Earlier this year, a dear friend had me do her numbers and explain them to her as they related to her life. My friend’s numbers were all Two (2). I couldn’t come up with another number for her. In fact, her subordinate Conscious Name Direction numbers were also Two (2). Wow! Lessons can’t get any easier than that, or any more definite.
My friend had me do her son’s numbers as well. His Life Path is also Two (2).
Shortly afterwards, my friend fell and twisted herself very badly, damaging her ankle besides other areas. The injuries laid her up for a month or two. After she healed a few months later, her daughter-in-law died in her sleep of pneumonia. She must have been walking around with it as she, nor anyone else knew she was ill with walking pneumonia. For months my friend looked after her son as she confirmed with his Life Path of Two (2) that he is very clinging and needy. A negative side of Two (2) is (Be Too Constant), warning against neediness. He was a very loyal husband and loved his wife dearly. The positive side of Two (2) is (To Be Constant), but not (Be Too Constant). He definitely lived up to the positive aspect of fidelity, but needed help with the negative side of neediness.
My friend began doing everything for her son, cooking, cleaning, etc. Remember that her numbers are also Two (2). She lives up to the positive aspects of the number in (To Be Constant) and (To Back), which simply stated are supporting—faithfully. The challenge with that is not to (Be Too Constant) or dependent and clinging.
A few weeks ago, my friend fell while getting her mail and broke her kneecap. Her leg is bound from hip to ankle and she can’t get around.
When I brought her bread that she let me get for her, she told me that she was so glad to have information from No Nonsense Numerology—The Code. My friend, who is a religious woman, told me she asked, "God why are you doing this? I don’t think I can take any more." Then she said that she understood through reflecting on her numbers that she had to let her son go and become independent. She was to help him, but not let him become needy. She now had to stop helping him. Her injury is so severe that until she gets her kneecap replaced and recovers from surgery she simply can’t help him anymore. Nor can she help others as her numbers designed her to do. The kindness she’s showed others, she must now hope they will show to her.
Incidentally, someone for whom she does good deeds came by while I was visiting to bring her soup: after first telling my friend that she is too old and can’t help her. The neighbor reconsidered and changed her attitude.
Sometimes our illnesses and injuries have a purpose that isn’t bad karma playing out in one’s life. Our misfortunes help others to learn lessons.
I cannot prove my friend’s life lessons are specifically of Number Two (2), or for that matter, any genuineness to the codes I’ve discovered in the alphabetical letters-to-numbers. The truth is, we will only know their validity through anecdotal evidence or once on the other side. I suppose that if we believe, the numbers can help us understand our particular life lessons and how to achieve them to become better people. I realize these definitions are not sexy and glamorous. They don’t predict our wealth or love life. They simply confirm our character or lack of it, but also show how to achieve good character.
Nevertheless, I’ve found my own numbers to be helpful in understanding my "lot in life." If understanding our numbers gives us peace of mind, that’s a lot. My friend’s numbers, however, played out like perfectly aligned dominos to her life experiences.
I’ve noted that this blog gets hits from other countries. Other nationalities surely would have different lessons than those for English-speaking individuals simply because they have different alphabets. It has been my hope that people from other countries will pick up my lead and find the hidden codes in their alphabets-to-numbers.
After all, this alphabet seems to give lessons for Christian believers. The letters (fox) fall directly beneath Number Six (6). What is a (fox)? It is an animal. What is an animal? An animal is a euphemism for beast. Those in countries with different alphabets may have no 666-beast to fear. Still, what lessons do they have that are separate from English-speaking ones?
I would be very interested to see what other codes and word patterns, people from different countries come up with for their alphabets. If anyone takes up the challenge, please contact me at numerologycode@snowcrest.net.
Put something appropriate in the subject line like "Number Codes from, (Country)." My spam filter will throw it into a special folder that I don’t open for safety reasons, so will never receive the email.
To my knowledge NO NONSENSE NUMEROLOGY - THE CODE is the only numerology book to break the code of deciphering alphabet letters to numbers 1 to 9. Some letter patterns spell exact words. They go from being the JACKASS in Number One (1) to RISE in Number Nine (9) and completing the circle to become the SAGE. These patterns also show how to return to the positive path if taking the negative one.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Newt GinGRINCH on the Numbers Couch
Newton Leroy McPherson = Seven (7)
Newton Leroy Gingrich = Seven (7)
Newt Gingrich = Two (2)
06/17/1943 = Attraction = Eight (8) and Life Path = Four (4)
[Get full tiers and word patterns for numbers on my post entitled, What the Numbers Represent. To save space, I won’t add them all here, but will mention them as they come up in analysis.]
