FOXNews.com: Why don't people evacuate when Sandy or another major storm looms? Are they nuts?

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Why don't people evacuate when Sandy or another major storm looms? Are they nuts? Oct 29th 2012, 18:51 With Hurricane Sandy slamming into the East Coast, two men in their 20s decided, nonetheless, to kayak into the waters of Long Island Sound Sunday night.  One was rescued from the churning waters while clinging to his kayak.  The other remains missing, with the search for him being called off until the storm passes. Needless to say, rescuers were placed in harm's way by the brazen acts of these thrill seekers.  One, tragically, may no longer be alive.  So, why did they do it?  Why put their own lives at risk, risk the lives of rescuers and potentially make their loved ones grieve their loss?   Looking at the bigger picture, why do many people stay in vulnerable, storm-ravaged areas when they are told to evacuate?  What is going on inside their minds?  Feelings of invulnerability?  Death wishes?  Narcissism? Are they just jerks? No.  There is always a "why" to every seemingly inexplicable act.  All human behavior can be understood when the life stories of the actors are known and the social context for their acts understood. Many factors may be responsible for ignoring storm warnings.  First, there is the intensely personal factor of one's own history.  People who take extraordinary risks can be, for example, people who have been traumatized in the past by events beyond their control (like the sudden loss of a loved one or by abuse they could not ward off) and who have not processed their feelings of extreme vulnerability.  Using the psychological defense called "reaction formation," they turn feelings of powerlessness into their opposites—irrational feelings of invulnerability.  They can venture into peril, because they have denied all their fear, because it is simply too frightening to acknowledge. If you want to think like a psychiatrist (which, I will tell you, is its own peril), consider the fact that plucking people from rooftops often means rescuing people who needed to be rescued a long time ago—but from very different storms, and from other houses. Beyond the personal, there is the cultural.  We are living in technological times that deluge us with high-impact drama, while at the same time sterilizing the range of real human experience and, thereby, removing us from reality.  Our movies are, increasingly, about vampires and superheroes, embroiled in conflicts that dwarf and can extinguish our sensitivies, rather than kindling them.  Our wars are broadcast to us as bloodless affairs, in which "smart bombs" enter doorways and obliterate people, in which drones target our enemies and remove them and nearly every trace of them from the planet.  This is a time in which instant messaging passes for interpersonal contact, and fake Facebook profiles pass for real autobiographies.  It is a time when special effects can make us respond emotionally to scenes and situations that don't even exist.  In such times, a governor's real and heartfelt and sage warning to evacuate a coastal area may not overcome the background noise of reality shows.  The true peril of a real and large storm may just not register with folks, as it once did.  It is lost in information overload and the countless millions of fibs and big lies told through television and the Internet. Remember, the assailants in some school shootings say they are shocked to see blood shed, even though they are the ones who fired the bullets. Kayaking into a storm may now seem like an event ripe for Facebook posts and Twitter feeds.  And the life experiences—in fact, **the lives**—of the people doing the kayaking may be no more now than conduits for Tweets.  We may now be on our way to being merely feed for the Twitter feed. Being rescued from a rooftop may now be more of a gripping social media event, than a harrowing life event. We are living in times removed from ourselves, one another and reality.  In these times, even big storms (whether, by the way of wind and rain, or of ominous economic data, or news that our sworn enemies are developing nuclear arms) may not pierce our ability to fend off the facts, nor motivate us to find higher ground and keep ourselves safe and strong. Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at info@keithablow.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: How much damage could Sandy do to US economy?

