Do not remember the past in a negative light

People who remember the past in a negative light are more likely to fall ill, researchers say.

The study by the University of Granada found people's attitude to the past, present and future influenced the perception they had of their health as well as their quality of life.

Those who looked back in anger found it harder to make an effort in their day-to-day tasks and were also more likely to perceive pain.

Co-author Cristian Oyanadel, said: 'We have observed that when people are negative about past events in their life, they also have a pessimist or fatalistic attitude towards current events.

'This generates greater problems in their relationships and these people present worse quality of life indicators.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2121060/Dont-look-anger-life--make-feel-ill-future.html#ixzz1qLzj1K00

Russia, America, and the Best Three Years By Dmitry Kosyrev

source :http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2012/03/27/russia-america-and-the-best-three-years/#.T3HjrLTRnPU.twitter

The Search For Common Values

Tensions came to a head in August 2008, when Georgia attacked what was formally its own territory at that time – South Ossetia. Its troops started killing Ossetian civilians, and Russian peacekeepers deployed there. A decision to make a military response to Georgia's punitive operation was made by the new president, Medvedev, while Putin merely informed his old friend George W. Bush about this. Bush nodded gloomily – there was nothing he could say.

It does not matter that Tbilisi launched this attack against U.S. advice, as it turned out later. This moment signified the final collapse of the already shaken status of America as the "sole superpower," and this was before the economic crisis, which was still over a month away.

Thus, President Obama had to act as a crisis manager, whereas Medvedev was positioned as the leader of a country that had consolidated itself beyond any wildest imagination. This allowed them to speak as equals. But it was not enough just to start talking – this would have happened in any event. There was more to the "the best three years." Medvedev and Obama sincerely sought friendship between their countries. They searched for issues on which they could cooperate with an open heart rather than against their will.

But this is where the real problem lies. In both countries, foreign policy relies on the support of society, which means it cannot change dramatically. So, where did that leave us?

Yes to cooperation on Afghanistan. But will we cooperate after America withdraws its troops from that country? This remains to be seen. On Iran we are cooperating to the greatest extent possible. As long as Obama is for negotiations, as he reaffirmed in Seoul, everything is fine, but there will be problems if he changes his mind. As for Libya, Moscow did not prevent the destruction of that country, which did not help the approval rating of Medvedev, who had to decide whether he should run for a second term (with a predictable outcome).

As for Syria, in general we understand each other and admit off the record that reconciliation and not regime change is what's needed. But on the record the United States says otherwise.

As for trade, we have neglected each other for too long, and it will take a long time to boost trade. For the time being, we are not bound by economic ties, and, therefore, we do not have to display caution.

But in general –- and especially compared to the first years of the decade – the state of bilateral relations seems fairly good. Now we just have to keep our foot on the gas.

RIA Novosti (www.en.rian.ru)

Hoodie Protest : RIP Trayvon Martin

source ABC, The Look Out via Yahoo News 

By DAVID MUIR (@DavidMuir) and OLIVIA KATRANDJIAN

March 25, 2012

The attorney counseling George Zimmerman, who shot unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin as he was walking home from the store with a bag of Skittles, says if charges are filed, Zimmerman will argue that he acted in self-defense and that Florida's stand-your-ground law applies.

Attorney Craig Sonner said the public is only hearing part of the story, and when all the facts come out, it will be clear that Zimmerman acted in self defense. A grand jury is scheduled to begin hearing the case April 10.

"George Zimmerman suffered a broken nose, and had an injury to the back of his head, he was attacked by Trayvon Martin on that evening," Sonner said. "This was a case of self defense."

When asked why Zimmerman went after Martin, even though a 911 dispatcher told him not to, Sonner said: "Those are questions that will be answered."

Trayvon Martin Case: Timeline of Events

Sonner said the so-called stand-your-ground law, under which a person who feels threatened is not required to retreat and can "meet force with force" if attacked, will be applicable in the case.

Sonner insisted that Zimmerman is not a racist, pointing out that he and his wife mentored for two black children for free.

Martin Family/AP Photo

 

"When I asked this mother [of the mentees], who trusted [Zimmerman and his wife], and she's an African-American, if she trusted George Zimmerman, she said she did, and I asked her if there was anything that caused her to believe that she was a racist, and she said, 'Absolutely not.' And I said, went further, 'Did you ever hear him use racial slurs in any time that you'd been around him?' And she said, 'no' as well," Sonner said.