Up front, I’ve got to be honest. I thought for sure that because of Newt’s gigantic ego, reflected in the size of his head, he’d have a negative Nine (9) somewhere. I was wrong. However, if you’ve been following these numbers, his numbers still make sense.
The following comes from www.2012.republican-candidates.org/Gingrich/Childhood.php, explaining how he went from being McPherson to Gingrich.
"Gingrich was born in Harrisburg, Dauphin County, in Pennsylvania on June 17, 1943. His mother, 16-year-old Kathleen Daugherty and his father, 19-year-old mechanic, Newton Searles McPherson, divorced three days after the arrival of baby Newt. . . . Daugherty remarried the following year to Robert Bruce Gingrich, a soon-to-be highly decorated Lieutenant-Colonel with the U.S. Army, who officially adopted Newt and changed his last name to Gingrich after McPherson relinquished his custodial rights to the toddler."
The website, www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm details Newt’s flagrant abuse of the system for personal gain, and the abuse of his wives. It exposes his hypocrisies. Some include:
Draft Dodging: "Though he relentlessly pushes military spending and talks like a big time hawk, Gingrich avoided the Vietnam War through a combination of student and family deferments. (He married one of his teachers at age 19.)"
House Banking Scandal: ". . .Where so many congressmen wrote rubber checks on government money, Newt . . . bounced 22 himself, which almost cost him reelection in 1992. His vote for the secret House pay raise, . . . didn’t help."
Gingrich made shady and lucrative book deals with Rupert Murdoch. He used his influence to legislatively benefit Murdoch. (For details, see website at Real Change.)
For Gingrich to call another a flip-flopper, is the pot calling the kettle black. He is on record for having three wives, one with whom he cheated on while leading the impeachment charge against President Bill Clinton. Marital cheating comes under the category of lying. His personal style shows callousness toward women. He brought his wife divorce papers to examine while she was in the hospital being treated for cancer. After their divorce, Jackie Battley had to take her former husband to court to come through with support payments according to realchange.com.
Political ads now proliferate about how he takes money from special interests, how he flip-flops on issues that profit himself and those paying him for beneficial legislation. The scandals are endless. The scandals mentioned here only skim the top of the iceberg.
With Newt’s original and subordinate Conscious Name Directions of Seven (7), his well-documented exploits show that he is definitely not on the positive side of numbers. His grasping for wealth however he can, using the political system to do so, lands him squarely onto the (Pig), (Piggy), and (Gyp) tiers. In fairness, he does gain through honest labor. His prolific authorship and Congressional tenure show he works hard. He works hard using his intelligence and accomplishments to exploit the system for personal gain. Vast achievements, however, do not make someone a good person, merely ambitious.
His other subordinate Conscious Name Direction of Newt Gingrich equals Two (2). His marital cheating suggests that he did not learn (To Be Constant), i.e., he often chooses to (Take Back) commitments regarding relationships or ideals. (Constant, Be Two) in relationships is not his strength, showing he is on the negative side of Number Two (2). Does he consciously flip-flop on ideals based on what they will get him when combined with his other negative Sevens (7) in tiers of (Gyp), (Pig), and (Piggy)?
The Grinch’s hard demeanor and smug smirks give away that he has no compassion or heart. His record also speaks for him. Gingrich’s original Conscious Direction of negative Seven (7) is the result of not learning positive lessons of the previous Number Six (6) that are telling the truth and working hard. He does, however, work hard at accumulating wealth, e.g., his lobbying fees.
MaggieF reports at www.freerepublic.com, "Disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff hit Republican presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich for his claims that he did no lobbying on behalf of the mortgage and health care companies that paid him millions in consulting fees, calling the system of providing ‘strategic advice’ corrupt. . . . ‘I don’t want to say he’s lying, he may believe what he’s saying, but people have to understand that lobbying isn’t just going to meet with members,’ Abramoff said."
Gingrich’s $500,000 Tiffany credit line is another example of hedonistic lust. This is not someone who embraces personal austerity though he legislated for others to do so. For example, www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/newt-gingrich reports, "During Gingrich’s term as Speaker, Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the 1996 reform of welfare, [and] a capital gains tax cut . . . "
According to Wikipedia, "A central pledge of President Clinton’s campaign was to reform the welfare system, adding changes such as work requirements for recipients. However, by 1994, the Clinton Administration appeared to be more concerned with universal health care and no details or a plan had emerged on welfare reform. Gingrich accused the President of stalling on welfare, and proclaimed that Congress could pass a welfare reform bill in as little as ninety days. Gingrich insisted that the Republican Party would continue to apply political pressure to the President to approve welfare legislation. . . . In 1996, after constructing two welfare reform bills that were vetoed by President Clinton, Gingrich and his supporters pushed for passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which was intended to reconstruct the welfare system. The act gave state governments more autonomy over welfare delivery, while also reducing the federal government’s responsibilities. It instituted the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, which placed time limits on welfare assistance and replaced the longstanding Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Other changes to the welfare system included stricter conditions for food stamp eligibility, reductions in immigrant welfare assistance, and recipient work requirements."
