He detonated a device when he attracted the attention of soldiers in the station, the paper says.
These attacks are endless now. Interspaced in this was one ineffective anti-Muslim terror attack. In the main, the attacks are one way EXCEPT for the fact that NATO is attacking Muslims who are ‘liberal’ and siding with radical anti-Christian/anti-Israel terrorists who our Bilderberg gangsters want in power so they can scare the rest of us to death and force us to side with our Rulers who will then expel these terrorists once they wipe us out or knock us terrified to cringe at home and not fight the rulers.
NYT Columnist: Deport Americans, Not Illegal Immigrants » Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind! This was an attempt by the new hire of a ‘conservative’ commentator (who worked for the Wall Street Journal!) to be ‘funny’ by talking about deporting citizens and replacing them with terrorists and aliens who hate America:
“The United States has too many people who don’t work hard, don’t believe in God, don’t contribute much to society and don’t appreciate the greatness of the American system,” Stephens wrote in the piece.
He argued that this description applies to many American citizens whose families have been in the country for generations.
Watch it, buddy. This Jewish writer came several centuries after my family. We have been here since the 1600’s. This is ridiculous.
He then goes on to break down how American natives are more likely to be locked up, less educated, less religious, less entrepreneurial, more likely to have children out of wedlock, count more teen delinquents among their ranks and have fewer children than their immigrant — both legal and illegal — peers.
So, he is demanding we deport US citizens who came over here two or three centuries ago as slaves? Aha. They have teens giving birth out of wedlock, for example. This is the NYT brand of ‘funny’.
Bret Stephens was recently hired by the New York Times to be a ‘conservative’ commentator. He isn’t one, he is a Bilderberg buddy from the Wall Street Journal who is yet another Trump attack artist. Here is his bio:
Stephens was born in New York City, the son of Xenia and Charles J. Stephens, a former vice president of General Products, a chemical company in Mexico. His parents were both secular Jews. His paternal grandfather had changed the family surname from Ehrlich to Stephens (after poet James Stephens). He was raised in Mexico City, where his father was born and worked. In his adolescence, he attended boarding school at Middlesex School in Massachusetts. Stephens received an undergraduate degree in political philosophy from the University of Chicago before earning a master’s degree in comparative politics at the London School of Economics.
He also worked for the Big Bilderberg Rag in Brussels, The Wall Street Journal Europe.
This NYT writer whines about boys getting boy stuff. I have a grandson. He likes…boys stuff and his liberal mother gives him all sorts of things but he loves…boy stuff! Imagine that.
At a Father’s Day breakfast, my 5-year-old son and his classmates sang a song about fathers, crooning about “my dad who’s big and strong” and “fixes things with his hammer” and, above all else, “is really cool.”
In my family, grandma is the one using tools and building stuff. And…I play with this with my grandson. But this is because he wants this. There is no ‘sex’ involved, I have a brain that is a bit more ‘male’ than ‘female’ and was called a ‘tomboy’ when young. Fine. There are grades of differentials between the sexes with feminine men and masculine women with most being in the middle of the sex ratios.
Now, there’s nothing wrong with most of these qualities in and of themselves. But when these lyrics are passed down as the defining soundtrack to masculine identity, we limit children’s understanding not just of what it means to be a father but of what it means to be a man — and a boy, as well.
I had to sue to gain access to ‘boy classes’ in high school. Years after I won, girls still didn’t go enthusiastically to these classes but that is OK. I never expected more than a quarter of the girls to want to take auto mechanics, draft drawing classes or men’s sports (I even sued to play catcher on the boy’s baseball team in 1966).
When fathers appear in children’s picture books, they’re angling for laughs, taking their sons on adventures or modeling physical strength or stoic independence. There is the rare exception in children’s books where a father baldly demonstrates — without symbolic gestures — his love for his son (a few are “Guess How Much I Love You” and “Oh, Oh, Baby Boy!”). Just as women’s studies classes have long examined the ways that gendered language undermines women and girls, a growing body of research shows that stereotypical messages are similarly damaging to boys.
