The Curious Disappearance of the Online Commitment Phobe

What happened? Why hasn’t he called? Was he even interested?

Did he die?

While you lay awake perusing his old text messages and reminiscing about his quick pursuit, the online commitment phobe was already mentally packing his bags just as he approached your dating profile page. Whether a matter of hours, days or weeks, this guy suddenly stops calling or ceases to exist without any notice… sometimes before you ever got a chance to see his two faces in person! Unfortunately, this guy simply lacks respect and empathy for women and others in general. And with a larger than life ego, he needs the attention wherever he can get it. He is a classic commitment phobe.

Let’s take a look at how all of this began…

After months of coercion from your friends to “get out there” in the dating world, you reluctantly sign up on the hippest new matchmaking site, create a profile page and upload your cutest photos… all the while gripping a bottle of pinot grigio. A few days later, some handsome lad pops up on your page, sends out a wink and sparks up a conversation. Curiosity sets in and you hesitantly click on his profile:

Name: Melvin
Age: 32
Status: Single

I am college graduate and I am looking forward to opening my own company soon. I live just outside the city. I am a real guy looking for a real girl to settle down and share my life with. She must love dogs, because my German Shepard, Frank, can sense if you don’t. LOL. I like sushi, playing guitar, long hikes, game night, watching old “Glee” episodes (guilty pleasure), cooking pasta and working out (I am in great shape, but you will know that when you see me :). I just want to find my soul mate and travel the world. Maybe we are a match?

Willing to look past his name, bad grammar, the LOL’s and the 20-mile drive, you wink back and send a note that reads: I like dogs, as long as they don’t bite lol! You hit it off like gangbusters and the first date is set for the following Wednesday. In the meantime, the texts get more and more flirtatious and you are feeling like this could even possibly be it! But you play it cool and don’t lose perspective just yet. LOL.

Wednesday comes around and you meet him at the restaurant where he looks a little worse than his picture, but since you had decided on the car ride over not to be judgmental, you let it slide. He was still cute, though, and the conversation flowed… and flowed… and flowed. Was this for real? Five hours later and still laughing it up, you are already mentally testing out his last name after your first. A long kiss good night seals the deal and he tells you he will call you tomorrow. You drive home, giggling all the way to your bedroom and name your first child before drifting off into a dreamless sleep.

The following day, you awaken to songs from the musical Annie as the full-fat cream slides into your coffee cup. That day at work, you are on cloud nine as you feel the excitement over his impending phone call. But the day goes by and none comes. The week goes by and nothing. After a month, you pack up your imaginary children and catch the first flight off Cloud Nine.

The truth is that while you may never know what really happened, you could be certain this guy was a commitment phobe. He could have been married, engaged, a masochist or a complete narcissist. Perhaps his deflating ego needed a boost. But the point is that commitment phobes lurk everywhere and until we change ourselves, heal our past and gain unconditional love for ourselves, we will continue to attract the Melvin’s of the world like magnets.

The online commitment phobe may truly believe that he wants marriage, commitment and lasting love. He has no idea that he is his own worst enemy, sabotaging anything good that comes his way. This guy does not know he has a fear-based problem and instead, he categorizes himself as picky and too busy to bother.

If you have found yourself scratching your eyeballs out over what went wrong — stop right there. There was no way you could have seen this one coming. And try to look at it this way: You have been spared the agony of getting involved with a man who simply can’t decide what he wants for breakfast.

NVIDIA VR headset: considering the possibilities

shieldvrOn the 3rd of March, 2015, NVIDIA may release their first virtual reality headset. Like NVIDIA SHIELD and the NVIDIA SHIELD Tablet, this device could be the center player for NVIDIA technology in its own unique field. Here lies the opportunity for NVIDIA to place their own “VR Direct” systems in the spotlight. Here lies the opportunity for NVIDIA to … Continue reading

Nexus 6 hits Amazon, Moto E may come to Verizon

nexus-6-review-sg-8-600x33711-600x337-600x337-600x337In the market for a new Android handset? Would you like it to be a Motorola device? If you answered yes to both of those questions, we might have some good news for you! According to a new leak, Verizon is about to get an LTE version of Motorola’s mid-range handset, the Moto E. On the other end of the … Continue reading

Courageous New York Prosecutor Continues Long Anti-Corruption Tradition as Top N.Y. Pol Is Indicted

The United States has a long, possibly unique, tradition of fearlessly prosecuting top politicians for corruption. The latest to be caught in the graft net is Sheldon Silver, the long-serving Speaker of the New York State Assembly.