Joe Oliver, a family friend of Zimmerman's who spoke with him this weekend, told ABC News that as a volunteer community watch commander, Zimmerman had to look out for suspicious-looking people.

"There are people who have accused George of profiling, well, I would think as a watch commander you are keeping an eye out for people you don't recognize in your neighborhood," Oliver said.

"The reason why he was following this suspicious person that he saw was because the neighborhood had a rash of break-ins," he said. "George had no intention of taking anyone's life. He cried for days after."

Oliver said the headlines have taken a toll on Zimmerman, his wife, and his family.

"He's moved, they've disconnected their phone numbers, they're in hiding, they're fearful," Oliver said.

The Zimmerman family friend also denied that a word the watchman is heard blurting out on one of the 911 tapes is the racial slur, "coon." Oliver said the word he hears Zimmerman saying is "goon."

"As far as, I mean as far as George being racist, I didn't take it as a racist term. I heard 'goon' and talking to my teenage daughter, apparently goon is a term of endearment in high school these days," he said.

"He wasn't talking to Trayvon when that comment was made. He was speaking a generality in that this suspicious person was someone who he – lumped in -- as always getting away -- goon, coon. I mean, the bottom line, he thought he needed to keep an eye on this individual for whatever reason," Oliver said.

Oliver said he believes the voice screaming for help on the 911 tape is Zimmerman's.

After talking with Zimmerman, Oliver says he's convinced that it came down to a final life-or-death moment: "At that point, either George or Trayvon was going to die."

In their Sunday sermons, pastors and church leaders across the country mourned the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed 17-year-old African-American who was killed in Sanford, Fla., last month. Some wore hoodies in Martin's honor. Many church-goers did the same.

In Atlanta, dozens wore hoodies in Martin's memory at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, where Martin Luther King Jr. once preached.

"They said his name was Trayvon Martin," a hoodie-clad Rev. Raphael Warnock said. "But he looked like Emmett Till," a reference to the 1955 case of a 14-year-old boy who was lynched for allegedly whistling at a white woman. "At least with Emmett Till someone was arrested. And that was in 1955."

Many others called for justice in the case--and for George Zimmerman, the Neighborhood Watch captain who shot Martin, to be arrested.

Rev. Jesse Jackson called Martin a "martyr," and led the congregation at the Macedonia Missionary Baptist Church in Eatonville, Fla., in a chant: "Stop the violence. Save the children."

"Whether you are wearing a hood or a sheet, nobody has the right to kill anybody," Jackson said. "The danger of focusing on the hoodie is that he wasn't killed because of the hoodie. He was killed because he was black. The issue is not the hoodie--it's race, registration and civil rights."

Jackson also compared Martin's death to Till, as well as those of slain civil rights leaders Medgar Evers and Martin Luther King.

"There's power in the blood of Emmett Till," Jackson preached. "There's power in in the blood of Medgar Evers! There's power in the blood of Dr. King!"

Slain Afghan Villagers' Families Paid $50,000 in Compensation

source ABC News via Yahoo News

by MUHAMMAD LILA (@muhammadlila)

In any war, it's one of the hardest questions to ask.

Ten years into the Afghanistan mission, as casualties mount with no real clarity about what victory would look like -- it's a question now more important than ever.

In a country filled with death, what's the price of a single life?

Two weeks ago, up to 17 Afghan villagers were methodically gunned down in the middle of the night in their Panjwaii district village. Most were shot with a single, targeted bullet to the head. Some of the dead, including nine children and three women, were then brought to a room, their clothes torn, and their still-warm bodies set afire.

The U.S. military has charged 38-year-old Staff Sgt. Robert Bales with 17 counts of premeditated murder. If convicted, he could face demotion in rank, dishonourable discharge, loss of salary, and possibly, the death penalty.

In the days that followed the attack, there was a firestorm of questions. We needed to know: Who was the shooter? What could have prompted such a heinous act? Why weren't there more safeguards in place?

Among the questions no one bothered -- or dared -- to ask is the one whose answer is the most troubling. What price could be put on those lost lives?

And today, it seems we have an answer.

Fifty thousand dollars.