Nothing is wrong with working hard. However, when jobs are limited, fitness and age are factors, cutting or eliminating social safety nets is callous. Real Legislators roll up their sleeves and work out how to bring jobs home to America rather than, out sourcing them to payoff contributors while eliminating social safety nets.
I’d like legislators such as Gingrich who espouse personal responsibility doing the grunt work of building bridges, fighting in fox holes, delivering mail, and personally taking care of children. Then maybe they have the right to tell others how to live. Most Congresspersons work three days a week and spend most of their time working hard at fund-raising. Rubbing shoulders with celebrities, eating caviar, and sipping champagne is a real drag. It is the height of hypocrisy to complain as they do about it. What, they say only finger-sandwiches? I suppose that when the bottom half is scrambling for crumbs, cucumbers seem like caviar.
Even Gingrich’s former Republican Senate colleagues are coming out against him, i.e., they didn’t approve of his hypocritical leadership style. According to former colleagues, he [Gingrich] would promise one thing and do another. They seem aware of his tendency to (Take Back) commitments. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is vocally and unabashedly dishing Gingrich.
$300,000 of ethics fines follow the former Speaker from his days in Congress. Wikipedia reports about the fine, "Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term, including claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. Following an investigation by the House Ethics Committee Gingrich was sanctioned US$300,000 on a 395-28 House vote. Gingrich acknowledged in January 1997 that ‘In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee’. The House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented ‘intentional or . . . reckless’ disregard of House rules. Special Counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him."
Gingrich's disdainful haughtiness belies that he is not a paragon of virtue making him come across as someone who lacks personal perspective. His bloated gravitas makes him seem foolish to anyone who knows his record and sees beyond his posturing.
Newt’s Life Path is Four (4). He seems (Moved) toward positive personal change to get his way and be (Made Victorious) in material matters rather than overcoming personal angst. He works to be (Made Victorious) in personal exploits. Altruism doesn’t seem his motivation.
William Douglas of McClatchy Newspapers, writing in Newt Gingrich - Portrait of a Complicated Politician, asks probing questions. For example, "Is he [Gingrich] the undisciplined, self-absorbed House speaker who admitted that a 1995 shutdown of the federal government was prompted in part by what he perceived as a cold shoulder and shabby treatment by President Bill Clinton during a long Air Force One flight?"
If Gingrich led impeachment against Clinton for sexual misconduct for giving him a cold shoulder, then he rightfully belongs on the (Do Venom) tier of Four (4). He did this all while embroiled in his own sexual scandal. This hypocrisy and his record of vicious tactics show he has a propensity to (Do Venom) of being vindictive.
Gingrich gets caught doing exactly that for which he complains and penalizes others for doing. Wikipedia reports, "May 1988, Gingrich (along with 77 other House members and Common Cause) brought ethics charges against Democratic Speaker Jim Wright, who was alleged to have used a book deal to circumvent campaign-finance laws and House ethics rules. During the investigation, it was noted Gingrich had his own unusual book deal, for Window of Opportunity, in which publicity expenses were covered by a limited partnership, which raised $105,000 from Republican political supporters to promote sales of Gingrich’s book. Gingrich’s success in forcing Wright’s resignation was in part responsible for his rising influence in the Republican caucus."
When anyone stands in his way, Grinch seems willing to push them aside for his place at the feeding trough, even poor children. Gingrich’s own words prove what a grinch he is. Retweeted from LeftsideAnne is a YouTube video worth watching. Unfortunately, I couldn’t get there with the URL address. Searching YouTube’s site under "You’re a Mean One, New Gingrich" will bring up the video. Gingrich’s own words say, "Young children who are poor ought to learn how to go to work . . ." Apparently, young children who are rich don’t need to learn to work. They can just inherit wealth. If, however, they are his children of his former wife they must take him to court for child support payments as www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm reported Jackie Battley Gingrich had to do.
Gingrich’s Attraction number is Eight (8) that is about being tested. Is he eager for being tested or reluctant? The first three tiers are material testing and the second three are on spiritual testing. We give up material to gain spiritually. Mr. Gingrich does not exude spirituality of someone who can forego any material luxury. He comes across like a pampered aristocrat.