“An Albany Powerhouse on the Edge of a Volcano” ran the front page New York Times headline.

Silver has occupied his post since 1994. He is the third most powerful politician in New York (after the Governor of the state and the Mayor of New York City). He says he is innocent. Preet Bharara, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, supported by extensive evidence uncovered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), takes a different view.

Bhara has filed charges against Silver involving at least $4 million in illicit funds. The charges are all too commonplace in local and municipal politics. They include kick-backs from real estate developers seeking special tax relief and pay-offs by law firms to get lucrative cases from government agencies. Taking on a politician as powerful as Silver takes courage. Prosecutor Bhara, however, is following in the footsteps of a host of other gutsy U.S. public prosecutors in recent years.

Top Priority: Fighting Corruption

Indeed, it is this tradition that singles out the U.S. from so many other countries. Like other nations, the U.S. has plenty of corruption in public life. But, unlike so many others, our public prosecutors are fearless and determined to see that those who abuse their public offices for personal gain are brought to justice. The driving motives and approaches of our leading prosecutors were center stage at a seminar I recently attended at Columbia University Law School’s Center for the Advancement of Public Integrity. Fundamentally, they believe that the very core of what America’s “Founding Fathers” sought to ensure is that citizens are served by honest politicians.

The FBI’s Role

“The values of integrity and open government and democracy are foundational to our nation and thus we assume that all who serve in public service are expected to do so with full integrity,” says David Harbach. As a U.S. Justice Department top attorney, Harbach was key to the successful prosecution for corruption of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, who starts a two year prison sentence on February 9.

Harbach, left his former role to become a top FBI advisor and he notes, “The FBI’s public corruption section has more undercover operations than any other part of the FBI. This area of prosecuting public corruption is at the core of what we are as a country.”

Harbach was joined at the seminar by Cyrus Vance, Jr., the New York County District Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and Michael Garcia, former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Each of them stressed that they see investigating and prosecuting corruption by public officials as an absolute top priority, central to securing the United States as a democracy.

It is precisely this core conviction that has driven each of them, as well as Preet Bharara, to be unflinching in going after crooked politicians, irrespective of how powerful they are.

Moreover, each of them underscore that they are non-partisan and driven solely by the goal of ensuring justice, irrespective of whether or not charges just happen to be made public on the eve of an election, or at another time that may be especially sensitive in terms of the political calendar — for example, New York state governor Andrew Cuomo’s hopes of finalizing a complex state budget deal with the Assembly will probably be delayed because of the charges now brought against Sheldon Silver.

Chicago and New York Examples

Fitzgerald noted that Chicago has both a long tradition corruption and prosecuting corrupt politicians. He said this helped greatly in bringing the high-profile cases that he pursued, which led to the jailing of former Illinois state governor George Ryan , and then the even higher profile prosecution on 18 counts of corruption of Ryan’s successor, Governor Rod Blagojevich. He is now serving a 14 year jail sentence. Fitzgerald believes that judges are increasingly willing today to impose serious sentences for corruption crimes and that this is a very positive development.

Michael Garcia recalled that when he was appointed in 2001 to the New York post now held by Bharara, he reviewed pending corruption investigations and encouraged his staff to be still more vigilant. He said that at the same time, it was important for him to speak publicly about corruption and to stress the priority that his office attached to honesty in government. He said, “It is often very difficult to quantify the impact of corruption on society, but it is undermining the system and trust in the system.”

Garcia noted that where top public officials are concerned then for him there is no option to settle the case, but to ensure that actions at a minimum force the official from office. This happened on Garcia’s watch, for example, when then New York governor Eliot Spitzer felt bound to resign as investigations highlighted his meetings with prostitutes.

