Category Archives: Academic Coaching

USA next president

I love Hillary. She gave it straight to Bernie about him supporting the NRA lobby!

She is rightfully going to be the next President of the United States of America.

It is high time to have a woman president. Especially one with experience in Foreign Affairs. One who knows the KGB agents, like e.g. Putin, and can tell a dictator form afar. Go Hillary!

MEDIA
The Media Have a Hillary Story and They’re Sticking to It
The Clintons have always been fodder for the mainstream media scandal mill and this year’s election is no different.

BY NEAL GABLER | APRIL 8, 2016

The Media Have a Hillary Story and […]
President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton talk prior to the arrival of Czech Republic President Vaclav Havel for the official State Dinner at the White House in Washington, DC, September 16, 1998. (Stephen Jaffe/AFP/Getty Images)
President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton talk prior to the arrival of Czech Republic President Vaclav Havel for the official State Dinner at the White House in Washington, DC, September 16, 1998. (Stephen Jaffe/AFP/Getty Images)
When we think of the media, we tend to think of ever-churning cycles of news and don’t usually think of how long the media stick with a narrative. Nor do we think about how the polarization of the media, particularly on the Internet, has abetted those candidates at the poles on the far left and right, while candidates of the center-right, like John Kasich, and the center-left, like Hillary Clinton, basically are left stranded without aggressive media boosters.

Clinton’s campaign is an object lesson in both these media tendencies. The MSM made up their mind on her decades ago and won’t budge. And the Internet isn’t about to come to her defense.

As the media have fired their blunderbusses at Donald Trump, trying to take down his candidacy — even as they benefit from the attention he brings them — you may have missed the whacks they’ve been taking at Clinton. She has been the media’s national piñata for so long, and the criticisms of her are so familiar by now, they are embedded in our consciousness as presumptions of guilt.

MORE; 

Screenshot of CNN coverage of the Ted Cruz National Enquirer story. (Image courtesy of Raw Story)
Why the National Enquirer’s Hot Air is Filling the MSM Balloon
BY NEAL GABLER | APRIL 1, 2016
Of course, the basic narrative is that she did this to herself because she is a bundle of character flaws. She is duplicitous and untrustworthy. She lies. She is a pawn of the rich and powerful. She feels entitled to do anything she damn pleases. That pretty much sums up the media take on Hillary, and that take is virtually unanimous, so much a given that practically no one in the media has bothered to give it a second thought. This isn’t the “sorta know” journalism I referenced last week. This is “we-all-know” journalism.

Except we don’t all know it, and neither does the press. I hold no brief for Hillary Clinton or anyone else in the race. In the electoral hurly-burly, it is the job of every candidate to hold brief for himself or herself, and the media’s job to examine that brief. Indeed, preordained, unexamined ideas are just another way the media continue to fail the public, and when it comes to Hillary Clinton, the failure is spectacular. The media needle has been stuck in the same groove for two decades. And she is not getting a reboot. David Graham at The Atlantic could have been speaking for his media confreres when he recently wrote, “Keeping track of each controversy, where it came from and how serious it is, is no small task” — before proceeding to try to do exactly that.

Whatever her faults, what really hurts Clinton may lie not so much in herself as in a post-modernist fault of the media. First, they set up a narrative — typically the sort of novelistic narrative that will give reporters traction with their readers. Then they keep pounding on it, over years, so that, in this particular case, they aren’t really reporting on Hillary Clinton anymore, they are reporting on their version of Hillary Clinton. The more they report, they more invested they become in their version.

The media never much liked the Clintons to begin with. In this election season of anti-elitism, one reason why is instructive for its condescension. As Sally Quinn, Washington Post writer and society doyenne (she was executive editor Ben Bradlee’s wife), put it in a famous, huffy 1998 article, the Clintons had sullied the White House and Washington had “been brought into disrepute by the actions of the president.” What she was really saying was that they were country bumpkins, not part of the ritzy DC establishment that she inhabited, and they needed to be punished for it. The irony is that rather than scorn the establishment that scorned them, the Clintons got into some trouble trying desperately to enter it.

But punished they have been. The New York Times’ Jeff Gerth was the first to pounce on Whitewater, the non-scandal that triggered the Clintons-are-duplicitous meme, and though, according to Joe Conason and longtime political reporter and erstwhile Clinton defender Gene Lyons, Gerth had exculpating evidence, he apparently chose not to include it. He was, one imagines, doing his best Woodward/Bernstein impression, with the Clintons standing in for Nixon.

This is how Lyons put it in a 1994 Harper’s magazine article:

Absent the near-talismanic role of The New York Times in American journalism, the whole complex of allegations and suspicions subsumed under the word ‘Whitewater’ might never have made it to the front page, much less come to dominate the national political dialogue for months at a time. It is all the more disturbing, then, that most of the insinuations in Gerth’s reporting are either highly implausible or demonstrably false.

Still, false or not, once the virus was loose, every reporter caught it, fancying himself a would-be Woodstein. Remember Travelgate? Of course you don’t. Or the scandal over the Rose legal files? I rather doubt it. Or the Vince Foster suicide? Maybe you still think Bill Clinton pulled the trigger, which is an oldie-but-goodie being shilled to this day on righ-wing sites.

Whatever you may think of the Clintons, the scandals didn’t create the meme of untrustworthiness about them. The meme of untrustworthiness created the scandals.
All, in the final analysis, were non-stories, some of them cooked up by partisans and spread by the press to accomplish exactly what the Republicans wanted to accomplish: to create a vague nimbus of guilt around the Clintons.

The operative word is “vague.” The press should have been a firewall against these allegations. Instead, they were an accelerant, not only because they didn’t like the cornpone Clintons, but because they knew the truth was likely to be far less interesting than the suspicions of wrongdoing. The media, after all, are in the reader business, not the truth business.

The bigger point is this: whatever you may think of the Clintons, the scandals didn’t create the meme of untrustworthiness about them. The meme of untrustworthiness created the scandals. The media just kept hunting for those scandals as confirmation of what they had already determined. That is how so many in the MSM work — backwards from presumption to incident. It also happens to be the surest path to career advancement for journalistic opportunists.

So we still get stories harping on Benghazi, even though investigation after investigation, including one by the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee, exculpated Clinton. But why bury a story when you just know that the Clintons are always up to something?