He is intelligent and well spoken. At times, he shows glimmers of self-scrutiny, but only in passing without emotionally substantial introspection. Looking closely, he seems more fluff and puff than stuff, i.e., he seems rooted in materiality rather than spiritual grounding, no matter what religion he adopts. He talks a good game, but he seems steadfast in materialism, showing him grudgingly tested from his Subconscious Attraction. Meaning, only great goading will drag him from his material world.
Water seeking its own level makes those who support him more of a worry than is he. If the GOP base really wants him as President, they need to look deeper into their souls, since they profess greater spirituality than others. It seems what they really want is to hurt the current President, using someone who will deal forceful bar brawl blows. Mr. Gingrich’s negative Four (4) gives him a fighter’s disposition.
When then Speaker Pelosi and DNC Chairman Howard Dean stated that "Impeachment is off the table," for President Bush they opened the door for worse despots taking the White House.
Personally, I want the best persons as candidates, not the meanest because if he or she wins, we citizens are the losers. The problem with letting Gingrich off the hook, i.e., he’s learning his lessons as are we all, is that he wants to be the leader of the free world. Have we learned nothing? Or, is it all just a circus that the media is exploiting for ratings? For surely, grounded voters are looking for the best possible candidates too.
[If you agree with this message, please pass it along on Twitter, Facebook, e-mail, etc.]
Newton Leroy Gingrich = Seven (7)
Newt Gingrich = Two (2)
06/17/1943 = Attraction = Eight (8) and Life Path = Four (4)
[Get full tiers and word patterns for numbers on my post entitled, What the Numbers Represent. To save space, I won’t add them all here, but will mention them as they come up in analysis.]
Up front, I’ve got to be honest. I thought for sure that because of Newt’s gigantic ego, reflected in the size of his head, he’d have a negative Nine (9) somewhere. I was wrong. However, if you’ve been following these numbers, his numbers still make sense.
The following comes from www.2012.republican-candidates.org/Gingrich/Childhood.php, explaining how he went from being McPherson to Gingrich.
"Gingrich was born in Harrisburg, Dauphin County, in Pennsylvania on June 17, 1943. His mother, 16-year-old Kathleen Daugherty and his father, 19-year-old mechanic, Newton Searles McPherson, divorced three days after the arrival of baby Newt. . . . Daugherty remarried the following year to Robert Bruce Gingrich, a soon-to-be highly decorated Lieutenant-Colonel with the U.S. Army, who officially adopted Newt and changed his last name to Gingrich after McPherson relinquished his custodial rights to the toddler."
The website, www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm details Newt’s flagrant abuse of the system for personal gain, and the abuse of his wives. It exposes his hypocrisies. Some include:
Draft Dodging: "Though he relentlessly pushes military spending and talks like a big time hawk, Gingrich avoided the Vietnam War through a combination of student and family deferments. (He married one of his teachers at age 19.)"
House Banking Scandal: ". . .Where so many congressmen wrote rubber checks on government money, Newt . . . bounced 22 himself, which almost cost him reelection in 1992. His vote for the secret House pay raise, . . . didn’t help."
Gingrich made shady and lucrative book deals with Rupert Murdoch. He used his influence to legislatively benefit Murdoch. (For details, see website at Real Change.)
For Gingrich to call another a flip-flopper, is the pot calling the kettle black. He is on record for having three wives, one with whom he cheated on while leading the impeachment charge against President Bill Clinton. Marital cheating comes under the category of lying. His personal style shows callousness toward women. He brought his wife divorce papers to examine while she was in the hospital being treated for cancer. After their divorce, Jackie Battley had to take her former husband to court to come through with support payments according to realchange.com.
Political ads now proliferate about how he takes money from special interests, how he flip-flops on issues that profit himself and those paying him for beneficial legislation. The scandals are endless. The scandals mentioned here only skim the top of the iceberg.
With Newt’s original and subordinate Conscious Name Directions of Seven (7), his well-documented exploits show that he is definitely not on the positive side of numbers. His grasping for wealth however he can, using the political system to do so, lands him squarely onto the (Pig), (Piggy), and (Gyp) tiers. In fairness, he does gain through honest labor. His prolific authorship and Congressional tenure show he works hard. He works hard using his intelligence and accomplishments to exploit the system for personal gain. Vast achievements, however, do not make someone a good person, merely ambitious.