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

How much damage could Sandy do to US economy? Oct 29th 2012, 13:13 Hurricane Sandy will have a devastating impact on life and property. However, gauging its ultimate impact on an economy, one that is still struggling to overcome the Great Recession but has substantial resources to overcome adversity, is far more complex than merely adding up insurance payouts and uninsured losses. Disasters can give the ailing construction sector a boost, and unleash smart reinvestment that actually improves stricken areas and the lives of those that survive intact. Ultimately, Americans, as they always seem to do, will emerge stronger in the wake of disaster and rebuild better—making a brighter future in the face of tragedy. Sandy is unusual storm and complex to gauge. Coming late in the season and combining with cold fronts to the west and north, it is really a post-tropical cyclone and has the potential to deliver epic destruction. However, coming so soon after Irene in August 2011, the level of anticipation and preparedness demonstrated by federal and state officials is commendable and should mitigate some losses—especially loss of life. Early estimates of the direct damage caused by Hurricane Irene were in the range of $7 billion but ultimately it inflicted $15 to 20 billion in damage. It seems likely that Sandy will impose greater destruction of property, and add to that the loss of about two days commercial activity, spread over a week across 25 percent of the economy, an initial estimate of the economic losses imposed by Sandy is about $35 to 45 billion. However, rebuilding after Sandy, especially in an economy with high unemployment and underused resources in the construction industry, will unleash at least $15-20 billion in new direct private spending--likely more as many folks rebuild larger than before, and the capital stock that emerges will prove more economically useful and productive. Regarding the latter, consider a restaurant with inadequate patronage—its owner invests the insurance settlement in a new more attractive business. On the shore, older smaller homes on large plots are replaced by larger dwellings that can accommodate more families during the summer tourist season. The outer banks of North Carolina saw such gains several decades ago after rebuilding from a storm of similar scale. All of this is not to discount the direct costs to individuals by temporary, and in some cases permanent, disruption to lives and communities, much of which cannot be quantified. However, when government authorities facilitate rebuilding quickly and effectively, the process of economic renewal, in many tangible ways, can leave communities better off than before. Factoring in the multiplier effect of $15-20 billion spent rebuilding yields an economic benefit from reconstruction of about $27-36 billion. Add to that the gains from more a more modern and productive capital stock-likely in the range of $10 billion-and consumer and business spending that is only delayed but not permanently lost-likely in the range of $12 billion-and the total effects of natural disasters of the scale of Sandy are not as devastating two years down the road. Peter Morici is an economist and professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, and widely published columnist. Follow him on Twitter @PMorici1.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Mainstream media twists Mourdock's comments about God and life into something unrecognizable

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Mainstream media twists Mourdock's comments about God and life into something unrecognizable Oct 29th 2012, 13:52 This election keeps spiraling down into the drain. The Obama administration has oozed from Joe Biden's "chains" comment right into the sewer. Why blame your opponents for wanting to reinstitute slavery when you can try to link them to sex crimes? Liberals took a comment from an Indiana GOP senatorial candidate Richard Mourdock and totally misrepresented it. And the American media helped. Mourdock has been depicted as somehow "pro-rape" for making a pro-life comment. "I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God," Mourdock said. "And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." The media have repeated the "something God intended to happen" comment as if he meant the rape. Or that Mourdock thinks God meant for the rape to happen. This is a flat out lie, the kind we've grown to expect after decades of abuse at the hands of so-called "neutral" journalists. The news media have almost no understanding of faith and even less grasp of the pro-life movement. No one running for office on left or right is "pro-rape," but those who respect life especially respect innocent life. That even means life resulting from something as "horrible" as rape. The news media have almost no understanding of faith and even less grasp of the pro-life movement. No one running for office on left or right is "pro-rape," but those who respect life especially respect innocent life. That even means life resulting from something as "horrible" as rape. - Only in our modern media culture could that be twisted the way it has. This is a far cry from binders, Big Bird and bayonets – the inanities that now infect our public debate. To unfairly link anyone in any way to rape is simply despicable. And that's exactly what news outlets did. On Oct. 24, just two weeks before the election, all three broadcast morning shows tied the Mourdock comment to Mitt Romney. Longtime Democratic operative George Stephanopoulos showed his team colors, "Mitt Romney catching some flak for his ties to a GOP Senate candidate making controversial comments about abortion and rape in a Tuesday debate." Print media did the same. Over the last three months, The New York Times and Washington Post have both run nearly 100 pieces mentioning the GOP and rape. The Post's Karen Tumulty reflected that theme in an Oct. 25 piece that said Mourdock "ignited a controversy." Of course, Tumulty also referenced the media-hyped, Republican "war on women." But the wackiest parts of the lefty universe have been the most over-the-top with rape allegations. The Soros-supported fringe publication Alternet ran five "rape" headlines in just a few days. "Republicans' Shocking Positions on Rape and Pregnancy Aren't Outliers -- They're Central to the GOP Agenda," claimed the site Oct. 25.  Only the news media made Mourdock's comment controversial. It's not inherently controversial to say an unborn baby is a life that must be preserved. Half of all Americans are pro-life and the pro-abortion numbers are plummeting. Except in newsrooms, where abortion support is nearly unanimous. A 1995 study of the media elite showed that 97 percent "agreed that 'it is a woman's right to decide whether or not to have an abortion,' and five out of six (84 percent) agreed strongly." Based on news coverage of the issue, those numbers remain constant. The media leave the abortion debate almost entirely in the hands of the left. Liberals are seldom made to defend their extreme positions. Only conservatives have to do that. Meanwhile, journalists who wail every time a tree is cut down or a polar bear is threatened couldn't care less about the loss of human babies. Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center's Vice President for Business and Culture. He writes frequently about media for Fox News Opinion. He can also be contacted on Facebook and Twitter as dangainor.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Why I am voting for Mitt Romney