Or we get TV teasers just last week about Hillary Clinton “losing it” when asked by a Greenpeace activist why she takes coal and oil money, and Clinton bristled that she is tired of those “lies.” Oh, how the media loved that.

Well, guess what? The charges turned out to be vastly inflated, though, in typical media fashion, that was never the lead of the story, only the afterthought. It turns out that Clinton takes very little money from the coal and oil industry — and only from its employees. The Washington Post fact-checker even gave the Greenpeace charge three “Pinocchios” out of four. But, again, where the Clintons are concerned, the media not only assume the worst, they invariably print the worst.

And, finally, there are those emails. This is no place to rehash the controversy. It is a place, however, to report how The Washington Post published a long story by Robert O’Harrow, Jr., that got several significant facts about the emails wrong, always to Clinton’s detriment.

The error that has gotten the most attention from press critics is the number of FBI agents supposedly assigned to the case: 147! And from where did that number come? An unnamed “lawmaker” who said he had been briefed by FBI Director James Comey. Do you suppose that lawmaker was a Republican out to get Clinton, and do you suppose that a journalist looking for the truth ought to have been highly skeptical of such a source? The actual number was said to be under 50, and even that, FBI experts told NBC, was probably substantially overstated.

This is no small mistake. Nor is it necessarily an honest one. The entire article could only have been intended to hurt Clinton politically. At a time when rightwing websites are rubbing their hands in glee over the prospect of Clinton being indicted (fat chance), this is big, and it deserved both a giant retraction and self-flagellating penance from the paper. It got neither. As for the scandal itself, see Kurt Eichenwald’s take in Newsweek because you certainly won’t see this kind of analysis anywhere else in the MSM for the simple but unethical reason that the media don’t want to kill the story any more than the Republicans do. It’s just too delicious.
THE MEDIA HAVE A HILLARY STORY AND THEY’RE STICKING TO IT
A NOTE FROM BILL MOYERS — WHY THE BOSS WON’T PLAY NORTH …
THE GOP AND THE RISE OF ANTI-KNOWLEDGE
FROM BILL MOYERS — A RECOMMENDATION
WHY ARE THERE SO MANY ANONYMOUS CORPORATIONS IN DELAWARE?
No, Hillary Clinton isn’t without sin. No candidate is. But she has been deliberately and unfairly abused by the press for years, her motives always impugned, her gaffes blown out of proportion, her missteps always attributed not to miscalculations or ordinary human foible but to deep character flaws. (Just Google “Hillary Clinton” and “character.”)

To be fair, the press are usually cynical about everyone — their brief Marco Rubio obsession notwithstanding. That is the new cool. And they would be cynical about Bernie Sanders, too, if they thought he mattered, which they clearly don’t. But the Clintons, who they do think matter, got on the wrong side of the press long ago — not haute enough for the Sally Quinns of this world — and they can never get on the right side. And besides, the idea of their nefarious misdeeds makes such good copy that any reporter would really hate to give them the benefit of the doubt”

Love,
Dr Olga

http://www.olgalazin.com

My Blog: http://olgaandreimagda.blogspot.com

Advertisements

Tweet from DrOlga Lazin (@olgalazin) Us

I am decided on voting for Hillary Clinton, so you can now get a scoop here;

Vote For Hillary Clinton; http://wordpress.com/post/drolgalazinandrei.wordpress.com/2457

13015132_10105465690209826_7867897374435549672_n

DrOlga Lazin (@olgalazin) tweeted at 8:38 PM on Mon, Apr 04, 2016:
@pchdotcom we love you! From @olgalazin https://t.co/bYxHH6InTj
(https://twitter.com/olgalazin/status/717194570870562817?s=03)

Get the official Twitter app at https://twitter.com/download?s=13

Today At University of California Los Angeles -UCLA

Today at UCLA we have hosted a Seminar on the following topic:

Is George Soros a Robber Barron or a Philanthropist?

                © OLGA LAZIN

The Open Society Foundation in Central Europe or International Philanthropy In The Era Of Borderless Trade And Financial Blocs We have learned recently that George Soros, the financier, was right; markets unregulated will go array.

At times, George Soros is also is a charitable ‘robber baron”:

“I give away millions of dollars because I care about the principles of Open Society, and I can afford it.”                                                                                                   George Soros (1995)1

 

 

“Although only a few may originate policy, we are all able to judge it.”

Pericles (400 B.C.)

 

 

This chapter focuses on the rise and experience of the Open Society Foundation Network that merges the profit motive with the non-profit motive to develop locally and regionally responsible civil society through international networks of communication. Let us not forget that it was profit making that led to the creation of major U.S. foundations, so much money having been “dubiously” accumulated by capital barons that, for the money to be “saved” in the family name, it had to be donated to tax exempt organizations such as the Rockefeller Foundation.

George Soros, founder of Open Society Fund, has tried to create a new bases for civil society in places ranging from Haiti to Romania, and from China to India.

Although I began my study of philanthropy with the idea of focusing my research on the history of the Soros Foundations, that idea took new form once I met with George Soros in 1996 in New York, where I interviewed him regarding his activities around the world.

My preliminary thoughts were presented to Soros in 1995 in order to obtain his initial reaction to my hypothesis involving juxtaposition of:

  1. the stated goals and achievements of the Soros Foundations (as summarized verbatim from foundation reports, newsletters, and Soros World Wide Web pages on the Internet, as I told him during our intense discussions of May 15, 1996, in New York City) with him, and regarding his books he has published here in the United States.

 

  1. my hypothesis that he has taken a risky approach to international philanthropy that is uncommon.

In that juxtaposition I suggested that Soros, by himself, has sought to create an open society in each country, thus hoping that other U.S. and European foundations would follow him into East-Central Europe, but they did not do so.

Indeed most other foundations have not followed Soros lead because, as he himself noted in my interview with him, he has neglected the legal structure that they demand to protect themselves against risk of losing their tax-free status in their home country.

Bureaucratically conservative foundations, especially those based in the USA, where the largest corpus of tax-free funds is domiciled, do not in the main take the risks of donating abroad because they fear becoming enmeshed in legal problems related to tax reporting in their home base of operations.

Soros indicated to me his concern that scholarly analysis focusing mainly on his risk-taking approach could backfire. He is concerned that, given the anti-foreign tenor of many congressional representatives, the U.S. Congress may look for opportunities to develop legislation that could inhibit the transfer of U.S. official and private foundations assistance funds from leaving the country.

