Here’s some noise you can file under ‘bullshit.’
JPMorgan, head of technical strategy Jason Hunter said the S & P 500 in 2024 is in for a stark reversal back toward its bear lows. “Stocks should pull back, [and] in my base case on the technical side, the S & P 500 is gonna drop to 3,500,” Hunter told CNBC’s ” Squawk Box ” on Monday.
It’s impossible to talk about Kissinger without acknowledging the controversies that shroud his legacy. Accusations of war crimes stem from his involvement in the secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War and alleged support for authoritarian regimes in Latin America. Critics argue that these actions resulted in significant human suffering and loss of life.
Henry Kissinger, born on May 27, 1923, in Fürth, Germany, played a pivotal role in shaping U.S. foreign policy during the Nixon and Ford administrations. He was a key player in orchestrating the historic opening of relations between the United States and China in the early ’70s. Nobel Peace Prize in hand, he’s praised for his diplomatic efforts in the Vietnam War and the Middle East.
Although Kissinger was labeled a conservative and a halk, few talk about his rise to power. The 1960s marked Kissinger’s ascent in the political arena. Serving as National Security Advisor under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, he showcased a keen understanding of global dynamics. However, it was under President Richard Nixon that Kissinger’s influence reached its zenith.
As Secretary of State from 1973 to 1977, Kissinger became a key player in shaping U.S. foreign policy. His “shuttle diplomacy” in the Middle East led to the disengagement agreements between Israel and its neighbors. The groundbreaking opening of relations between the U.S. and China in 1972 remains a hallmark of his diplomatic achievements.
In 1973, Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in the Vietnam War negotiations. The irony was palpable, as the conflict continued, and criticism mounted against the man heralded for peace.
Henry Kissinger, now etched in the annals of history, leaves behind a legacy that elicits both admiration and criticism. A man of intellect (graduating with a 4.0 GPA from Harvard), strategy, and controversy, his impact on global diplomacy is indelible.
The United States House of Representatives has formally censured Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) for statements she made regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The censure, which passed with a vote of 234-188, accuses Representative Tlaib of disseminating “false narratives” in response to an October 7 attack by Hamas and purportedly advocating for the “destruction of the state of Israel.” This disciplinary action marks her as the second Democrat to be censured by the House this year.
The resolution’s passage was facilitated by the support of 22 Democrats who sided with the majority of Republicans, overcoming the deadlock from a previous attempt to censure Representative Tlaib. Only four Republicans opposed the measure.
The motion for censure was introduced by Representative Rich McCormick (R-GA) earlier in the week. It aimed to reprimand Tlaib for her remarks while affirming her First Amendment rights. This move followed a failed attempt to pass a similar resolution by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), which was tabled due to concerns over its language.
Efforts by Democrats to table McCormick’s motion were unsuccessful, leading to a final vote. The vote was initially scheduled for Wednesday but was expedited to Tuesday evening, superseding a concurrent censure resolution against Tlaib by Greene.
Representative Greene withdrew her resolution, citing the likelihood of McCormick’s motion passing and her desire not to compete with another censure resolution due to a lack of organization by GOP leadership.
McCormick’s resolution specifically targeted Tlaib’s comments on the recent conflict in Israel, criticizing her for blaming Israel for an airstrike on a Christian hospital in Gaza on October 18. U.S. intelligence later attributed the explosion to a misfired rocket from Palestinian Islamic Jihad, but Tlaib did not retract her statements.
The resolution also highlighted controversy over a video Tlaib shared, featuring pro-Palestinian protesters chanting “from the river to the sea,” a phrase associated with the land encompassing Israel and the Palestinian territories. While Tlaib defended the phrase as a call for peace and coexistence, it drew criticism from within her party due to its use by Hamas to call for Israel’s destruction.
Despite the censure, Tlaib has defended her position, asserting that her colleagues are distorting her views and prioritizing the censure over the well-being of individuals in Gaza. She maintains that she has condemned violence from both Hamas and the Israeli government.