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Why I am voting for Mitt Romney Oct 29th 2012, 07:00 Each time I mention that I voted for Barack Obama in 2008, I get a blast from some who didn't. "How could you be so dumb?" is a typical response to my confession. It is certainly a confession — of error. Obama fooled me once, but not twice. I'm voting for Mitt Romney Nov. 6th. To understand why I'm switching, it helps to understand why I backed Obama four years ago. I am a Democrat, but vote as an independent. I see people, not parties, so Obama's label played no role. My choice involved a simple calculation. Would John McCain or Obama be more likely to forge a consensus on big issues? America was dangerously polarized, and unable to act in ways that even 60 percent of the public could support. History shows that paralysis leads to disaster. The war on terror was falling out of favor, despite the continuing threat. Good ideas were getting thrown out with the bad and Republicans had squandered the chance to govern. When the financial crisis hit, McCain stumbled. He wanted to postpone a debate and rushed back to Washington — but had nothing to say or do. Obama kept silent and followed the lead of congressional Democrats. While not exactly great statesmanship, he at least looked steady. McCain, a genuine American hero, often revealed his maverick streak, his choice of Sarah Palin being Exhibit A. Despite doubts about her readiness, I found myself defending her against the vicious attacks from the left, especially by women. McCain was my real problem. Mavericks make good whistleblowers and lousy CEOs. Upsetting the apple cart is not a qualification for the Oval Office. Obama's soaring rhetoric enticed me at first, and I agreed that a restoration of the Clinton presidency would be a bad idea. Still, I got a jolt of Messiah Alert when he said his rise marked the moment "when the planet began to heal." Where he totally fooled me was his claim to be a pragmatist, not an ideologue. He spoke of uniting the country and I believed he was capable and sincere. That he won 70 million votes and more than two-thirds of the Electoral College spoke to his appeal. He failed as president because he is incompetent, dishonest and not interested in the actual work of governing. His statist policies helped consign millions of Americans to a lower standard of living and his odious class warfare further divided the nation. He had no intention of uniting the country — it was his Big Lie. I don't hate him. But I sure as hell don't trust him. As for the desperate charge that opposition to Obama makes me a racist, let me note that he was black when I voted for him. Which brings us to Romney. A year ago, I thought he might be acceptable, maybe the only one in the GOP field. Now I see him as much more than acceptable. During the long slog, Romney revealed qualities that could make him a very good president. There is not a hint of scandal in his life or career, and his economic policies could spark real growth in jobs, not in food stamps. He keenly recognizes the danger of the growing debt. With Paul Ryan, he chose a youthful, smart No. 2 who possesses deep knowledge of the budget mess and yet an optimistic view of America's future. On the foreign stage, Romney is a novice, but his instincts about American power are right and his remarks in the last debate about Obama's apology tour were a defining difference. It is impossible to imagine Romney going abroad to criticize his country, or lying about the murder of an ambassador. The challenger is right when he says Obama has made the nation less safe. Romney is no "movement conservative," but is moderate and prudent in the everyday ways of most Americans. As he proved in Massachusetts, he can work with Democrats to get things done. As for being a Mormon, to hold that against Romney is pure bigotry. His election would knock down one more barrier to equality of opportunity. Finally, there is temperament. Romney's firm, steady demeanor during Obama's rancid attempts at character assassination demonstrates the presidential character lacking in the incumbent. That's the change I want for my country. To continue reading Michael Goodwin's column in the New York Post on other topics including the New York Times, click here. Michael Goodwin is a Fox News contributor and New York Post columnist.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: What I'm scared of this Halloween