Although in my view Soros is unduly worried about possible U.S. Congressional activity against foundations,2 nevertheless, I here reorient my approach to focus on Soros as only one example of international philanthropy (here often used with a much larger connotation incorporating universities, NGOs and voluntary associations), thus also focusing my work on the rise of foundation activity such as that of the European Foundation Center and the Japan Foundation in an era when new trade and finance blocks are emerging as follows:

European Union,

Vísegrad,

NAFTA,

Mercosur,

Association of Caribbean States,

Central American Common Market,

G-3,

G-8,

Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation

My thesis is that if trade and finance must globalize to survive effectively, so must philanthropy operate in the international sphere. Soros’ approach is only one of several which helps us to rethink the method of opening all societies to change and decentralized modernization. I have personally volunteered and dedicated 20 years of my life to a non-profit, and learn all the in-s and out-s of it after meeting Soros at his Open Society headquarters in New York.

 

This paper analyzes the role of George Soros and the process of how he has assumed unique social leadership in the international philanthropic arena. He is a lone “global trouble-shooter” who, as of 1996, has donated half of his one-billion-dollar net worth to the Soros Foundation, which he has dedicated to help break statism in formerly Communist countries.

” With the breakthrough of the Internet to achieve instantaneous globalization, the Hungarian-born philanthropist has embarked on an ambitious plan to set up 30 Internet training centers across the far-flung regions of Russia 3 Bill Gates, whose business visit to Russia, just coincided with Soros’, is just following into his footsteps.4

My approach in this chapter is to suggest the reason why Soros’ noble attempt did not succeed in laying the basis for a broadly-financed and updated Marshal Plan for Eastern Europe. The goal of breaking up the statism that maintains the former Communist bloc countries as closed societies needs new NPPO laws that enable multi-track activity beyond the single-track offered by Soros. Soros funding of NPPO legal reform has encouraged only marginally countries to look outward. Ironically he is leaving them on their own to look inward for lack of information about new trends in world philanthropy.

Soros’ single-track efforts have involved creating branches of his Foundation in 25 countries of Eastern Europe, Asia, and the Middle East by using U.S. NPPO law, not fostering the law itself as the legal basis needed for Western funders, including foreign investors who establish company foundations with some of the profits. Soros has yet to realize that the ideas he supports require a tax free and tax-deductible framework for the funding of community-based foundations that are able to make the thousands of decentralized decisions that he knows no central government can efficiently make.

To understand the Soros’ initiative and its impact we must acknowledge the crisis of the modern welfare state in the USA as well as in Europe. The conviction has coalesced that overloaded and over bureaucratized government is incapable of performing the expanded task being assigned to it. The welfare state is the incompetent State.

In Eastern Europe the Incompetent State protected itself by use of totalitarian principles to maintain society closed to circulation of ideas and criticism of government. In Eastern Europe, as in the Russian Empire which was euphemistically called the “USSR,” George Orwell’s 1984 came true as the “democratic centralism” of Communist government destroyed the ability of communes to make any decisions for themselves.

 

Soros’ Background And Career As Hedge-Fund Speculator

To establish a new type of “community interest” in Eastern Europe and Russia, George Soros determined in the 1980s to use his fortune to lead the way in establishing society open to the flow of information and criticism of government.

Soros had left Hungary for England in the 1947 to put behind him the experience of having lived under German and Russian occupations. He graduated from the London School of Economics in 1952; and he moved to the USA by 1956.5 By the 1960s not only had he become an American citizen but was noted for his risk-taking investment practices especially in world financial markets, which brought him fortune as speculating in currency.

Since 1969 Soros has operated the Quantum Fund–a little-regulated, private-investment partnership based in Curaçao (off the coast of Venezuela) geared to wealthy non-U.S. individuals, who typically attempt to achieve quick, outsized returns on highly leveraged “bets” that currency will appreciate or depreciate. His bets on currency culminated in his 1992 “breaking the Bank of England,” which could not maintain the value of the pound in the face of the Soros-led speculation that England’s currency was seriously over-inflated. 6

Thirteen years before he won his six-billion bet against the pound sterling, Soros had begun to use his gains from speculation to support the opening of closed societies. He established in New York the Open Society Fund in 1979, as an NPPO to support dissidents living under the Communist regimes, but he had kept a relatively low profile in doing so.

 

Soros–The Philanthropist

Indeed Soros had been interested since his period in England to foster the democratic values of “an open society,” as defined by the philosopher Sir Karl Popper.7 Determined to make Popper’s concept workable, Soros’ Open Society Fund became the basis for the Open Society Fund, Inc. to which he has donated so much of his dubiously-earned profits to good ends.

Soros moved with high visibility into philanthropy by establishing in 1984 the Soros Foundation-Hungary and in 1987 the Soros Foundation-Soviet Union. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, Soros began to reposition himself by turning over the day-to-day management of his hedge fund to his staff so that he could immerse himself in the world of philanthropy. He was the only one who recognized and was able to do something about it that in those first moments after 1989 liberation from socialist dogma a new pattern of open society had to be set. His diagnosis was correct in that hardly had Russia and Eastern Europe overturned their dogmatic regimes that authoritarian forces attempted to seize power. This was hardly surprising because these had a complete absence of democratic experience and no modern political infrastructure was in place to support the new and fragile ‘democracies.’

By 1990 he created three more foundations, moving into Central and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, dramatically accelerating the level of his giving. As Soros explains, “I have used financial markets as a laboratory for testing my theories…[on how to capitalize on] the collapse of the Soviet Empire.”8

According to Soros’ “Personal Statement” on the Soros Foundation World Wide Web Home Page, by early 1996 he was operating foundations in 24 countries. (The total is now 23, Belarus having this month withdrawn his legal recognition of Soros Foundation- Belarus, see below.)

 

Soros As Creator Of Open Versus Closed Societies Via

The Network

To change the course of history and prevent the return of centralized authoritarian power in Eastern Europe, Soros has attempted to build the framework needed to support democracy. Thus he has established a large number of independent branch foundations that offer services and vehicles of self-expression outside the reaches of an increasingly discredited state. Since governments have neither the will nor the resources to lead the kinds of initiatives they once though that they could lead, Soros has been the leader in arguing that the vacuum of leadership should be filled by a socially responsible private sector. Therefore, Soros has tried to set the philanthropic standard by opening branches of the Open Society Foundation around the globe.