The critically debated film “Sound of Freedom” has found its streaming platform and will be available on Prime Video in the United States starting December 26. This follows a period of intense speculation and unfounded rumors that the film had been barred from streaming services.
The film, which premiered on June 28, 2023, in Vineyard, Utah, has been a significant box office success. It tells the compelling story of a former government agent’s quest to dismantle child sex trafficking networks. Since its release on July 4, “Sound of Freedom” has grossed an impressive $184 million in North America and $242 million worldwide. Notably, it was the first independent film release after the pandemic to surpass $100 million in the U.S. and Canada, securing its place as one of the top domestic films of the year.
Despite its commercial success, “Sound of Freedom” has been a topic of discussion for its portrayal of real-life events and associations with politically charged narratives. The film’s main subject, Tim Ballard, is a former Homeland Security agent and the founder of Operation Underground Railroad. The organization is known for conducting sting operations to rescue victims of child sex trafficking. However, the organization has faced scrutiny, with claims of exaggeration of its impact, and law enforcement agencies have described their contributions as “insubstantial.”
Angel Studios, the film’s distributor, has been in discussions with various streaming platforms since August, seeking a home for the film. The studio has also implemented innovative strategies to promote the film, including a crowdfunding campaign and a “pay it forward” program that contributed to its financial success.
In response to the controversy and false claims on social media platforms, Angel Studios has firmly stated that “Sound of Freedom” is not affiliated with any conspiracy theories or political agendas. The studio’s commitment to the film’s narrative focuses on the harrowing issue of child sex trafficking and the efforts to combat it.
As “Sound of Freedom” makes its way to Prime Video, it continues to spark conversations about the serious subject matter it portrays and the societal responsibilities of film as a medium. The film’s availability on a major streaming service like Prime Video underscores its relevance and the demand for stories that address critical global issues.
Ever had a buddy or a date who just vanished into thin air? One day you’re chatting and laughing, and the next, they’re gone without a trace. Welcome to the world of ghosting. It’s not just for spooky stories; it’s a real thing in today’s relationships and even at work.
Ghosting can be a frustrating and confusing experience. It leaves us wondering what went wrong, what we did to deserve such treatment, or if we’ll ever get any closure. The term “ghosting” refers to the act of suddenly cutting off all communication with someone without any explanation or warning, effectively disappearing from their lives.
In the realm of relationships, ghosting has become increasingly common with the rise of online dating and social media. It has become an unfortunate side effect of our digital age, where it’s easier than ever to connect with others but also just as easy to disconnect. You might be talking to someone for weeks, making plans, and feeling a genuine connection, and then suddenly, they stop responding to messages, unfriend or unfollow you on social media, and vanish from your life.
Ghosting is not limited to romantic relationships either. It can happen between friends, colleagues, or even with employers. Imagine working on a project with a coworker who seemed enthusiastic and engaged, only to have them disappear midway without offering any explanation. It not only affects productivity but also creates a sense of uncertainty and mistrust in the workplace.
The reasons behind ghosting can vary. Some people may choose to ghost because they are uncomfortable with confrontation or conflict, and it’s easier for them to avoid the difficult conversation altogether. Others may do it to exert power or control over the other person by leaving them guessing and wondering what happened. In some cases, people might simply lose interest or find someone or something else that captures their attention.
While ghosting is hurtful and disrespectful, it’s essential to remember that it says more about the person doing the ghosting than the person being ghosted. It’s important not to blame yourself or internalize the rejection. It’s a reflection of their behavior and emotional immaturity rather than any shortcomings on your part.
If you find yourself on the receiving end of ghosting, try to focus on healing and moving forward. Surround yourself with supportive friends and family who can provide comfort and reassurance. Take the opportunity to reflect on what you want and need from relationships, whether they be romantic or otherwise. It might be a chance to set healthier boundaries, explore new interests, or meet new people who value and respect your time and emotions.
Now, let’s talk about some wild terms that are floating around on TikTok. First up, we’ve got “zombieing.” Imagine someone ghosts you, and then, out of nowhere, they pop back into your life months later, acting like nothing happened. Yep, that’s zombieing for you.