Cyrus Vance Jr. noted that Federal law provides prosecutors with greater scope to bring corruption cases than does New York State law. This probably explains why the Silver cases have been brought by Bhara’s office. Vance explained that immunity laws for witnesses are too sweeping in New York, so this can enable individuals who are corrupt to evade being prosecuted. He added that in New York state a person cannot be prosecuted solely on the basis of what accomplice say, while Federal law does not have this kind of provision.

Footnote: An excellent book that places in perspective the views of the U.S.’s ‘Founding Fathers’ on corruption in government and major milestones in U.S. approaches can be found in Corruption in America by Professor Zephy Teachout, published by Harvard University Press.

You Are An Idiot. Here's What You Need To Know About Money.

Feel like you’re always falling behind financially? Above Average has some news for you.

To put it gently, you may be what the online comedy network refers to as “an idiot.” In the latest installment of their series “The Idiot’s Guide To Smart People,” Above Average schools idiots on how smart people are taking their money.

“Money, money, money! You love it! And smart people love taking it from you!” the video proclaims, going on to list the ways smart people take idiots’ money. Their list includes bank fees, lotteries, and advertising — which they say manipulates “strong idiot emotions” like fear and “horniness.”

Do with that what you will.

Muslim Americans Widely Seen As Victims Of Discrimination

Muslim Americans are widely seen as victims of discrimination, but also viewed by a slim majority as members of a religion that encourages violence, according to an Economist/YouGov poll released Friday. Americans who know a Muslim, meanwhile, are more likely to view adherents of the religion favorably.

Those results come in the midst of a spate of either suspected or confirmed anti-Muslim hate crimes. The shooting of three Muslims in Chapel Hill on Feb. 10 by a killer with murky motives crystallized the moment of fear.

A full 73 percent of Americans believe Muslims face a great deal or a fair amount of discrimination. That total outstrips both African-Americans, whom 63 percent of Americans see as victims of bias, and Mexican-Americans, who are viewed as targets of discrimination by 60 percent.

The general feeling that discrimination exists is further underlined by questions about the motives of alleged Chapel Hill shooter Craig Stephen Hicks. Police initially said the killings appeared to have stemmed from a parking dispute, but also added that they were looking into whether religion was a factor. Authorities have not charged Hicks with a hate crime. However, 45 percent of Americans said Hicks should be charged with a hate crime, compared with 18 percent who believe he should not.

Those supportive-sounding numbers are offset by Americans’ other views on Muslims. Many Americans seem to have adopted the views of Bill Maher and Mike Huckabee.

A majority — 52 percent — of Americans said Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence. Suspicion of Islam was much higher among Republicans (74 percent) than Democrats (41 percent).

“There’s just a lack of access to Muslims, and because of this lack of real-world contact, a number of conservative media sources have biased opinions,” said Robert McCaw, government affairs manager for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

“Theologically Islam is no more violent or less violent than Christianity or any other monotheistic religion,” he said. “I think one stereotype is true: that Muslims are being highly discriminated against. So that’s an experience which people have experienced firsthand.”

Knowing a Muslim does seem to alter a person’s impression of members of the religion. A majority (53 percent) of Americans who personally know a Muslim disagree with the idea that the religion is more likely to encourage violence. Americans who know Muslims are also significantly more likely to view them as patriotic.

The Economist/YouGov online poll surveyed 1,000 respondents from Feb. 14 to 16 with a margin of error of 4.4 percent.

Activism With or Without God

Barack Obama’s mention of the slaughters of the Christian Crusades was the opening of a can of worms that turned into snakes. The victims of the knights in shining armor were Jews and Muslims, but that was that time. The followers of the three desert deities, Jehovah, the Prophet and Jesus – have battled back and forth through history. But then each religion has devout peace activists, too. Zealots, zealots everywhere.

In Occupy Wall Street and in the Black Lives Matter as well, there was a steady presence of ministers and rabbis – and I remember a Lakota wisdom leader at Zuccotti Park – even though clearly most of the movement-makers are secular. But we welcomed the aura of Dr.King and the Dalai Lama and Chief Joseph and Gandhi and Bishop Tutu and the movements that they represent. They both comforted and emboldened us, as we marched off to lock arms in the doorway of Goldman Sachs or die dramatically across the floor of GrandCentral Station.