His other subordinate Conscious Name Direction of Newt Gingrich equals Two (2). His marital cheating suggests that he did not learn (To Be Constant), i.e., he often chooses to (Take Back) commitments regarding relationships or ideals. (Constant, Be Two) in relationships is not his strength, showing he is on the negative side of Number Two (2). Does he consciously flip-flop on ideals based on what they will get him when combined with his other negative Sevens (7) in tiers of (Gyp), (Pig), and (Piggy)?
The Grinch’s hard demeanor and smug smirks give away that he has no compassion or heart. His record also speaks for him. Gingrich’s original Conscious Direction of negative Seven (7) is the result of not learning positive lessons of the previous Number Six (6) that are telling the truth and working hard. He does, however, work hard at accumulating wealth, e.g., his lobbying fees.
MaggieF reports at www.freerepublic.com, "Disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff hit Republican presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich for his claims that he did no lobbying on behalf of the mortgage and health care companies that paid him millions in consulting fees, calling the system of providing ‘strategic advice’ corrupt. . . . ‘I don’t want to say he’s lying, he may believe what he’s saying, but people have to understand that lobbying isn’t just going to meet with members,’ Abramoff said."
Gingrich’s $500,000 Tiffany credit line is another example of hedonistic lust. This is not someone who embraces personal austerity though he legislated for others to do so. For example, www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/newt-gingrich reports, "During Gingrich’s term as Speaker, Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the 1996 reform of welfare, [and] a capital gains tax cut . . . "
According to Wikipedia, "A central pledge of President Clinton’s campaign was to reform the welfare system, adding changes such as work requirements for recipients. However, by 1994, the Clinton Administration appeared to be more concerned with universal health care and no details or a plan had emerged on welfare reform. Gingrich accused the President of stalling on welfare, and proclaimed that Congress could pass a welfare reform bill in as little as ninety days. Gingrich insisted that the Republican Party would continue to apply political pressure to the President to approve welfare legislation. . . . In 1996, after constructing two welfare reform bills that were vetoed by President Clinton, Gingrich and his supporters pushed for passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which was intended to reconstruct the welfare system. The act gave state governments more autonomy over welfare delivery, while also reducing the federal government’s responsibilities. It instituted the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, which placed time limits on welfare assistance and replaced the longstanding Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Other changes to the welfare system included stricter conditions for food stamp eligibility, reductions in immigrant welfare assistance, and recipient work requirements."
Nothing is wrong with working hard. However, when jobs are limited, fitness and age are factors, cutting or eliminating social safety nets is callous. Real Legislators roll up their sleeves and work out how to bring jobs home to America rather than, out sourcing them to payoff contributors while eliminating social safety nets.
I’d like legislators such as Gingrich who espouse personal responsibility doing the grunt work of building bridges, fighting in fox holes, delivering mail, and personally taking care of children. Then maybe they have the right to tell others how to live. Most Congresspersons work three days a week and spend most of their time working hard at fund-raising. Rubbing shoulders with celebrities, eating caviar, and sipping champagne is a real drag. It is the height of hypocrisy to complain as they do about it. What, they say only finger-sandwiches? I suppose that when the bottom half is scrambling for crumbs, cucumbers seem like caviar.
Even Gingrich’s former Republican Senate colleagues are coming out against him, i.e., they didn’t approve of his hypocritical leadership style. According to former colleagues, he [Gingrich] would promise one thing and do another. They seem aware of his tendency to (Take Back) commitments. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is vocally and unabashedly dishing Gingrich.
$300,000 of ethics fines follow the former Speaker from his days in Congress. Wikipedia reports about the fine, "Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term, including claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. Following an investigation by the House Ethics Committee Gingrich was sanctioned US$300,000 on a 395-28 House vote. Gingrich acknowledged in January 1997 that ‘In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee’. The House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented ‘intentional or . . . reckless’ disregard of House rules. Special Counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him."
Gingrich's disdainful haughtiness belies that he is not a paragon of virtue making him come across as someone who lacks personal perspective. His bloated gravitas makes him seem foolish to anyone who knows his record and sees beyond his posturing.
Newt’s Life Path is Four (4). He seems (Moved) toward positive personal change to get his way and be (Made Victorious) in material matters rather than overcoming personal angst. He works to be (Made Victorious) in personal exploits. Altruism doesn’t seem his motivation.
William Douglas of McClatchy Newspapers, writing in Newt Gingrich - Portrait of a Complicated Politician, asks probing questions. For example, "Is he [Gingrich] the undisciplined, self-absorbed House speaker who admitted that a 1995 shutdown of the federal government was prompted in part by what he perceived as a cold shoulder and shabby treatment by President Bill Clinton during a long Air Force One flight?"