I loved boy’s books. Loved adventure stories. I would read these and pretend the young boys in these books were actually young girls having adventures. I love Asimov’s books (and got to know him in Greenwich Village years later!) because his ‘Empire’ books had active girls as well as boys having wild adventures across galaxies.
Women often say they want men to be emotionally transparent with them. But as the vulnerability and shame expert Brené Brown reveals in her book, “Daring Greatly,” many grow uneasy or even recoil if men take them up on their offer.
Women say one thing and do the opposite. Ask any man about this. HAHAHA. Love it.
Indeed, a Canadian study found that college-aged female respondents considered men more attractive if they used shorter words and sentences and spoke less. This finding seems to jibe with Dr. Brown’s research, suggesting that the less men risk emoting verbally, the more appealing they appear.
See? Drink a beer and yell, ‘Stella!’
Judy Chu, a human biologist, conducted a two-year study of 4- and 5-year-old boys and found that they were as astute as girls at reading other people’s emotions and at cultivating close, meaningful friendships. In her book “When Boys Become Boys” she maintains that by the time the boys reached first grade, sometimes earlier, they traded their innate empathy for a learned stoicism and greater emotional distance from friends. Interestingly, they adopted this new behavior in public, exclusively, but not at home or when their parents were around.
Boys practice this ‘reading female’ skills by trying to figure out what their pesky moms are thinking or planning. Girls just assume they know what is going on and usually wrap daddy around little fingers. Their problem is, mommy can read THEM like a book having been a little girl, too, long ago.
How can we change this? We can start, says Dr. David, by letting boys experience their emotions, all of them, without judgment — or by offering them solutions. This means helping them learn the crucial lessons that “Emotions aren’t good or bad” and that “their emotions aren’t bigger than they are. They aren’t something to fear.”
Good gods, that will backfire. Smart boys will humor the adults and pretend to show interest in the psychological hang-ups of girls and then go off into the landscape outside and make fun of all this with their friends.
Say to boys: “I can see that you’re upset,” or ask them, “What are you feeling?” or “What’s going on for you right now?” There doesn’t have to be any grand plan beyond this, she says. “Just show up for them. Get them talking. Show that you want to hear what they’re saying.”
‘I can see you are upset,’ says someone to me when I was pissed off as a child. ‘I think I will go outside and practice throwing rocks at tin cans on the fence,’ I would say and stalk off. Target practice was the best way to get some control over my anger issues or other feelings. Going deep into the desert or even up a canyon or beyond for a few hours worked great. The last thing I wanted was to argue about this with humans.
Talking to saguaros or my horse, Socksie, or the dogs and cats, that was useful. Many readers of the NYT article sound like me:
jojojo12 Richmond, Va 3 hours ago
Our boys and young men need help, not lectures on how to be “better males” for someone else’s sake, but what they get are such lectures.
Our boys and young men commit suicide 4 times as much as our girls and young women, according to the National Suicide Hotline.
Our boys get ritalin forced on them far more often than girls, get kicked out of school more, drop out of school more, go to jail more, and go on to get only 40% of college degrees. Read that again. If these numbers were reversed according to gender, they would be on the front pages and would be the lead stories on cable news, and rightly so. Why do we ignore them when they apply to boys? We even celebrate them as triumphs for girls. Read Hanna Rosin’s The End of Men. She admits as much.
Our boys need help, not lectures, and certainly not celebrations of their falling further and further behind.
Zero readers gave a thumb’s up to this comment! But I agree 100% with this comment!
When Nirao Shah decided in 1998 to study sex-based differences in the brain using up-to-the-minute molecular tools, he didn’t have a ton of competition. But he did have a good reason.
No one wants to study why male brains work better, often, than female brains when it comes to intellectual stuff.