The dismissal of religion by Marxists is discredited by present day radicals, but so are belief systems with patriarchal gods. And yet, religion never leaves. Leaders of change sometimes seem like saints, if they are more humble in demeanor, like Joan Baez or Aung San Suu Kyi, or Yeb Sano,the Filipino climate diplomat. If they are brassier, like Vandana Shiva, or Jose Bove or Edward Snowden, then they are called messianic.

I’m in the business of manipulating the memes of rightwing apocalyptic Christianity, with the Stop Shopping Choir. We study the presence of intolerant religion within Consumerism and Militarism; in banks that finance C02 emitting industries, like Chase andHSBC and UBS, and manufacturers of toxins like Monsanto and Bayer. We believe that the marketing departments of these industries are the new fundamentalist churches, with crusaders in the form of sexualized automobiles and product placement on celebrities’ bodies.

Of course, we rarely get anywhere near a financial or fossil fuel policy-maker. They surround us with police, who are kept in a state of angry fear. And time and time again our protests are like a clash of fundamentalist religions, the activism of two churches claiming the same God. In the conflict with banksand police, things are always very muscular, lots of finger-pointing, refusals,threats, stand-offs. We’re dealing with mutual, simultaneous damnation. You are my infidel.

I was recently hand-cuffed while speaking in New York’s Grand Central Station with the group “We Will Not Be Silent.” Surrounded by placards featuring the names of those killed by deadly police force, and wearing my usual white polyester and priests collar, I was cuffed in mid-sentence. The metal went into the verb. So much for the 1st Amendment. The next day the police told the Murdoch papers that I attacked a cop.

Of course, I felt out-maneuvered by the flamboyant right wingers. But did I misguess the event? Did my analysis of power against power, protesters against institutions – pre-empt any connection with the possibly sympathetic people within Grand Central Station? Anything internal in those folks, anything deeper than theiranger, was unrevealed in the activist event. The cops feel like 9/11 is still happening. And I’m taking their Christian preacher and shouting about their blunders. We all get angry together.

I find myself desperately wanting to talk to the employees of Grand Central Station about what happened. But these big structures, the courts, the press – all of that gets in the way. A quiet human conversation is no longer possible. A good pastor can engage in loving conversation in the middle of horror, like Bishop Tutu looking the apartheid leaders in the eye. Could I have somehow done that? I did return after I got out of jail to try to talk to the cop who man-handled me, but he wouldn’t shake my hand.

Birth, and life, and death – no one knows what life is. Life is unexplained. Science doesn’t know and religion doesn’t either. Fundamentalists rush in with hard answers, to assuage our fear of death. Usually, the doctrine is encased in bigotry. Fundamentalist holy men arrange for us to fear the Other. And yet, again, religion cuts both ways. A “person of the cloth” carries the burden of these deeper questions, and so they can have the effect of slowing down violence. I remember clerics inserting themselves between the front lines in the Balkans.

More of our activism needs a spiritual basis, and that doesn’t only mean the absence of mindless confrontation. Spirit is laughter, shape-shifting and music. We felt the impact of Erica Warner dying-in on the Staten Island sidewalk where her father was murdered, a mysterious and beautiful act. And we remember Wangari Maathi planting trees in the Nairobi park, in the face of the brutal dictator, and Chelsea Manning opening the door of secrets.

I should go back to Grand Central Station and talk to those people. At least I should be able to talk to mothers, because they have the endless questions of children ringing inside them, even if those moms are cops. That is the antidote to fundamentalism. All those questions. If I talked with a hundred mothers, wouldn’t that be a better kind of activism than shouting in the echoey station and getting hauled off? Here’s the question I want to ask: “How do we end this violence?”

Watch Reverend Billy’s Freakstorm: Radical Forgiveness in Grand Slander Station.

Scientists Find Peanut-Eating Prevents Allergy, Contrary To Prior Health Advice

Mon Feb 23, 2015 4:33pm EST
By Kate Kelland

LONDON, Feb 23 (Reuters) – In research that contradicts years of health advice, scientists said on Monday that babies at risk of developing a childhood peanut allergy can avoid it if they are given peanuts regularly during their first 11 months.