Then there’s “ghostlighting.” This one’s a bit trickier. It’s when someone ghosts you and then tries to twist the story, making you think you were the problem all along. Pretty sneaky, right?
So, why do people ghost? It’s simple: tough conversations are, well, tough. It’s easier to just disappear than to face the music and talk things out. But let’s be real, ghosting isn’t the best way to handle things. It leaves the other person confused and hurt.
In the end, ghosting might seem like the easy way out, but it’s not the kindest. Maybe it’s time we start facing those difficult chats head-on. After all, a little honesty goes a long way.
Here are some books available on Amazon that relate to the topic of ghosting and relationships:
Understanding and Coping with Ghosting
Ghosting, the sudden and unexplained end of communication in a relationship, can leave you feeling confused, hurt, and with a lot of unanswered questions. It’s like one day you’re important to someone, and the next, you’re not even worth a goodbye. This can be tough to deal with, but there are ways to cope and move forward.
Firstly, it’s crucial to acknowledge your feelings. Ghosting can stir up a mix of emotions – sadness, anger, confusion. It’s okay to feel these things. Don’t push them away or pretend they don’t exist. It’s part of the healing process. Remember, it’s not about you; it’s about the other person’s inability to handle difficult conversations or situations.
Secondly, try to accept the situation for what it is. You may never get the closure you’re looking for, and that’s alright. Sometimes, the best closure is the one you give yourself. Understand that ghosting says more about the other person’s character than yours. It’s a reflection of their issues, not your worth.
Lastly, focus on self-care and moving forward. Engage in activities that make you happy and fulfilled. Spend time with friends and family who value you. And most importantly, learn from the experience. It can teach you what you want and don’t want in future relationships. It’s a tough lesson, but it can lead to personal growth and stronger, healthier relationships down the line.
If you’re 45+ years old, you should pay attention to the 2024 Social Security changes enacted by our wonderfully batshit crazy, pathologically maniacal members of Congress.
In summary, the average person might see a modest increase in their Social Security benefits due to the COLA adjustment, and those who work while receiving benefits may enjoy a bit more leeway before their benefits are reduced. However, the potential for increased taxation on benefits could offset some of these gains, especially for those who have other sources of income in retirement. It’s a mixed bag, and the true impact will vary widely based on individual circumstances.
The ‘To Long/Didn’t Read:
What is it? An additive to sodas and some commercial breads that causes memory loss and thyroid issues. It’s been used for over seventy years. Other countries banned it long ago. The FDA put it on an ‘interim” list in the 1970s due to consumer advocacy. Now, they are finally banning it.
Let us delve into a matter that has sat quietly on our grocery shelves and in our refrigerators for far too long — the curious case of Brominated Vegetable Oil, commonly known as BVO.
For years, BVO has been the unseen, uncelebrated workhorse of the beverage industry. This additive has kept your citrus-flavored drinks from separating, ensuring every sip is as consistent as the last. But behind that consistency lurks a question that has only recently begun to find an answer: if BVO is linked to potential health issues like memory loss and thyroid disruption, why has it lingered in our lives for so many decades?
The tale of BVO is one of bureaucracy entangled with science — a narrative not unlike the meandering storylines we’ve seen in Washington. Since 1970, BVO has been placed in a regulatory limbo by the FDA, given an “interim” status that has somehow stretched on for over half a century. It’s akin to an extended intermission in a play with no second act in sight.
Now, why the delay in dropping the curtain on BVO? Research over the years has raised red flags, signaling that BVO’s bromine content could accumulate in the body, leading to neurological symptoms and altering thyroid hormones — essential actors in the theater of human metabolism.
Yet, while other countries have written BVO out of their scripts, the United States has allowed it to remain in the cast, albeit in a smaller role. The reasons, while not broadcasted in prime time, are whispered to be as complex as any political thriller, with economic and industrial factors playing supporting roles.