Afghan officials tell ABC News that's the price paid by the U.S. military for each victim of the Panjwaii massacre. The transaction reportedly took place on Saturday at the Kandahar governor's office, in the presence of U.S. and Afghan officials, along with tribal elders from the affected villages.

In a statement to ABC News, U.S. Lt. Commander Brian Badura -- as per routine military policy -- would neither confirm nor deny the payment, saying only that individual nations "may participate in some form of restitution consistent with the cultural norms of Afghanistan."

"As the settlement of claims is in most cases a sensitive topic for those who have suffered loss, it is usually a matter of agreement that the terms of the settlement remain confidential," he said.

If the Afghan officials' statements are true, this wouldn't be the first time the United States has offered compensation to victims of U.S. actions in Afghanistan. Two years ago, after a botched night raid by NATO forces led to the death of five Afghan civilians, including at least two pregnant women, a U.S. commander reportedly offered the victims' families $30,000 in compensation.

Under the Foreign Claims Act, the U.S. military is not legally obligated to offer compensation to civilians who are killed or injured during a time of war. Still, the United States has often paid what are known as "combat damages" in regions, like Afghanistan, where compensation is the cultural norm.

The human rights group CIVIC analyzed payments made by the United States to Afghan civilians from 2006 to 2010. Their analysis included interviews with U.S. military personnel, as well as nearly 13,000 pages of claims documented released by the Department of Defense, in 2007 and 2009.

Their results reveal what they consider standard amounts the US doles out per claim. They include: $2,000 for a death, $400 for a serious injury, and $200 for a non-serious injury.

Other NATO members have their own payment formulas. The United Kingdom, for example, once gave out just $210 in compensation for an accidental death, while the Germans once gave $20,000 -- plus a new car -- after three civilians were killed at a checkpoint in 2009.

According to CIVIC, claims of up to $2,500 have to be approved by a lieutenant colonel, up to $5,000 by a colonel, and up to $10,000 by a deputy commanding general. Any claims above that are rare, and believed to require authorization from the highest military authorities.

When the Panjwaii victims met with U.S. officials, they were reportedly told the compensation had been authorized by President Obama himself.

For some, the goal behind these payments is to acknowledge that in the theater of war, mistakes happen, and innocent families need help to recover from the sudden loss of income and security that comes with losing a loved one.

From a military standpoint, some say there's another goal: It's strategic.

When civilians are killed, family members often respond with anger and rage. According to CIVIC and US officials, the likelihood that they will turn to Taliban insurgents for support increases.

"Apologizing and providing assistance is a way of saying this really was an accident," said one official who asked not to

In the case of the Panjwaii compensation, there's a question of whether the money will be enough to make amends. Internally, Afghans have a long tradition of exchanging "blood money" between rival clans and tribes, but rarely have foreigners been involved in the process.

Family members of the slain Panjwaii victims have said, repeatedly, that no amount of compensation would be sufficient, that only seeing the accused punished, in Afghanistan, in a public trial would bring them any comfort.

In other words, the villagers didn't want blood money. They wanted blood.

"The villagers aren't like animals that you can buy," a senior Afghan official told ABC News when asked about the compensation. "Yes, it's a lot of money. But their children are not coming back."

Atheists, please read my heathen manifesto

source : http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/25/atheists-please-read-heathen-manifesto

Atheists are too often portrayed as bishop-bashing extremists and any meaningful debate with the religious becomes impossible. How can this be remedied? At the Guardian Open Weekend, Julian Baggini presented his 12 rules for heathens

In recent years, we atheists have become more confident and outspoken in articulating and defending our godlessness in the public square. Much has been gained by this. There is now wider awareness of the reasonableness of a naturalist world view, and some of the unjustified deference to religion has been removed, exposing them to much needed critical scrutiny.

Unfortunately, however, in a culture that tends to focus on the widest distinctions, the most extreme positions and the most strident advocates, the "moderate middle" has been sidelined by this debate. There is a perception of unbridgeable polarisation, and a sense that the debates have sunk into a stale impasse, with the same tired old arguments being rehearsed time and again by protagonists who are getting more and more entrenched.

It is time, therefore, for those of us who are tired of the status quo to try to shift the focus of our public discussions of atheism into areas where more progress and genuine dialogue is possible. To achieve this, we need to rethink what atheism stands for and how to present it. The so-called "new atheism" may have put us on the map, but in the public imagination it amounts to little more than a caricature of Richard Dawkins, which is not an accurate representation of the terrain many of us occupy. We now need something else.