“I wanted to find and explore neural circuits that regulate specific behaviors,” says Shah, then a newly minted Caltech PhD who was beginning a postdoctoral fellowship at Columbia. So, he zeroed in on sex-associated behavioral differences in mating, parenting and aggression.
“These behaviors are essential for survival and propagation,” says Shah, MD, PhD, now a Stanford professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of neurobiology. “They’re innate rather than learned — at least in animals — so the circuitry involved ought to be developmentally hard-wired into the brain. These circuits should differ depending on which sex you’re looking at.”
Yes, these evolved due to men who could hunt, fight and f*ck and who could protect their children and grandchildren…for three million years, bit by bit, successful humanoid males were strong, had leadership abilities, hunting skills, language stuff, and could knap rocks really, really good, etc. Evolution at work!
At the time, this was not a universally popular idea. The neuroscience community had largely considered any observed sex-associated differences in cognition and behavior in humans to be due to the effects of cultural influences. Animal researchers, for their part, seldom even bothered to use female rodents in their experiments, figuring that the cyclical variations in their reproductive hormones would introduce confounding variability into the search for fundamental neurological insights.
Um, this is funny news: all those rat studies were male rats!
Halpern and others have cataloged plenty of human behavioral differences. “These findings have all been replicated,” she says. Women excel in several measures of verbal ability — pretty much all of them, except for verbal analogies. Women’s reading comprehension and writing ability consistently exceed that of men, on average. They outperform men in tests of fine-motor coordination and perceptual speed. They’re more adept at retrieving information from long-term memory.
Women stayed ‘home’ (caves, trees, tents) and talked nonstop. Ask any female. Yack, yack, yack! Men, hunting, had to be mostly silent. Try hunting while yapping!!! I hunt. Silence is golden. This division of labor led to evolution being very different between men and women.
Men, on average, can more easily juggle items in working memory. They have superior visuospatial skills: They’re better at visualizing what happens when a complicated two- or three-dimensional shape is rotated in space, at correctly determining angles from the horizontal, at tracking moving objects and at aiming projectiles.
AND they play difficult games like Go and Chess better than smart females! It always annoyed me, after age 12, to see young smart males sail merrily past me in these various skills while I toiled away at being at least competent but never ‘outstanding’. Pisses me off still. But this is how my hormones and brain works. Rats. But at least I could be a decent mother, more or less. Don’t ask the kid. Shhh…
Navigation studies in both humans and rats show that females of both species tend to rely on landmarks, while males more typically rely on “dead reckoning”: calculating one’s position by estimating the direction and distance traveled rather than using landmarks.
Wait! I grew up exploring mountains! I used the sun and other things like stars and relative positions of mountains, how the shade works, to locate myself in time and space. I was never lost in the mountains even at a very young age. This probably was due to being a ‘tomboy’ rather than a regular female.
Many of these cognitive differences appear quite early in life. “You see sex differences in spatial-visualization ability in 2- and 3-month-old infants,” Halpern says. Infant girls respond more readily to faces and begin talking earlier. Boys react earlier in infancy to experimentally induced perceptual discrepancies in their visual environment. In adulthood, women remain more oriented to faces, men to things.
HAHAHAHA. Except women love things, too. It is true, women look at faces and men look at sex organs first. But then, can we blame them? With my dogs, for example, the male is always wanting to stick his nose in the rear of the female and she wants to have him lick her face.
Trying to assign exact percentages to the relative contributions of “culture” versus “biology” to the behavior of free-living human individuals in a complex social environment is tough at best. Halpern offers a succinct assessment: “The role of culture is not zero. The role of biology is not zero.”
Obviously! There are several things at work here but discovering what lies underneath, what Nature endowed us due to evolution, is important and frankly, fun. It helps me greatly to learn over the years, my inability to compete with men who have the same level of intelligence, in various areas is no longer frustrating but funny. Brave to men for their special skills and women will talk you to death if you get too vain and annoying about this. Kapish?