The plot thickens when we consider that BVO adds a cost-effective solution to a common beverage problem. Changing this part of the formula is a risk — much like when a beloved television series introduces a new character, hoping the audience will tune in rather than turn off.
However, the narrative is shifting. The voice of the consumer has begun to rise above the murmur of the status quo, demanding transparency and safety over cost and convenience. As a result, even the giants of the beverage industry are phasing out BVO, a move akin to a network canceling a long-running but controversial show.
This gradual phase-out marks a pivotal chapter in the story of food safety, where advocacy and consumer preferences are driving the plot more than ever before. It’s a developing story, one that we will continue to follow with keen interest.
In the end, the story of BVO is not just about an ingredient; it’s about the evolution of our understanding of what we consume. And as we turn the page, perhaps we can look forward to a time when the safety of the ingredients in our food and drinks isn’t a footnote but the headline of the day.
Hey everyone, have you caught wind of Stanford University’s latest venture? No, it’s not a groundbreaking research project or an innovative educational program. Instead, they’ve decided to play language police. Stanford recently launched what they’re calling the “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative,” and it’s as Orwellian as it sounds.
Stanford has put together a guide that lists words and phrases they deem “harmful.” They’ve even categorized these words into ten sections, as if they’re organizing a library of banned books. The goal? To sanitize their website and IT systems from language that could be considered violent, racist, or biased. It’s like they’re on a witch hunt for words that don’t fit their narrative.
You might be asking, “So what? They’re just words.” But that’s precisely the issue. Words are the building blocks of thought, debate, and freedom. By censoring language, Stanford is essentially censoring thought and stifling intellectual freedom. They’re not just changing words; they’re attempting to control the narrative.
Is Stanford pioneering a new era of inclusivity, or are they setting a dangerous precedent for censorship? I’d argue it’s the latter. This initiative isn’t just about making people feel comfortable; it’s about limiting the scope of acceptable discourse. And that’s a slippery slope that could have far-reaching implications for academic freedom and free speech.
So there you have it. Stanford’s new initiative might be making headlines, but is it really the kind of progress we want to see? I think not.
The Importance of Taking Breaks for Writers
We live in a world that glorifies the hustle. The more you do, the more you’re celebrated. But what happens when the words won’t come? When the cursor blinks at you like an accusatory eye, and your mind feels as blank as the page in front of you? It’s easy to feel like you’re backsliding, especially when you’ve set a word count goal and fail to reach it. But here’s the thing: it’s okay to take a break. In fact, it might be the best thing you can do for your writing and yourself.
You’ve heard it before: “Writers write.” But let’s be real, writers are also human beings. We get tired, stressed, and yes, even bored with our own words. The notion that taking a break is a sign of weakness or lack of dedication is not just outdated; it’s harmful. According to The Writing Cooperative, taking a pause can actually be beneficial to your writing.
Let’s face it, writing can be a solitary, stressful endeavor. According to HD Transformations, pushing too hard can lead to burnout. Taking a break can be a mental health lifesaver, giving you the space to breathe and regain your sanity.
Your brain is not a machine. It needs time to recharge. A study from The Martha’s Vineyard Times suggests that taking short breaks can actually improve creativity. Think of it as letting your mental soil lie fallow before planting new ideas.
Contrary to popular belief, non-stop work doesn’t equate to higher productivity. Fiction University argues that breaks can improve focus and productivity. It’s like hitting the reset button on your brain.
Don’t just wait for burnout to take a break. Schedule it. Whether it’s a 15-minute walk or a weekend getaway, put it in your calendar.
It’s easy to get sucked back into work. Set clear boundaries for your break time. That means no sneaking a look at your manuscript or jotting down “just one quick idea.”
Do something that rejuvenates you. Read a book, take a hike, or even indulge in some mindless TV. The point is to step away from writing.
Author Jane Doe once said, “Taking a break saved my writing career.” She’s not alone. Many writers find that stepping away, even briefly, brings a fresh perspective and new energy to their work.