The study, the first to show that eating certain foods is an effective way of preventing allergy, showed an 80 percent reduction in the prevalence of peanut allergies among high-risk children who ate peanuts frequently from infanthood, compared to those who avoided them.

“This is an important clinical development and contravenes previous guidelines,” said Gideon Lack, who led the study at King’s College London.

“New guidelines may be needed to reduce the rate of peanut allergy in our children.”

Rates of food allergies have been rising in recent decades, and peanut allergy now affects between 1 and 3 percent of children in Western Europe, Australia and the United States. Peanuts cause serious allergic reactions in about 0.9 percent of the population of these regions, including about 400,000 school-age children.

Allergy to peanuts tends to develop early in life and sufferers rarely grow out of it.

Allergic reactions range from difficulty in breathing, low blood pressure, swelling of the tongue, eyes or face, stomach pain, nausea and vomiting, skin rashes and blisters, inflammation, pain and, in some cases, death.

Lack’s study, a randomised controlled trial, enrolled 640 children aged between 4 months and 11 months from the Evelina London Children’s Hospital who were considered at high risk of developing peanut allergy because they already had either severe eczema or an egg allergy, or both.

Half the children were asked to eat foods containing peanut three or more times a week, and the other half to avoid eating peanuts until they were five years old.

In results published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Lack found that fewer than 1 percent of the children who ate peanut regularly as required had become allergic by the end of the study, while 17.3 percent in the avoidance group had developed peanut allergy.

“Deliberate avoidance of peanut in the first year of life is consequently brought into question as a strategy to prevent allergy,” Lack’s team wrote in the study. (Editing by Kevin Liffey)

After the Love Song: Or, Whatever Happened to Lloyd Dobler

For a generation of us, Lloyd Dobler embodies the bold, romantic move. The moment when you realize that the person you love, the person you lust, the person you desire is standing right in front of you. In our most crushed out, infatuated moments, we see Lloyd Dobler, standing in front of an old Cadillac, giant boom box held by both hands over his head, wearing a taupe trench coat over a t-shirt with baggy black pants. Peter Gabriel’s song, “In Your Eyes,” blaring.

the light the heat
in your eyes
I am complete

Yes, the bold, romantic move is Lloyd Dobler, but Lloyd Dobler also means love. Pure. Uncomplicated. Pining. Expressible. Love. I was 19 when Say Anything appeared in movie theatres. I saw it in Ann Arbor before my senior year in college. I wanted my own Lloyd Dobler (though of course my own Lloyd Dobler would be a she, but still contain all of his ineffable, genderless characteristics), simple in devotion. Peter Gabriel’s song on the other hand is more complex. It opens:

love I get so lost, sometimes
days pass and this emptiness fills my heart
when I want to run away
I drive off in my car
but whichever way I go
I come back to the place you are

I realize now that I never paid attention to Gabriel’s complex lyrics about love and being lost. As a younger woman, I was only interested in his plaintive refrain: in your eyes, I am complete. I only focused on Lloyd with a bold, romantic song playing in the background. Gabriel and his messy human emotions about navigating an imperfect world did not fit into the pure, loving vision Lloyd presented.

At some point, however, I stopped listening to the music of courtship. No light, no heat. No staring into the eyes of a lover. I let go of the image of Lloyd. No more teenaged pining. The big old Cadillac behind Lloyd changed from romantic object to junk-heap jalopy. The boom box? Antiquated and invasive without the white ear buds. Middle-aged, Lloyd is more a memory of the bold and romantic than any reality. Perhaps I am jaded; I doubt that Lloyd would have held up for Diane under the pressures of a relationship.

Though I am dubious about Dobler, I am equally doubtful of my own ability to hold up under the pressures of a relationship. Rather than admiring Dobler, rather than lusting for Lloyd, I am now afraid I have become Lloyd Dobler. I am afraid I have made a life out of selling things, buying things and processing things. I am afraid I am inured to the bold, romantic move.

It is not that my life is without passion. It is that there is a life after the love song. I can rewatch Say Anything again and again, but Lloyd Dobler and Diane Court never live in the world beyond the love song. They are stuck in the 1989 moment, trapped after high school graduation. They have not had to grow up. For them the refrain is always, I want to touch the light, the heat I see in your eyes. For them, the song never ends.