If Gingrich led impeachment against Clinton for sexual misconduct for giving him a cold shoulder, then he rightfully belongs on the (Do Venom) tier of Four (4). He did this all while embroiled in his own sexual scandal. This hypocrisy and his record of vicious tactics show he has a propensity to (Do Venom) of being vindictive.
Gingrich gets caught doing exactly that for which he complains and penalizes others for doing. Wikipedia reports, "May 1988, Gingrich (along with 77 other House members and Common Cause) brought ethics charges against Democratic Speaker Jim Wright, who was alleged to have used a book deal to circumvent campaign-finance laws and House ethics rules. During the investigation, it was noted Gingrich had his own unusual book deal, for Window of Opportunity, in which publicity expenses were covered by a limited partnership, which raised $105,000 from Republican political supporters to promote sales of Gingrich’s book. Gingrich’s success in forcing Wright’s resignation was in part responsible for his rising influence in the Republican caucus."
When anyone stands in his way, Grinch seems willing to push them aside for his place at the feeding trough, even poor children. Gingrich’s own words prove what a grinch he is. Retweeted from LeftsideAnne is a YouTube video worth watching. Unfortunately, I couldn’t get there with the URL address. Searching YouTube’s site under "You’re a Mean One, New Gingrich" will bring up the video. Gingrich’s own words say, "Young children who are poor ought to learn how to go to work . . ." Apparently, young children who are rich don’t need to learn to work. They can just inherit wealth. If, however, they are his children of his former wife they must take him to court for child support payments as www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm reported Jackie Battley Gingrich had to do.
Gingrich’s Attraction number is Eight (8) that is about being tested. Is he eager for being tested or reluctant? The first three tiers are material testing and the second three are on spiritual testing. We give up material to gain spiritually. Mr. Gingrich does not exude spirituality of someone who can forego any material luxury. He comes across like a pampered aristocrat.
He is intelligent and well spoken. At times, he shows glimmers of self-scrutiny, but only in passing without emotionally substantial introspection. Looking closely, he seems more fluff and puff than stuff, i.e., he seems rooted in materiality rather than spiritual grounding, no matter what religion he adopts. He talks a good game, but he seems steadfast in materialism, showing him grudgingly tested from his Subconscious Attraction. Meaning, only great goading will drag him from his material world.
Water seeking its own level makes those who support him more of a worry than is he. If the GOP base really wants him as President, they need to look deeper into their souls, since they profess greater spirituality than others. It seems what they really want is to hurt the current President, using someone who will deal forceful bar brawl blows. Mr. Gingrich’s negative Four (4) gives him a fighter’s disposition.
When then Speaker Pelosi and DNC Chairman Howard Dean stated that "Impeachment is off the table," for President Bush they opened the door for worse despots taking the White House.
Personally, I want the best persons as candidates, not the meanest because if he or she wins, we citizens are the losers. The problem with letting Gingrich off the hook, i.e., he’s learning his lessons as are we all, is that he wants to be the leader of the free world. Have we learned nothing? Or, is it all just a circus that the media is exploiting for ratings? For surely, grounded voters are looking for the best possible candidates too.
[If you agree with this message, please pass it along on Twitter, Facebook, e-mail, etc.]
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Too Much Information or Not Enough?
We are getting "Future Shock" (ed) from an information overload. The book by futurist Alvin Toffler published in 1970 described maladies of today long before home computers drove us onto Al Gore’s Internet highway.
We ignore hundreds of millions of blogs, tweets, websites, etc., simply because too many exist. Amazon has, at my last counting, 837 separate books on numerology. Probably, all of them are different definitions too. Do you think I’m in an uphill battle?
I’ve gotten wise to what must be porno sites that use pretty females to lure tweeters into them with clever witticisms that all sound alike. Then comes the bait of the really filthy "pick-up line" phrase. I suspect that if recipients don’t know what it means, and I don’t, it won’t matter. Also, if one doesn’t follow or get it, which I didn’t, they get "unfollowed" very quickly. I felt quite insulted until I figured out what must be the gig. Another cue is clicking the sites to check them out, "User does not exist" comes up. Hum?
Initially, I thought young actresses wanted a mentor of a former actress, so followed my Twitter feed. When they didn’t find me on the IMDb website, became discouraged, thinking I was some phoney. I was a 99-seat waiver darling [my term] of critics. It’s a long story. 99-seat waiver work involves stage plays. See! I know the lingo. Of which several reviews a year for many years in trades and newspapers brought me notice. Not having kept clippings, I have no record that is even true. Old reviews don’t even exist in Cyberspace since it was so long ago. My only paid work other than print ads and bit/extra parts (depending on the medium) was one Super Bowl "Hey Charger" commercial in 1975. I think it was 1975. My Nun who was hot for the Dodge Charger doesn’t show up on searches. Jamie Farr and Paul Link don’t come up either for their work on that ad campaign. They must have been in an alternate reality too. So, essentially, we don’t exist, but I know they do. Removing "a former actress" from my Twitter bio might restore credibility and discourage "fishers." Or, is it phishing?