One common fear is that taking a break will cause you to lose momentum. But according to Meg Dowell Writes, the opposite is often true. A well-timed break can actually build momentum.
The fear of falling behind is real, especially with deadlines looming. But remember, quality over quantity. A break can result in better writing, which is ultimately your goal.
Don’t go from zero to sixty. Ease back into your writing to avoid overwhelm.
Be kind to yourself. Set achievable goals for your return to writing. It’s not about catching up; it’s about moving forward.
In the end, writing is a marathon, not a sprint. Helping Writers Become Authors suggests looking out for red flags that signal it’s time for a break. Listen to your body and mind; they’re smarter than you think.
Taking a break is not a sign of weakness or a lack of dedication. It’s a necessary part of the creative process. So the next time you feel stuck, stressed, or overwhelmed, remember: it’s okay to take a break. In fact, it’s more than okay—it’s essential.
In turn of events that surprised absolutely no one, former Vice President Mike Pence has just realized he was actually running for President in 2024. Upon this revelation, he promptly suspended his campaign, stating, “This is not my time.”
This unexpected twist in Pence’s political aspirations has undoubtedly generated a wave of speculation and intrigue amongst political pundits and observers. Many are questioning how such an oversight could have occurred, especially considering the meticulous planning and strategizing that typically goes into launching a presidential campaign.
As news of Pence’s decision to suspend his campaign spread, it sparked a flurry of reactions from both supporters and critics alike. Supporters expressed disappointment, as they had rallied behind Pence’s previous positions and hoped to see him lead the nation in the upcoming election. On the other hand, critics saw this revelation as evidence of incompetence and questioned Pence’s ability to effectively represent the American people.
The repercussions of this revelation are far-reaching, not only for Pence but also for the broader political landscape. With one less candidate in the race, other contenders now have the opportunity to reposition themselves and potentially gain an advantage. Moreover, this development serves as a reminder of the unpredictable nature of politics and the unexpected twists and turns that can shape electoral campaigns.
While Pence’s decision to suspend his campaign may have disappointed some and relieved others, it serves as a reminder that timing and self-reflection play crucial roles in the pursuit of any ambition. As the political landscape continues to evolve, only time will tell how this revelation will impact the 2024 presidential race and the candidates vying for the nation’s highest office.
Yes, you read that right. Mike Pence was, in fact, running for President. Millions of Americans were equally surprised to learn this news, as they had no idea he was even in the race. It’s as if he was playing a high-stakes game of “Where’s Waldo,” but forgot to tell anyone he was Waldo.
In the world of politics, where visibility and public perception can make or break a candidate’s chances of success, there is a group of individuals often overlooked and overshadowed by their more prominent counterparts. These individuals are the invisible candidates, whose voices are drowned out in the crowded field of politics.
Who are the invisible candidates? They are the underdogs, the overlooked, and the marginalized. They may lack the resources or the connections to gain widespread recognition, or they may have unconventional viewpoints that are not deemed mainstream. Regardless of the reasons, they find themselves struggling to be heard and seen in a political landscape dominated by well-funded campaigns and media-savvy personalities.
Yet, despite their challenges, the invisible candidates play a crucial role in our democratic society. They bring alternative perspectives, fresh ideas, and often champion causes that are overlooked by the mainstream candidates. Their presence challenges the status quo and pushes the boundaries of political discourse. While their chances of winning may be slim, their influence can be far-reaching.
The plight of the invisible candidates highlights the need for a more inclusive and diverse political system. It reminds us that talent and potential exist beyond the boundaries of traditional power structures. By paying attention to their voices and ideas, we can create a more representative democracy that truly reflects the interests and concerns of all citizens.
So how can we, as voters and citizens, support the invisible candidates? Firstly, we can educate ourselves about their platforms and positions. By seeking out information and engaging with their ideas, we give them the recognition they deserve. We can also amplify their messages by sharing their stories and advocating for their inclusion in debates and forums.