This manifesto is an attempt to point towards the next phase of atheism's involvement in public discourse. It is not a list of doctrines that people are asked to sign up to but a set of suggestions to provide a focus for debate and discussion. Nor is it an attempt to accurately describe what all atheists have in common. Rather it is an attempt to prescribe what the best form of atheism should be like.

1 Why we are heathens

It has long been recognised that the term "atheist" has unhelpful connotations. It has too many dark associations and also defines itself negatively, against what it opposes, not what it stands for. "Humanist" is one alternative, but humanists are a subset of atheists who have a formal organisation and set of beliefs many atheists do not share. Whatever the intentions of those who adopt the labels, "rationalist" and "bright" both suffer from sounding too self-satisfied, too confident, implying that others are irrationalists or dim.

If we want an alternative, we should look to other groups who have reclaimed mocking nicknames, such as gays, Methodists and Quakers. We need a name that shows that we do not think too highly of ourselves. This is no trivial point: atheism faces the human condition with honesty, and that requires acknowledging our absurdity, weakness and stupidity, not just our capacity for creativity, intelligence, love and compassion. "Heathen" fulfils this ambition. We are heathens because we have not been saved by God and because in the absence of divine revelation, we are in so many ways deeply unenlightened. The main difference between us and the religious is that we know this to be true of all of us, but they believe it is not true of them.

2 Heathens are naturalists

Heathens are not merely unbelievers: we believe many things too. Most importantly, we believe in naturalism: the natural world is all there is and there is no purposive, conscious agency that created or guides it. This natural world may contain many mysteries and even unseen dimensions, but we have no reason to believe that they are anything like the heavens, spirit worlds and deities that have characterised supernatural religious beliefs over history. Many religious believers deny the "supernatural" label, but unless they are willing to disavow such beliefs as in the reality of a divine person, miracles, resurrections or life after death, they are not naturalists.

3 Our first commitment is to the truth

Although we believe many things about what does and does not exist, these are the conclusions we come to, not the basis of our worldview. That basis is a commitment to see the world as truthfully as we can, using our rational faculties as best we can, based on the best evidence we have. That is where our primary commitment lies, not the conclusions we reach. Hence we are prepared to accept the possibility that we are wrong. It also means that we respect and have much in common with people who come to very different conclusions but have an equal respect for truth, reason and evidence. A heathen has more in common with a sincere, rational, religious truth-seeker than an atheist whose lack of belief is unquestioned, or has become unquestionable.

4 We respect science, not scientism

Heathens place science in high regard, being the most successful means humans have devised to come to a true understanding of the real nature of the world on the basis of reason and evidence. If a belief conflicts with science, then no matter how much we cherish it, science should prevail. That is why the religious beliefs we most oppose are those that defy scientific knowledge, such as young earth creationism.

Nonetheless, this does not make us scientistic. Scientism is the belief that science provides the only means of gaining true knowledge of the world, and that everything has to be understood through the lens of science or not at all. There are scientistic atheists but heathens are not among them. Science is limited in what it can contribute to our understanding of who we are and how we should live because many of the most important facts of human life only emerge at a level of description on which science remains silent. History, for example, may ultimately depend on nothing more than the movements of atoms, but you cannot understand the battle of Hastings by examining interactions of fermions and bosons. Love may depend on nothing more than the physical firing of neurons, but anyone who tries to understand it solely in those terms just does not know what love means.

Science may also make life uncomfortable for us. For example, it may undermine certain beliefs about free will that many atheists have relied on to give dignity and autonomy to our species.

Heathens are therefore properly respectful of science but also mindful of its limits. Science is not our Bible: the last word on everything.

5 We value reason as precious but fragile

Heathens have a commitment to reason that fully acknowledges the limits of reason. Reason is itself a multi-faceted thing that cannot be reduced to pure logic. We use reason whenever we try to form true beliefs on the basis of the clearest thinking, using the best evidence. But reason almost always leaves us short of certain knowledge and very often leaves us with a need to make a judgment in order to come to a conclusion. We also need to accept that human beings are very imperfect users of reason, susceptible to biases, distortions and prejudices that lead even the most intelligent astray. In short, if we understand what reason is and how it works, we have very good reason to doubt those who claim rationality solely for those who accept their worldview and who deny the rationality of those who disagree.