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

What I'm scared of this Halloween Oct 27th 2012, 09:00 One of my favorite Bugs Bunny cartoons is when Bugs is being chased by an ugly witch intent on turning him into a rabbit stew. Of course he outwits her. He's Bugs. But at the end, she changes from the crone to a seductive, curvaceous bunny. Bugs is smitten. He immediately offers his arm. As he walks off into the Looney Tune sunset with his lady, he turns back to the audience and says, "Ah sure, I know. But aren't they all witches inside?" Actually, like Bugs, witches, goblins, and spooks don't bother me. I have an alarm system against Jason and that guy with the chainsaw. Vampires are silly with their nocturnal nonsense and, in my mind, Zombies stay in their graves and even if they didn't, what is there to fear from creatures who eat brains? But I will confess what really scares me—dating . . . which is ironic since I make my living writing about people falling in love. You know, the torrid covers, the happy endings, the pages and pages of fun interplay between the sexes. Well, let me tell you, there is a big disconnect between falling in love and the necessary ritual of actually going out and spending time with people over whom I have no control. Real people. Oh, I see the advantages to dating. Dating is a necessary evil. It leads to love. Not the amorphous, let's all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya" to save the world kind of love. Not the love of pets and ideas and all good things that make life sweet sort of love. But the kind of love that is rare, that is wondrous, that is brilliant—the love that makes life suddenly worth living. The sort of love that is based upon commitment and a zillion other promises that will be broken or not depending on the vagaries of life. The love that is at the heart of every book I write. But it can be painful to reach that point. I'll talk to a 15-year-old and a 50-year-old and the challenges of dating are the same for both. There is no learning curve. The awkwardness is still there and always will be. People lie, or they don't, and it may take several dates to ferret out the truth. The blow hard will always be the blowhard whether he or she is 28 or 80. Guys only have one thing on their mind, and so do gals (Actually, this isn't a bad thing.) Maturity continues to not be valued. The same is true for a "great personality" or "nice eyes." And the excuses haven't changed much either. "I'm busy" means anything from "I truly have something to do," to "Do not call me, ever." I was always puzzled why the teenager in the movies went out into the night, especially after hearing the buzz of the chainsaw. What compels a person to take that one step too far toward hair-raising disaster? Why move from the light into the dark of unknown? There can only be one answer: it is the hope that this time it will be different. We want to believe the best in ourselves and ghouls. Not only is there safety on the other side of the abyss, there is a life that may be far better than what we are living now. Perhaps taking a risk, putting ourselves out there, coupling off, is just part of our DNA. Will the mating dance ever change? Sure, when sequels to horror movies come to an end, which means never. And that leaves me with only direction to follow--go out into the night. So, if you will excuse me, I'm going to wrap a garland of garlic around my neck, grab a few stakes, and head out the door for a coffee "meet." Maybe this time will be different . . . Cathy Maxwell is the New York Times best-selling author of nearly twenty-five Avon romances. She is co-author of "For Love and Honor" (Avon Impulse June 5, 2012). A former US Navy officer, she lives outside Richmond, Virginia with her children, two dogs, a cat and two horses.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Mainstream media watchdogs are toothless covering Obama and Libya scandal

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Mainstream media watchdogs are toothless covering Obama and Libya scandal Oct 27th 2012, 13:42 When Mitt Romney chose not to directly engage President Obama on Libya in last Monday's third presidential debate, the mainstream media wrote it off as over-caution on the Republican challenger's part. That might be true. Certainly a lot of Republicans think so. But what is the mainstream media's excuse for cautiously engaging the president on Libya?  Aren't we supposed to be watchdogs?  The ongoing story is story focused on whether the Obama administration provided, or refused to provide, adequate protection for the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it faced the threat of attack on Sept. 11. The attack left the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans dead. Subsequent conflicting accounts coming from the administration on how the White House responded, or didn't respond, are tailor-made for a full-blown media feeding frenzy. Yet, the so-called media watchdogs so far have been mostly toothless. Case in point:  On Friday, FoxNews.com reported that it "learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command... -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11." That's a very chilling story. And if correct, it could be very damaging to the President Obama's re-election chances.  But looking at the websites Friday of other major news outlets, the story is mostly ignored. It was not picked up or reported by The New York Times. The Washington Post didn't cover it either. Same for USA Today. Neither did NBC, CBS, CNN or ABC. CNN had a link on its Website front page to a story that says "doubts surface" on whether claims of responsibility for the Benghazi attacks was the work of terrorists.  The story mostly supports administration accounts and refutes Republican critics such as Sen. John McCain, (R-Ariz.) NBC's only Friday story on Libya said in its headline. "Libya Disappears from Romney Stump Speeches."   CBS's latest story on Libya had House Speaker John Boehner asking Obama for "answers" about the attacks. On Thursday, the major media were loaded with stories and videos in which Defense Secretary Leon Panetta defended the administration saying that the US military did not respond to the attack because in did not have adequate "real-time information" to put American forces at risk. Not much follow-up on that. Also on Thursday, NBC's Brian Williams interviewed Obama on "Rock Center" asking him what can only be described as a "softball" question on Libya: "Have you been happy with the intelligence, especially in our post 9/11 world?  The assessment of your intelligence community, as we stand here, is that it still was a spontaneous terrorist attack and were you happy with what you were able to learn as this unfolded?" A tougher question might have been, "Why have the administration's explanations of what really happened, and how you responded, been all over the map?" So what's going on here? Are the media just protecting Obama at a critical time in this election campaign, or are they just not following the latest CIA story because they would have to give credit to Fox News?   Whatever the reason, it is not good watchdog journalism.   Richard Benedetto is a retired USA Today White House correspondent and columnist. He now teaches politics and journalism at American University and in the Fund for American Studies program at Georgetown University.  As a reporter, Benedetto covered every Democratic and Republican National Convention between 1972 and 2004.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Why Michael Phelps (and no one) can be named the fittest man of all-time