Furthermore, we can challenge the dominance of money and media in politics. By advocating for campaign finance reform and supporting independent media sources, we can create a more level playing field for all candidates, visible or invisible. Lastly, we can encourage political parties and institutions to be more inclusive in their candidate selection processes, ensuring that a diverse range of voices are given the opportunity to be heard.
In conclusion, the crowded field of invisible candidates may seem daunting, but it is a reminder of the resilience and diversity of our political landscape. Their presence challenges the existing power structures and forces us to reconsider our preconceived notions of who can be a viable candidate. By supporting and amplifying the voices of the invisible candidates, we can foster a more inclusive and representative political system for the benefit of all.
Pence found himself struggling to gain traction in a field so crowded, it made a Black Friday Walmart look empty. It turns out, being the invisible man in a sea of attention-grabbers is not the best strategy for a presidential run. Who knew?
While Pence cited “This is not my time” as the reason for suspending his campaign, insiders suggest that the real reason might be far more intriguing than a simple statement. Speculations are circulating among political circles, hinting at a rather unexpected motive that could potentially explain his abrupt decision. Surprisingly enough, rumors suggest that it all started with a seemingly innocent activity: Pence finally decided to check his campaign’s Twitter account.
It is said that the Vice President, known for his reserved and calm demeanor, was taken aback when he stumbled upon a startling revelation. The followers count of his official campaign account paled in comparison to that of a parody account featuring his beloved pet rabbit. Yes, you heard it right – a parody account of his fluffy friend had managed to accumulate more followers than Pence’s own campaign profile. This unexpected turn of events undoubtedly left Pence contemplating the significance and implications of this virtual popularity contest.
As the story goes, whispers of this embarrassing discovery quickly made their way through the political grapevine, reaching the ears of insiders and close confidants, who couldn’t help but speculate about the underlying reasons behind Pence’s sudden decision. Some assert that this seemingly trivial incident deeply shook the Vice President’s confidence, leading him to question his campaign’s influence and resonance among the public.
Another theory floating in the corridors of power suggests that Pence might have seen this incident as a sign, a metaphorical wake-up call urging him to reflect on the state of his campaign and consider the viability of his political aspirations. After all, in the era of social media and digital engagement, the number of followers can be interpreted as a measure of popularity and support.
Whatever the true motivation may be, the future aspirations of Pence in the political arena remain uncertain. Will he bounce back? Will he take the time to reassess and re-strategize? Only time will tell. One thing is for sure though, this somewhat whimsical situation has captured the imagination of political pundits and social media enthusiasts alike, reminding us of the unpredictable twists and turns that often shape the world of politics.
So, what have we learned from this short-lived and largely unnoticed campaign?
On this campaign, one important lesson that stands out is the significance of effective communication when running for the highest office in the land. It is essential for candidates to make their intentions known and to actively engage with the public. Unfortunately, in this case, the lack of awareness surrounding the campaign may have hindered its potential.
Moreover, it is crucial for candidates to carefully consider their public statements and media interactions. A notable example is the ill-fated Tucker Carlson interview, where the candidate in question made a remark that the plight of the middle class “isn’t my concern.” Such a statement, regardless of context, can have serious repercussions on one’s public image and overall campaign credibility.
This serves as a reminder that candidates should demonstrate empathy and address the concerns of all sections of society, including the middle class who often play a pivotal role in shaping the nation’s economic landscape. Ignoring or dismissing their struggles can alienate a significant portion of the electorate, ultimately impacting the campaign’s success.
While it is crucial for campaign teams to create effective strategies and ensure strong messaging, it is equally important for candidates themselves to actively partake in the campaigning process. They must demonstrate their commitment, communicate their stance on critical issues, and connect with voters to foster trust and support.
In conclusion, this short-lived and largely unnoticed campaign serves as a valuable reminder of the importance of active engagement, effective communication, and thoughtful consideration of public statements. These factors can significantly impact the success or failure of a campaign, ultimately shaping the perception of the candidate within the electorate. Being mindful of all these aspects can help future candidates in their pursuit of the highest office in the land.
George T Fisher 