I actually do read Twitter tweeters whom I follow. It isn’t a number game of how many I have to validate my existence, of which I have few, so I’m kept humble. I also drop Twitters I’ve followed, but who tweet, nothing other than where they are going and what they are doing. Except my real friends—though I’m beginning to consider some virtual friends as real. Am I headed for a padded room yet? So, how can I complain when I stop following too?
See how easy it is? I’ve already overloaded you with too much information or TMI?
This got me to thinking about the overload of information. Short-story—long, I worked as an actress when only three networks existed. Yes, I am that old. Let’s leave it there, shall we? With so many news organizations spewing their particular dogmas, our heads are spinning. What and who do we believe when validating every piece of information is impossible?
We rely on online news organizations of people we don’t know. We’ve never seen most of their faces until they show up on cable "news" programs. At least we knew what the big three news anchors looked like.
. . . Me, too! . . . I also suspect people who don’t put pictures in their bios of being really ugly, hiding their real identity, or really Internet inept. However, when someone uses Tipper Gore’s picture for a phoney Twitter site, ANYTHING is possible! We can see how easily con artists dupe people into sending strangers from places they’ve never lived bank account numbers for inheritances of people they’ve never met. Do they and the Viagra spam ever end?! You’d think Viagra would have a built-in audience. Honestly, life was simpler with only three channels.
Again, what and who do we believe? We rely on major television and radio networks, cable, and known on-line sites to give truthful information. When those entities have agendas, can we believe them?!
We must sometimes rely on gut instincts. When gut instincts are lacking from lack of an experiential life, we might as well give up and go fishing. No, not phishing—fishing, fishing.
Number One (1) has (Adjust) as its initial tier and word pattern. This lesson must be so important, so, not to become a (Jackass) who will (Just Ask) for answers that it is the very first tier. Although, "I’d rather ask questions and look stupid than not ask and be stupid." Since, "Dust cannot cling to thin air," we might not comprehend answers to our questions anyway, if having no frame-of-reference. Therefore, adjusting to a myriad of life circumstances and getting life’s questions answered by others must be a balancing act between the two.
Programing citizens to believe propaganda, was much easier with only three networks to spew it. Imagine when we had fewer sources of information. For example, with only "The Ten Commandments" and one sacred Book, programing people was a cinch. We just accepted that those documents confirmed reality. Yet, with information coming from infinite sources blanketing the planet, we still do.
Not to mention the other Commandments that we don’t seem to scrutinize thoroughly either, but forgiving our fathers and mothers is easy when we must honor them, unconditionally.
Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you. [This text is from an updated version that didn’t use Thee, Thou, and Thy.]
Besides parents getting free farmhands to work long hours, did this mean, honoring them no matter what? Did brutality, drug addiction, or incest matter to the person who fashioned that Commandment? Or, did he just lack insight and foresight of the pitfalls of that commanded edict? Honoring parents under all circumstances may just be enabling them to continue bad behavior as well passing it onto offspring. Gee, how is it that this planet is becoming so screwy?
When giving adults a behavior pass, it becomes easier to comprehend why people overlooked and ignored Sandusky’s actions. When we are to honor parents/adults unquestionably, this is a prescription for the Sandusky scandal and coverup. Abuse of women, children, and those who weren’t like "us," has occurred for aeons. Modern times now question past precepts and now we disparage such actions. Whoever wrote "The Ten Commandments" was unaware of human nature and how it would evolve from such decrees.
We must ask what kind of person really wrote The Ten Commandments, and just how naive was Charlton Heston? I mean Moses. Are the ones who fashioned that document the same kinds as those in the United States Congress who fashion laws to benefit themselves and hurt citizens?
Many, who were young adults during the era of three networks, protested to end the Vietnam War. Those in the Occupy movements are now doing so to end political thievery. It seems the time has come to wake up to injustices.
Does this, 2011 Four (4) year, allow for being (Moved) to make changes and be (Made Victorious) over wrongheaded thinking? So, though we are "Future Shock" (ing) ourselves into stupors, perhaps, too much information is better for making decisions than little information where we couldn’t make them, properly, either.
There, I said it. So, go ahead and "unfollow" me. It’s only my one opinion of many.