Soros’ views quoted below are taken from his oral interviews, speeches, books, articles, and foundation reports that provide the basis for his polyvalent concept ‘open society,’ as is seen for example in the 1994 Annual Report of the Soros Foundations:9

The Soros is trying to make the family of Institutions independent by encouraging them to seek other sources of funding others than his own. As the Annual Report for the year 1994 puts it, “these organizations help build the infrastructure and institutions necessary for open societies by supporting a broad array of programs for education, children and youth, media and communications, civil society, human rights and humanitarian aid, science and medicine, arts, culture, and economic restructuring” Cit.

Telecommunications and the Internet have been the main tools in Soros’ hand in his crusade for establishing the pattern of open societies. His prominent role in bringing down the Iron Curtain is indisputable.

The dramatic revolution and expansion in communications that took place during the 1980s, satellites, fax, copying machines, widespread dissemination of the computer opened the world’s even most remote areas to the expanded communications links required for mass organization and concerted action contributed and accelerated the emergence of the fourth sector all around the world.

Analysis of Soros’ use of the Internet shows how he uses electronic communication to influence other world leaders as well as how he uses the Net to unite the work worldwide of his foundations. Hence he has initiated the Soros Foundation World Wide Web home page on the Internet.

George Soros has his own foreign policy. He has the money to back up his ideas and is spending it prodigiously. In 1994 alone, Soros’ foundations around the world gave away $300 million, more than Portugal, New Zealand, or Ireland did, and he has spent a like amount in 1995. High-profile projects include a water purification plant in Sarajevo and a $500 stipend for each of 30,000 Russian scientists.10 For the Soros actual expenditures for 1994, see Tables 1 and 2.

Since 1990 he has devoted half of his income and a substantially large portion of his time and energy to developing his foundation network.11

In Soros’ view, many Russians and Eastern Europeans are disillusioned and angry with the West, because the market economy being imported lacks a concept of common interest.12 Soros agrees and notes that the U.S. model of untrammeled pursuit of self-interest does not represents the common interest. He argues that the U.S. model, which now dominates world development thinking, requires new rules and standards of behavior to circumscribe and contain competition, a measure of cooperation being needed to sustain competition.

The concept of open society is based on the recognition the world we live is inherently imperfect, as is human understanding of it, and although the U.S. model is morally corrupt, the great merit of its open society is to permit correction of faults. For Soros, the Western democracies are morally bankrupt if they subsume common interest to the pursuit of narrow self-interest. 13

Soros’ goal is to turn the closed society of totalitarianism into an open society that follows Popper’s prescription for setting “free the critical powers of man.”14 Before the revolutions that swept Central and Eastern Europe, dissidents had a similar goal; they called it “civil society,” defined by some as ”the connective tissue of democratic political culture.” 15

Soros credits his membership in the Helsinki Watch and Americas Watch human rights groups as sparking him his 1980 creation Open Society Fund to offer a number of scholarships in the United States to dissident intellectuals from Eastern Europe.16 To credit that spark, he recruited Aryen Neyer, who was the head of Human Rights Watch, to become the president of Soros’ Open Society Institute in New York City.

With the human-rights orientation of spreading information, one of Soros’ first projects had been to offer photocopying machines to cultural and scientific institutions, which was the perfect way to undermine the Communist Party control of information in Hungary. As copying machines increasingly became available in 1984, the Party apparatus could not control the machines and the dissemination of information, thus, as Soros has stated, his foundation in Hungary enabled people who were not dissidents to act, in effect, like dissidents. Similarly the Soros grant program for writers increased their independence, therefore “disarming” the Party.17

Soros also tried to set up a foundation in China, establishing in 1986 the Fund for the Opening and Reform of China. That China operation was closed down by the Chinese government after the Tiananmen Square massacre, Soros being labeled as a “CIA agent.”18 Soros is optimistic about China, however, because with the rising number of fax machines and foreigners, it will be impossible to re-establish the rigid thought-control that prevailed previously.

To serve as “prototype” of open society, Soros’ network of foundations has grown as follows: 19

1984, Hungary

1986, China

1987, Russia

1988, Poland

1990, Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, and Ukraine 1991,                               Yugoslavia

1992, Albania, Belarus, Bosnia & Hertcegovina, Croatia,                                                     Czech Republic, Latvia, Macedonia, Moldova, Slovenia

1993, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, South Africa,

1994, Georgia

1995, Haiti, South Africa, Burma

1997, Guatemala

According to Soros, these national foundations are committed to certain common goals, such as the rule of a democratically elected government, a vigorous, diverse civil society, respect for minorities, and a free market economy. They also share a commitment to working together across national, ethnic, and religious boundaries to achieve these goals and such regional objectives as cooperation and peace among neighboring countries. The manner in which they pursue these goals is up to each national foundation, which, with its own staff and board, sets program priorities in response to the particular situation and problems in each country. These national foundations support, in part or in whole, a variety of internships abroad.

Recognizing the importance of incisive and responsible journalism, the Soros Foundations fund a broad array of activities to train and equip reporters, editors, and media managers for their new responsibilities in democratic, free market societies. The ultimate goal is to create an informed electorate that has access to diverse, objective are reports supplied by a press corps with high professional standards.

Foundations in Romania, Russia, and Ukraine have sent local journalists to CNN’s U.S. headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, for the six-week International Professional Program. Foundations in the former Yugoslavia sent reporters to London for two months of training and work at the Balkan War Report, the highly regarded publication of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting. The Soros foundations’ priorities in the area of communications are support for the establishment of strong, independent media as well as the expansion of telecommunications throughout the above mentioned regions.

Censorship in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union is now less explicit than it was under communist regimes, who required that all broadcasts and newspapers pass through an official censor. Governments, however, still control much of the physical infrastructure of media transmission therefore exercising indirect censorship.20

Promptly, the National Foundations provided the print media have received access to international news services, desktop publishing equipment, electronic mail, printing presses, and even newsprint.

News outlets supported by national foundations include                              Radijocentras, Lithuania;

Radio Vitosha, Bulgaria;

Uniplus, Romania;

Radio Tallin, Estonia;

Radio Echo of Moscow, Russia;

Feral Tribune, Croatia;

Ieve magazine, Ukraine;

Pritonmost, Czech Republic;

Vreme, Yugoslavia.