6 We are convinced, not dogmatic

The heathen's modesty about the power of reason and the certainty of her conclusions should not be mistaken for a shoulder-shrugging agnosticism. We have a very high degree of confidence in the truth of our naturalistic worldview. But we do not dogmatically assert it. Being open to being wrong and to changing our minds does not mean we lack conviction that we are right. Strength of belief is not the same as rigidity of dogma.

7 We have no illusions about life as a heathen

Many people do not understand that it is possible to lead a meaningful, happy life as a heathen, but we maintain that it is and can point to any number of atheist philosophers and thinkers who have explained why this is so. But such meaning and contentment does not inevitably follow from becoming a heathen. Ours is a universe without guarantees of redemption or salvation and sometimes people have terrible lives or do terrible things and thrive. On such occasions, we have no consolation. That is the dark side of accepting the truth, and we are prepared to acknowledge it. We are heathens because we value living in the truth. But that does not mean that we pretend that always makes life easy or us happy. If the evidence were to show that religious people are happier and healthier than us, we would not see that as any reason to give up our convictions.

8 We are secularists

We support a state that is neutral as regards people's fundamental worldviews. It is not neutral when it comes to the shared values necessary for people of different conviction to live and thrive together. But it should not give any special privilege to any particular sect or group, or use their creeds as a basis for policy. Politics requires a coming together of people of different fundamental convictions to formulate and justify policy in terms that all understand, on the basis of principles that as many as possible can share.

This secularism does not require that religion is banished from public life or that people may not be open as to how their faiths, or lack of one, motivate their values. As long as the core of the business of state is neutral as regards to comprehensive worldviews, we can be relaxed about expressions of these commitments in society at large. We want to maintain the state's neutrality on fundamental worldviews, not purge religion from society.

9 Heathens can be religious

There are a small minority of forms of religion that are entirely compatible with the heathen position. These are forms of religion that reject the real existence of supernatural entities and divinely authored texts, accept that science trumps dogma, and who see the essential core of religion in its values and practices. We have very little evidence that anything more than a small fraction of actual existent religion is like this, but when it does conform to this description, heathens have no reason to dismiss it as false.

10 Religion is often our friend

We believe in not being tone-deaf to religion and to understand it in the most charitable way possible. So we support religions when they work to promote values we share, including those of social justice and compassion. We are respectful and sympathetic to the religious when they arrive at their different conclusions on the basis of the same commitment to sincere, rational, undogmatic inquiry as us, without in any way denying that we believe them to be false and misguided. We are also sympathetic to religion when its effects are more benign than malign. We appreciate that commitment to truth is but one value and that a commitment to compassion and kindness to others is also of supreme importance. We are not prepared to insist that it is indubitably better to live guided by such values allied with false beliefs than it is to live without such values but also without false belief.

11 We are critical of religion when necessary

Our willingness to accept what is good in religion is balanced by an equally honest commitment to be critical of it when necessary. We object when religion invokes mystery to avoid difficult questions or to obfuscate when clarity is needed. We do not like the way in which "people of faith" tend to huddle together in an unprincipled coalition of self-interest, even when that means liberals getting into bed with homophobes and misogynists. We think it is disingenuous for religious people to talk about the reasonableness of their beliefs and the importance of values and practice, while drawing a veil over their embrace of superstitious beliefs. In these and other areas, we assert the right and need to make civil but acute criticisms.

And although our general stance is not one of hostility towards religion, there are some occasions when this is exactly what is called for. When religions promote prejudice, division or discrimination, suppress truth or stand in the way of medical or social progress, a hostile response is an appropriate, principled one, just as it is when atheists are guilty of the same crimes.

12 This manifesto is less concerned with distinguishing heathens from others than forging links between us and others

Our commitment to independent thought and the provisionality of belief means that few heathens are likely to agree completely with this manifesto. It is therefore almost a precondition of supporting it that you do not entirely support it. At the same time, although very few people of faith can be heathens, many will find themselves in agreement with much of what heathens belief. This is what provides the common ground to make fruitful dialogue possible: we need to accept what we share in order to accept with civility and understanding what we most certainly do not. This is what the heathen manifesto is really about.