For the rest of us, we live after the love song.

Life is long after the love song ends. For some of us, not only is the love song over, the band has packed up and gone home; the server has cleaned up the bar, kicked us out and gone home to her kids, who have now graduated from high school and even college. So much time has past since Lloyd Dobler’s bold, romantic move and the love songs of our youth that some days, we cannot even remember the bar, the band or a single snippet of the love song. Still, Lloyd, I remember you.

in your eyes

Now that those of us who grew up believing in Lloyd are grown, what shall we believe in today? Now that we are partnered with sensible cars, small media devices, respectable clothing and better taste in movies than ’80s chick flicks, what are the bold, romantic moves for our middle age? Lloyd, what are our lives like today? What is life like after the love song? What do we look at after your eyes? What is the life we are all living after the love song ends?

These questions almost make me the teenager I am no longer. What I really want now is the grown up Lloyd Dobler. I want the one who held up under the pressures of the relationship; the one who sold out and is now buying things and selling things and processing things and explaining earnestly about how it is NOT selling out, about how HE (or in my case SHE) is not selling out.

That is what I want. And, in truth, what I have. I married Lloyd Dobler. A generation of us married Lloyd Dobler. Or became Lloyd Dobler. Clutching a pen near our heart.

What happens after the love song ends? Look at the life around you. Yes, yearn for bold, romantic moves. Remember the trench coat–the way it smells in the rain.

all my instincts, they return

But know this: after the love song ends, we live our lives in the light, the heat. We live our lives in your eyes.

Democrats Don't Feel As Warmly Toward Israel As They Used To

While most Americans continue to feel positively toward Israel, a Gallup poll released Monday shows that Democrats have experienced a significant decline in sympathy in the past year.

Seventy percent of Americans have a favorable view of Israel, according to the poll, while only 17 percent are favorable toward the Palestinian Authority. Similarly, 62 percent of Americans say their sympathies lie more with Israelis, while 16 percent say they are more sympathetic to Palestinians.

These numbers are almost unchanged from a Gallup poll conducted one year ago. A closer look across party lines, however, reveals that fewer Democrats feel warmly toward Israel than did at this time last year. Democrats’ favorable ratings for Israel have dropped 14 percentage points from one year ago, from 74 percent to 60 percent. Their sympathy toward Israel has declined from 58 percent last year to 48 percent today, the lowest share among Democrats since 2010.

Republicans, on the other hand, have grown in sympathy toward Israel, reaching 83 percent in the most recent poll, a slight uptick from last year.

Since 2000, support for Israel has been high among both Democrats and Republicans, with Republicans growing especially sympathetic after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In the past 15 years, the percentage of Americans expressing more sympathy for the Israelis has risen 30 points among Republicans and 13 points among Democrats.

Gallup’s Lydia Saad suggests that the recent decline among Democrats is related to the growing tension between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Tensions reached a peak in January when Republicans invited Netanyahu to address Congress without the White House’s knowledge, defying protocol.

Netanyahu will deliver a speech to Congress on March 3 in which he is expected to argue against allowing Iran any nuclear weapons. The visit poses a problem to Obama and to Democrats, given that the U.S. is currently negotiating with Iran on this issue.

In addition, Netanyahu’s visit will come just two weeks before Israel’s election, in spite of a White House convention of not meeting with foreign heads of state or candidates near their elections, lest the U.S. create the impression of influencing the vote in another country. Obama has said he will not meet with Netanyahu, and several Democrats have said they will not attend the speech.

A recent HuffPost/YouGov poll found partisan divisions similar to those seen in this week’s Gallup poll. In the HuffPost/YouGov survey, 72 percent of Democrats said that the Republicans’ invitation to Netanyahu was inappropriate, while just 29 percent of Republicans said the same. Fifty-three percent of Democrats said the president should still meet with Netanyahu, while among Republicans that figure rose to 77 percent.

The Gallup poll surveyed 837 adults using live interviewers to reach both landlines and cell phones, and was conducted Feb. 8-11, 2015.