In Russia, the foundation is providing funds to refurbish more than two dozen independent radio stations and to organize them into a network for sharing information.

Soros-funded programs in Romania and Macedonia have acquired second-hand printing presses in the United States. The presses were refurbished and placed in independent printing houses.    In supporting democratic movements, often times Soros is accuses of meddling in internal affairs. For example, in Romania when the Soros Foundations faced in 1991 the government’s attempt to quash news by increasing prohibitively the price of newsprint at election time, the Foundation bought newsprint abroad and trucks to import paper so that independent newspapers could continue to publish. President Iliescu subsequently accused Soros of supporting the opposition, to which Soros responded that he was only supporting a pluralistic, free press. 21

In Romania, Soros has administered since 1994 the first public surveys ever taken and published them as the “Public Opinion Barometer.” The goal is to take the pulse of opinions about the country’s economic and political life.

Soros is also founded in 1990 the Central European University (CEU) in Budapest, Prague, and Warsaw. The CEU is accredited in Hungary as degree-granting educational institution and prepares the leaders of the future. The CEU press publishing in English, Czech, Hungarian, Polish and Slovak languages provides news on the region in the domains of Literature, Political Science, Economics and European Studies.

Another fruitful program was established for the former Soviet and the Baltic states scientists, called the International Science Foundation. The scientists were given $100 million grant in order to continue their research in their native countries.22 Emergency grants were given out of $500 to some 30,000 scientists, travel grants and scientific journals were provided, and the International Science Education Program is currently working to make the Internet available not only to the scientists but also to schools, universities, libraries and media.23

The Consortium for Academic Partnership, established in 1993 , has expanded to include what Soros calls the “Virtual University,” that is a program that includes:

CEU scholarships for students to pursue doctoral work in                                      the United States and Europe;

professorial exchanges for the CEU Economics School;

Freedom Support Act Fellowships;

supplementary grants for students from the former                                                  Yugoslavia displaced by war;

supplementary grants for Burmese students.

Support of education, either directly or as a component of other programs, is the main focus of Soros foundations activity, amounting to about 50% of the expenditures, according to Soros sources.

Education based on the values of open, pluralistic, democratic societies proved to be the most effective way to break the grip of the communist past and prevent the emergence of new closed societies based on nationalism.24

One of the most comprehensive educational programs of the Soros Foundation are the Transformation of the Humanities Project and the Social Science Projects, which attempt to undo the previously state-controlled educational system in Russia and the other countries of the former Soviet Union and ex-satellite states. The ambitious project to replace Marxist-Leninist text books and teaching in school and universities has been undertaken in cooperation with the Ministry of Education and commissioned thousands of books, training professors, giving grants to innovative schools, introducing new curricula at selected demonstration sites in various disciplines.25

The new textbooks, as well as Western texts adapted and translated for Russia, are being published at a rate of ten a month and 10,000 copies a run. The Transformation of Humanities Project has been replicated in Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Romania, Bosnia and Hertzegovina, and Macedonia.

The Open Society Institute in Budapest conducts a number of research programs in collaboration with the CEU. Other foundations and programs created by George Soros include the International Science Foundation (ISF) and the International Soros Science Education Program, both of which encourage and support scientists and science teachers in the former Soviet Union so that they will remain at work in their home countries and not sell their skills to weapons producers in areas such as the Middle East.26

Russia has been a difficult country for Soros. He began organizing the Soviet Cultural Initiative Foundation in 1987 only to have the management of it fall into the hands of a reformist clique of Communist Youth League officials, who paradoxically proceeded to form a closed society to promote an open one.27

For Soros, Gorbachev had the great merit to have first shaken the rigid power structure and break the isolation into which the Soviet Union had fallen. Gorbachev thought of Europe as an open society, where frontiers lose their significance. He envisaged Europe as a network of connections, not as a geographic location, the network extending the concept of civil society through an international arena. Such ideas could not be implemented by Gorbachev, but he must be credited with having planted them in infertile soil.28

In 1995, Soros reduced his financial investments in Russia, taking a “cautiously pessimistic’ stance.29 He is concerned that the xenophobic rhetoric by communists and nationalistic groups against greedy and exploitative foreigners is intended to provide an ideological justification for keeping the markets closed and protecting the resources for the state.30 As Russia explodes out of the information vacuum that characterized the Communist era, the American magnate, financier-philanthropist is audaciously expanding access to the Internet and narrows the gap between Russia and the technologically advanced West.

Within his conception of open society, Soros sees the need for closer association between the nations of Europe, provided that the state not define or dominate the international activities of the citizenry. His concept holds great appeal for people who have been deprived of the benefits of an open society. 31

Soros’ priority is to help give access to the world of information not only to journalists, as we have seen, but to other professional groups, especially including librarians and scientists as well as individual citizens. For Soros it is Electronic mail and Internet connectivity that hold the possibility of bringing to East-Central Europe and Russia a new method of communications particularly suitable to the building of open societies.32 –

 

By not having fully recognized the need to develop the NPPO legal framework that will facilitate the in-flow of funds from the USA, the NPPO sector fostered by Soros will remain stunted. Neither the governments nor the private sectors in Russian and Eastern Europe have the funding needed to substitute for and expand upon Soros’ funding–funding limited by Soros’ personal ability to maintain his pace.

Without the establishment of U.S.-Mexican type NPPO legislation that will permit foreign investors to establish company foundations, thus leaving some of their profits in Eastern Europe and Russia, then “nationalists” will be able to claim erroneously that their country is being sacked by greedy foreign capitalists.

Rather than creating competition, ironically Soros finds that he has to subsume it in order to save it, as in the case of Radio Free Europe. With the tremendous reduction in funds supplied by the USA, Radio Free Europe would not have survived had not in 1994 Soros moved it to Prague and reorganized it as part of his Open Media Research Institute (OMRI),43 In this case Soros entered into a joint-venture to acquire Radio Free Europe’s Research Institute and, under a fifty-year lease, its archives.44

 

CONCLUSION

Granted Soros’ many “successes” outlined in this study, the sheer number of activities over which Soros has taken personal responsibility and active on-going interest is simply incredible. Soros has done so with little central bureaucracy in New York City by recessing thousands of persons to whom the development of national programs has been delegated.