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Why Michael Phelps (and no one) can be named the fittest man of all-time Oct 27th 2012, 09:00 People use the term "fitness," but few people if anyone really understands the concept well enough to define it in a way that all can agree upon. Fitness is composed of five separate components (also referred to as "abilities"): muscular strength, muscular endurance, cardio, neuro, and flexibility. Athletes develop and combine these components in order to best perform their specific skill set(s.) Some athletes may require fantastic flexibility while others require great muscular endurance, but there is no way to compare one ability against another. Overall fitness is not just the sum of these parts, but is affected by the mindset, heart, intelligence, drive, determination, and spirit of the individual athlete. Therefore, to call Michael Phelps, or anyone else for that matter, "the all-time fittest man" is unclear, and leaves a lot to be desired. Almost any of the men on the top 50 list could have been arguably the all-time fittest man. Heck, there have even been a few Eastern-bloc female athletes that might have made the list.  How did Al Oerter get left off the list?  Where are the gymnasts, and the springboard divers?  We can all appreciate how truly inspirational our greatest athletes have been, but there is no way to compare athletes from different sports. We don't know whether pitchers are better athletes than hitters or fielders, but we know we can't compare one against the other. "The Greatest,"  "The Myth," "The Man," "Sweetness," "Magic," "Charlie Hustle," "The Great One," "Mr. October," "The Golden Bear," "The Real Deal," "The Mailman," "The Worm," "His Airness," and many others could vie for the title. There are, however, two more factors worthy of considerations for this discussion: longevity, and drug scandals.  Many of our top performers have had relatively short careers, while others have had careers that spanned  three, four, and even five decades. How do we compare "Mr Hockey," with his record-setting 40+  NHL career, to that of The Baltimore Bullet?  No can do.  Do we even want to try to compare the drug-enhanced performance phenoms to the clean and natural athletes who are out there paying the price for their fitness?  I don't think so. Michael Phelps has shown us some amazing performances in the swimming pool, as did Mark Spitz and Greg Louganis before him. His skill level is top notch, his talent unquestionable, his drive and determination superior, and his training routines must be intense.  The question is, do I consider Michael Phelps the fittest man of all time? I have to agree with Sebastian Coe, director of the 2012 Games and no slouch himself when it comes to fitness records, when he says that he doesn't think Phelps is the greatest.  I still remember when Michael got caught doing drugs shortly after the 2008 Games. I know that in 2012 he placed fourth in an Olympic final. Fourth!   Essentially, we're talking about a man with an eight-year career, who has competed spectacularly well in three Olympic Games and took only a fifth place in his first Games. Maybe, just maybe, after another 50 years, when he's 78, I'd consider him for the honor, if he can show me a lifetime of astonishing fitness achievements, across a broad variety of sports and skills. Until then, Walt Stack, Johnny Weissmuller, Al Oerter, Dean Karnazes, Carl Lewis and many others have all showed me more, for far longer than Michael Phelps, brilliant as he has been. Dr. Doug Graham is a Fitness Expert, a Doctor of Health, author of The 80/10/10 Diet, and an Olympic trainer. He trained recent 2012 Olympians Isa Philips and Ohenewa Akuffo.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »