 07:52 PM
Posted 09 June 2010 - 11:27 AM
Actually, I have had an Associates Degree in Teaching since 1987 and I also taught in High school for two years starting 1981-83. I came to the U.S. in 1991 and started for a Nursing degree.
In light of which most or all of what I am writing and pasting now are things that were not considered by those who have embarked on emotionally abusing me because of media attention, a group of multi-billion dollar moguls whom I have no power to draw their attention to me if it is something they do not consider serious to embark on. However, in life, we have optimists, those that: have a disposition or tendency to look on the more favorable side of events or conditions and to expect the most favorable outcome. (2) belief that good ultimately predominates over evil in the world. (3)
the belief that goodness pervades reality.
4. believe in the doctrine that the existing world is the best of all possible worlds, and pessimists, those that have the tendency to see, anticipate, or emphasize only bad or undesirable outcomes, results, conditions, problems, etc (2) who hold the doctrine that the existing world is the worst of all possible worlds, or that all things naturally tend to evil.
3. who believe that the evil and pain in the world are not compensated for by goodness and happiness. While you also have honest and benevolent, sadists and cons.
pessimists In fact, very few people knew why the media, a multi-billion dollar industry would focus on me, and the said abusers have thought that by abusing me psychologically will make me disbelieve or stop the media attention. In which case, my life hangs on a thread if I am not intelligent enough to know the difference, tough enough to withstand these savage emotional inflictions, insensitivities and dangerous denigrations.
In essence, I am teaching. Since most of those who inflict these pains are trying to imitate the media, which involves many cultures and status of peoples and organizations, it is incumbent on me to bring to limelight the issues that the latter are concerned with, their thinking patterns meaning, the way and how they think and things they talk about. So that those who can reflect and want to be counted among the civilized will why their actions have been underlined by negative and shallow-mindedness that has been of very little value to them a reason they would employ rudeness to get a falsely illumed into believing that they too are powerful but actually, when the substantive realization kicks in that it is mere illusion, they go mallard and all reasoning and civility runs out of the door..
Which is why I would like to post what Psychologists, governments and people who have suffered these form of abuse and their families get a broader sense or be reminded so that they do not join the earlier mentioned cabal of superiority-seeking sadists in this abuse rampage.
At the same token, it is educational for those who not incorrigible to learn new ways civilized people behave to reform them and give them peace because one who spews a violence or promotes chaotic disharmonious atmosphere is himself disturbed inside as you would read in the following.
What is psychological Abuse?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Psychological abuse, also referred to as emotional abuse or mental abuse, is a form of abuse characterized by a person subjecting or exposing another to behavior that is psychologically harmful . Such abuse is often associated with situations of power imbalance, such as abusive relationships, bullying, child abuse and in the workplace.
Characteristics of abusers
In their review of data from the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study (a longitudinal birth cohort study; n = 941) Moffitt et al. report that while men exhibit more aggression overall, gender is not a reliable predictor of interpersonal aggression, including psychological aggression. The study found that whether male or female, aggressive people share a cluster of traits, including high rates of suspicion and jealousy; sudden and drastic mood swings; poor self-control; and higher than average rates of approval of violence and aggression. Moffitt et al. also argue that antisocial men exhibit two distinct types of interpersonal aggression (one against strangers, the other against intimate female partners), while antisocial women are rarely aggressive against anyone other than intimate male partners.
Male and female perpetrators of emotional and physical abuse exhibit high rates of personality disorders. Rates of personality disorder in the general population are roughly 15%-20%, while roughly 80% of abusive men in court-ordered treatment programmes have personality disorders.
Abusers may aim to avoid household chores or exercise total control of family finances. Abusers can be very manipulative, often recruiting friends, law officers and court officials, even the victim's family to their side, while shifting blame to the victim.
Kaza84, you see, this is why I would like to get it all out because life is short and I am not certain of my tomorrow, accepting that which be as I live in a different world and class of minds. Anything can happen especially where reasoning is not employed and ego is the king over brain. But I want it known that what I have believed-in for 49 years can not be changed by shallow mindedness and egocentrism. My mother taught me better than that.
I hope you have a nice day.
Posted 07 July 2010 - 01:09 AM
Posted 30 December 2010 - 12:29 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users