Although Soros has not led foundations to follow him into Eastern Europe and Russia, in the long term his foundations provide a model for the future, a model that works without regard to borders.45

Regardless of what his detractors claim, he has put his profits to good use.

The paradoxes of my analysis are as follows:

Soros has opened a healthy competition by engaging in the “race of giving” with Ted Turner (owner of CNN) and Bill Gates (Micrososft.) This triangle has creater a real healthy competition in giving, mark of an internationalization of the community spirit. In Latin America, Soros is spearheading a human rights and social activist program to improve education and open communications in Guatemala.46

As a responsible capitalist, Soros helps building democracy into the communities across nations by implicitly replicating the U.S. model of NGO that consists of: an open elected board made up of “all-walks-of-life”, that means of local prestigious people from different interest groups; businessmen, doctors, academics, union leaders etc.

Projects are being funded by open review of the projects and there is transparency in the expenditure (foundations have to submit a final report at the end of the year). If the NGOs have not been successful in completing the operation, no further funding will be available.

So, for those claiming his foundations are not democratic, let us compare it with The Red Cross (foundation that is indeed undemocratic, by being headed by a self-selecting board.)

About Soros’s innovation, as he isnistes all these organizations have a foreign (that is local) board of directors, leaves them with the decision to prioritize at local level and fund the projects most timely.

As Mahateer suggests of Soros being a “speculator,” we have to mention here that investment is also a kind of speculation: sometimes one loses, sometimes one wins; and hedge-funds are meant for that (he lost big in Mexico in 1994 speculating against the peso).

Rather than admitting defeat, Soros has invested in real estate, he inked a joint venture to develop three ambitious projects in Mexico City: Alameda Urbana, Santa Fe and, the tallest building in the country, the Chapultepec Tower.

Althought some observers have seen Soros as one who “colonizes” needy countries as a benevolent despot47, networking would be a better word. Neither was he offering “a new type of American imperialism” to the world, in reality he made high risk investments, that he finally ran out of his legendary good fortune as Soros wanted to keep his money up so that he could support his foundations that were eating up at his portofolio so he decided to retreat from bad investments.

Focusing more on his philanthropic funds and taking high risks, Soros lost 22% of his portofolio.48

Markets now are too complex, he pointed out, to make a huge fund work, “the bigger it got [the firm] the more difficult it became, Mr. Soros said.”49 Rather than riling the financial markets, after a bet on technology funds had left the fund down 22%, Soros had decided to do less risky investments, and will invest in “more conservative real-estate and private-equity funds.”50

And watch for market swings. That combined with the bad investments in Russian telecommunication systems cost him dearly.

His indisputable merit is that of replicating the American model of NGOs and leaving behind a legacy of philonthropic “incubators.”

Against the open society, its enemies have proliferated: they are not only the “clasic” ideologies (fascism, marxism or nationalism) but also the successful ideologies like laissez-faire, radical liberalism, geopolitical realism and social darwinism.51

To conclude, when Soros started out in hedge-funds, there was no competition. And now competition is so fierce, as all his moves are being observed in Europe as well as in the United States.

And Soros fell in his own “trap”, as the markets he once moved to his benefit, are moving against him, in his detriment.

 

 

 

Joe jacobs
joeajac3@gmail.com
71.45.157.11
Good luck I have been waiting on my order of 5 shadow hawk flashlights. Placed order February 4th. Birmingham, AL. They give the same o same o about back orders. They say they were shipped Monday FEB 14th. UPS Still has not received ?.

2014 in review: Oxytocin Year for All My Readers

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2014 annual report for this blog. Happy New Year from Olga to all my friends! Service Is A  Reward In Itself

Here’s an excerpt:

A San Francisco cable car holds 60 people. This blog was viewed about 720 times in 2014. If it were a cable car, it would take about 12 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.

Stop the INEQUALITY MACHINE: The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Another FTA to enhance poverty

Dear Readers: we have to stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership in its tracks, as conscious capitalism is becoming a movement,  more inequality is coming your way:

Here is Robyn Obrien on greedy capitalism & food inequality, watch this video:

Link: http://youtu.be/ZZ6I8r-ApeM

Here is an eye-opening Interview with Robin Obrien, author, organic food activist, and mother of 5.

Dr Olga Lazin
Dr OLGA LAZIN_ANDREI AT UCLA. Food activist, researcher and investigator of the dynamics of food production in California, Los Angeles

 

The consequences of disaster capitalism, money oriented to the detriment of our health have to be exposed daily. It started with agent orange, continued with pesticides, and has become now a gross trampling on human rights issue.

Independent minds start exposing the FDA and its dirty tricks, and arrogance of big sugar, big soda, as well as big junk food, rotten soy.

The pattern of rotten to the core companies leading the food industry is always there: Haven’t we learned anything from the tobacco industry?

Inequality is crass; poor people cannot buy expensive organic food, and wages are not adjusted to the inflation nowadays. We all have the right to clean, unadulterated food; but MONSANTO, and COCA COLA, all other companies are loading our food with pesticides, and dangerous colorants, agent orange and other chemicals that makes us sick: cancer, attention deficit disorder, and hyperactivity, just to mention a few.

Who are you, not to do THIS? Stop the TransPacific partnership.

Why MAc&CHeese in UK does not have pesticides and chemicals in it, but fast food is infested with chemicals in the U.S.? Totally irresponsible greedy CEOs should be exposed and called to answer the questions, because the population is now being educated on the horrible human rights violations corporations are perpetrating against us.

We have to make a consciouss Food Choice. See movies like: “Fed Up”, Forks Over Knives, and “Art & Soul”. Food allergies and poisoning has been liknked to hyperactiviry in kids and cancer, that is a double Yammy.

Make sure you vote for Marianne Williamson (district 33), we need to take money out of U.S. Congress and politics now!

Read this article, it is scary if the Trans-Pacific Rim Partnership passes. Here is an article by famous economist, Joseph Stiglitz:

(TPP) hopes to bring together 12 countries along the Pacific Rim By JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ   New York Times, March 15, 2014 http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-globalization/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 Trade agreements are a subject that can cause the eyes to glaze over, but we should all be paying attention. Right now, there are trade proposals in the works that threaten to put most Americans on the wrong side of globalization. The TPPs which would bring together 12 countries along the Pacific Rim. And more inequality to the United States.   Dr OLGA LAZIN olazin@ucla.edu  

Dr OLGA LAZIN_ANDREI Email: olazin@ucla.edu————————————- —

Interview took place in In Los Angeles, SANTA MONICA, May 28, 2018.

 

NATIONAL RECOVERY MOVEMENT: Join US in sobriety This Month

April is alcohol awareness month. Go and save a life! The end game is saving a life; helping an alcoholic will actually help YOU sustain your own sobriety, if you have a problem with alcohol. Do you feel powerless over it? You cannot stop after having a glass of spirit, wine, or beer? Then you are addicted to it. It is time to start the healing process.

Be proactive, open a Community Foundation in Westwood. This is what I am doing right now. We need the Westwood community more than ever to expose the virulant nature  of all addictions. Please participate.

Go to:  http://www.manyfaces1voice.org

 

THE ANONYMOUS PEOPLE is a feature documentary film about the over 24 million Americans living in long-term recovery from addiction to alcohol and other drugs.

NO LONGER WILL WE REMAIN SILENT

 

 

With My Dad Eugene lazin & Mother Magdalena IOsefciuc
Cu Eugen lazin si matusa Ileana Ioszefcsuk, in the cemetery. in Sighet, my place in Romania

 

Olga M. Lazin
OLga Lazin

“The Brain and the Secondhand Drinking Connection

We can now answer the kinds of “why” questions posed in this previous post thanks to new imaging technologies of the recent 15-20 years, such as fMRI (shows where the brain activity is occurring) and SPECT (shows the health of the brain).

These imaging technologies allow neuroscientists and medical professionals to study the human brain. They can see the changes it goes through as it develops. They can see the impacts of mental illness, head trauma or repeated alcohol misuse and so much more.

Learning the basics of how the brain controls everything a person thinks, feels, says and does helps explain the causes and impacts of SHD. It also helps you develop self-protection and prevention skills.

The Brain’s Communication System

When you understand how the brain goes together, you can appreciate what causes it to come apart and what it takes to fix it.

Neural Networks – How Cells Talk to One Another
The brain controls everything through neural networks.  Neural networks are the way brain cells (neurons) talk to one another. They, in turn, exchange information with other neurons throughout the body via the nervous system.

This “talking” is done through an electrical-chemical signaling process. This is easier to understand if you think of neural networks as strands of holiday lights. Anything that happens along a strand of holiday lights – a loose bulb, frayed wire, power surge – changes how that strand works. This in turn changes how all other strands connected to it work.

The following is a simplified description of the basics of a neural network, which is illustrated in the image below. Remember anything that changes any one of these “things” will change the way the neural network performs (like a strand of holiday lights). If you change the way neural networks perform, you change behaviors.

Basics of a Neural Network

  • Cue or Trigger (a sound, sight, touch, smell, memory, emotion…something that triggers the electrical signaling to start the neural network)
  • Brain cells (neurons)
  • Branchlike extensions (outgoing and incoming)
  • Neurotransmitter (chemical messengers located at the end of the outgoing branchlike extensions that change the neuron’s electrical signal into chemical that can float across the synapse; other neurotransmitters help with the start and stop of the signaling)
  • Synapse (the gap between the branchlike extensions of a brain cell/neuron)
  • Receptors (at the end of the incoming branchlike extension that accept the neurotransmitter – like a “key in a door lock” – andchange it back into an electrical signal to carry on the message to the receiving brain cell/neuron)

Brain Maps for the Things We Do;


Through a series of connections, neural networks form systems between the brain and other organs to control our body’s major functions.

This includes the fight-or-flight stress response system, for example, as well as the circulatory and digestive systems. Neural networks also work together to form embedded “brain maps.” There is an expression to describe this brain mapping process, “neurons that fire together, wire together.”

Embedded brain maps take very little, if any, thought. They just happen. And thank goodness they do. If we did not have these embedded brain maps, we would still be trying to get out of bed because the millions of neuron connections needed to do that simple function would take forever to hook together. [This also points to the difficulty in changing brain maps (basically habits).]

 

Over the course of our lives, we create brain maps for all of the functions our bodies and brains do on a regular basis. We create brain maps for riding a bike or typing on a computer or talking on the phone or reading a book or running, breathing, reciting multiplication tables, eating, talking with our hands, playing an instrument, texting—just think about it!

Basically, then, brain maps are habits, coping skills, life skills and typical behaviors.

Where in the Brain Are You

Science groups neural network activity into three main areas in the brain – as shown in the image above.

There are three general groups of neural network activity, sometimes called sub-brains.

They are the cerebellum, the limbic system and the cerebral cortex. This means neural network activity in these three areas is responsible for the behaviors described in the image to the right.

And this is important. Why? Because it explains that if your neural networks are controlling your behaviors from the limbic system, for example, you are not “thinking,” you are “reacting.”

And why is this important to know? Because the limbic system is where neural networks involved with drinking behaviors and SHD-related stress get triggered (cued). And the brain pays close attention to things that happen in the limbic system. This is because the behaviors controlled by neural networks in the limbic system were (and are) critical to the survival of the human species. (More on this in the next post.)

Wiring Brain Maps

We are born with about 100 billion brain cells (aka neurons), but only a small number of them are “wired” at birth. This makes sense when you think about it. If all of our neural networks were wired at birth, we would come out doing what we do as adults. But about all a baby’s neural networks do is allow it to breathe, eat, sleep, cry, smile and dirty their diapers. Thus, from birth, our brains are wiring neural networks like crazy because we need them for everything we think, feel, say and do. (Please know the brain is also wiring en utero, which is why women should avoid drinking while pregnant.)

First Decade  
In the first decade of life, the brain wires trillions of neural networks. This is why key risk factors, such as childhood trauma (verbal, physical or emotional abuse, neglect, bullying, SHD-related stress), mental illness (anxiety, depression, ADHD) and social environment have such a big influence on the developing brain and a child’s behaviors. Genetics is another significant influence. So are a child’s own thoughts and behaviors and lack of cerebral cortex wiring (explained shortly).

 

Then Comes Puberty
The above describes neural network wiring for the first decade or so, but then comes puberty. Puberty is an instinctual wiring process (meaning it is built into the human species).  It causes lots of neural network wiring activity–especially in the limbic system (the reactionary, not thinking, part of the brain).

The purpose of puberty-related brain wiring is to cause the species to turn to its peers and take risks. It is also to take care of the obvious–-hormonal changes and adult-like bodies capable of reproducing. These three instinctual drives (take risks, turn to peers and reproduce) were critical to the survival of the human species back in the day when mankind had a much shorter lifespan (meaning mom and dad might very likely have been dead around the time a young person was going through puberty so they weren’t around to protect them).  Today, however, these instinctual drives can be a bit of a problem because we live much longer, more complex lives. .

And Finally, the “Thinking” Part of the Brain
Here’s where the problem comes in. There is about a four-year lag time between the start of puberty and the start of the last stage of brain development—wiring in the cerebral cortex. As described in the 3-brain map image above, the cerebral cortex is responsible for sound reasoning, good judgment and weighing the consequences of one’s actions. It is also the brakes on the risk taking behaviors that start with puberty. And it is when the brain starts to “prune” neural networks not used much and “strengthen” those that are. This pruning and strengthening process is designed to make the brain more efficient.

Dr. Paul Thompson’s 10-year time lapse study of brain development ages 5-20 show just how much wiring – brain maturity – occurs from approximately ages 16-20. It’s now understood this maturity process continues until roughly age 25.

Back in the day, life decisions were pretty simple. Basically it was about gathering food, finding shelter, reproducing and surviving. Today, our lives are far more complicated and much longer. This means the consequences of the mistakes we make and the brain mapping we set into place as teens can last for a very long lifetime (unless we take steps to correct or fix them, of course).

Why Ages 16-25 Matter So Much or Why Wait Till 21 to Drink
While wiring in the cerebral cortex starts around age 16, it takes until around age 22 for girls and age 24 for boys to complete. The darker colors in brain time-lapse study image show us just how much brain development is happening.

This lag time between the start of puberty and the start of the cerebral cortex wiring helps explain why teens make poor “decisions.” It also explains why “Just Say, ‘No,’” typically doesn’t work and why teen brains handle alcohol and SHD-related stress (explained in the next post) differently than adult brains.

Lastly, it helps us understand that the neural networks strengthened become our embedded brain maps for many of our adult-like coping skills and behaviors. These can include drinking behaviors and unhealthy ways of coping with SHD.

 

Raising awareness about both sides of the drinking equation – drinking behaviors and secondhand drinking.

No One Sets Out To Cause Secondhand Drinking And No One Sets Out To Cope With It In Harmful Ways

This science and this common term can help those causing and those coping learn what it takes to change. Visit again next week to read more about this science in Part 4 of my Alcohol Awareness Month 2014 celebration!

_________________

©2014 Lisa Frederiksen – the above article shares portions from two upcoming books of mine. One is a book titled, Secondhand Drinking in Our Workplaces, Schools, Families and Communities The other is a very abbreviated version (from which this piece is taken) for a QuickSeries guide, titled, Secondhand Drinking: Prevention and Protection, to be published later this year for use by Army, Navy, Veterans, DOD, Forest Service and similar groups.

If you have questions or would like to talk further about secondhand drinking or my SHD consulting, training and presentation services for individuals, families and businesses, please give me a call at 650-362-3026 or email me at lisaf@BreakingTheCycles.com

 

 

 

BUY THE DVD

FIND & HOST SCREENINGS|LEARN MORE ABOUT THE FILM & COMPANION BOOK

JOIN THE MOVEMENT

We are moms and dads, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters – all bringing the power and proof of recovery to our communities. Together we will change public perception, and ultimately the public response to the addiction crisis…FOREVER. Will you join us?

Thank you! Your email has been added.

SHARE YOUR STORY

Give back. Save others. Become a face & voice for change.

LIKE & SHARE YOUR STORY

OUR FACES & VOICES

Bobby Coffey

 

Honesty Liller

 

John Silverman

Michael Askew

 

Tara Conner

 

Roxanne Kibben

Phil Valentine

 

Chris Herren

 

Kristen Johnston

 

LOAD MORE

FILM SCREENINGS

The Anonymous People is a great way to catalyze a dialog on addiction awareness, and recovery advocacy in your community. The film has teamed up with independent film distributors Alive Mind Cinema andGathr to make bringing The Anonymous People to your local theater easier than ever. We are all about collaboration, so first, see if your community is already listed on the map or our special event listing. If not become a host!

 

Cast

Michael Askew
Tara Conner
Roxanne Kibben
Phil Valentine
Chris Herren
William Cope Moyers
Johnny Allem
Kristen Johnston
Danielle Tarino
Susan Broderick
Stacia Murphy
Nell Hurley
Tom Hedrick
Carol McDaid
Tom Clarke Hill
Bill White
Maetta Broadus
Jim Ramstad
Don Fertman
Neil Kaltenecker
Dan Griffin
Laura Elliott-Engel
Christopher Lawford …
Show more

ADVERTISEMENT

 

the neural difference between love and sexual desire finds remarkable overlaps and distinct differences.

Researchers from across the world brought together the results from 20 studies which measured neural activity for both love and sexual desire (Cacioppo et al., 2012).

Participants in the studies were often looking either at pictures of their partners or at erotically stimulating images.

The results showed that some strikingly similar brain networks were activated by love and sexual desire.

One of the study’s authors, Professor Jim Pfaus, explained:

“No one has ever put these two together to see the patterns of activation. We didn’t know what to expect — the two could have ended up being completely separate. It turns out that love and desire activate specific but related areas in the brain.”

The regions activated were those involved in emotion, motivation and higher level thoughts.

This finding suggests that sexual desire is more than just a basic emotion, but involves goal-directed motivation and the recruitment of more advanced thoughts.

Love is built on top of these circuits, with one key area of difference being in the striatum. This area of the brain is typically associated with the balance between higher- and lower-level functions.

One part of the striatum is mostly concerned with things that are inherently pleasurable, while another part is mostly concerned with learning the connections between behaviour and rewards.

In other words: this is where you learn what feels good and start to get the taste for it. The striatum, then, is where the love habit is formed.

It’s a similar process as that involved in drug addiction. Pfaus explains:

“Love is actually a habit that is formed from sexual desire as desire is rewarded. It works the same way in the brain as when people become addicted to drugs.”

 

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02651.x/abstract;jsessionid=B95D71279ACC44362EAF85BBE3DA7BC7.f02t04

 

Related articles:

o   Falling in Love Takes One-Fifth of a Second