We ignore hundreds of millions of blogs, tweets, websites, etc., simply because too many exist. Amazon has, at my last counting, 837 separate books on numerology. Probably, all of them are different definitions too. Do you think I’m in an uphill battle?
I’ve gotten wise to what must be porno sites that use pretty females to lure tweeters into them with clever witticisms that all sound alike. Then comes the bait of the really filthy "pick-up line" phrase. I suspect that if recipients don’t know what it means, and I don’t, it won’t matter. Also, if one doesn’t follow or get it, which I didn’t, they get "unfollowed" very quickly. I felt quite insulted until I figured out what must be the gig. Another cue is clicking the sites to check them out, "User does not exist" comes up. Hum?
Initially, I thought young actresses wanted a mentor of a former actress, so followed my Twitter feed. When they didn’t find me on the IMDb website, became discouraged, thinking I was some phoney. I was a 99-seat waiver darling [my term] of critics. It’s a long story. 99-seat waiver work involves stage plays. See! I know the lingo. Of which several reviews a year for many years in trades and newspapers brought me notice. Not having kept clippings, I have no record that is even true. Old reviews don’t even exist in Cyberspace since it was so long ago. My only paid work other than print ads and bit/extra parts (depending on the medium) was one Super Bowl "Hey Charger" commercial in 1975. I think it was 1975. My Nun who was hot for the Dodge Charger doesn’t show up on searches. Jamie Farr and Paul Link don’t come up either for their work on that ad campaign. They must have been in an alternate reality too. So, essentially, we don’t exist, but I know they do. Removing "a former actress" from my Twitter bio might restore credibility and discourage "fishers." Or, is it phishing?
I actually do read Twitter tweeters whom I follow. It isn’t a number game of how many I have to validate my existence, of which I have few, so I’m kept humble. I also drop Twitters I’ve followed, but who tweet, nothing other than where they are going and what they are doing. Except my real friends—though I’m beginning to consider some virtual friends as real. Am I headed for a padded room yet? So, how can I complain when I stop following too?
See how easy it is? I’ve already overloaded you with too much information or TMI?
This got me to thinking about the overload of information. Short-story—long, I worked as an actress when only three networks existed. Yes, I am that old. Let’s leave it there, shall we? With so many news organizations spewing their particular dogmas, our heads are spinning. What and who do we believe when validating every piece of information is impossible?
We rely on online news organizations of people we don’t know. We’ve never seen most of their faces until they show up on cable "news" programs. At least we knew what the big three news anchors looked like.
. . . Me, too! . . . I also suspect people who don’t put pictures in their bios of being really ugly, hiding their real identity, or really Internet inept. However, when someone uses Tipper Gore’s picture for a phoney Twitter site, ANYTHING is possible! We can see how easily con artists dupe people into sending strangers from places they’ve never lived bank account numbers for inheritances of people they’ve never met. Do they and the Viagra spam ever end?! You’d think Viagra would have a built-in audience. Honestly, life was simpler with only three channels.
Again, what and who do we believe? We rely on major television and radio networks, cable, and known on-line sites to give truthful information. When those entities have agendas, can we believe them?!
We must sometimes rely on gut instincts. When gut instincts are lacking from lack of an experiential life, we might as well give up and go fishing. No, not phishing—fishing, fishing.
Number One (1) has (Adjust) as its initial tier and word pattern. This lesson must be so important, so, not to become a (Jackass) who will (Just Ask) for answers that it is the very first tier. Although, "I’d rather ask questions and look stupid than not ask and be stupid." Since, "Dust cannot cling to thin air," we might not comprehend answers to our questions anyway, if having no frame-of-reference. Therefore, adjusting to a myriad of life circumstances and getting life’s questions answered by others must be a balancing act between the two.
Programing citizens to believe propaganda, was much easier with only three networks to spew it. Imagine when we had fewer sources of information. For example, with only "The Ten Commandments" and one sacred Book, programing people was a cinch. We just accepted that those documents confirmed reality. Yet, with information coming from infinite sources blanketing the planet, we still do.
Not to mention the other Commandments that we don’t seem to scrutinize thoroughly either, but forgiving our fathers and mothers is easy when we must honor them, unconditionally.
Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you. [This text is from an updated version that didn’t use Thee, Thou, and Thy.]
Besides parents getting free farmhands to work long hours, did this mean, honoring them no matter what? Did brutality, drug addiction, or incest matter to the person who fashioned that Commandment? Or, did he just lack insight and foresight of the pitfalls of that commanded edict? Honoring parents under all circumstances may just be enabling them to continue bad behavior as well passing it onto offspring. Gee, how is it that this planet is becoming so screwy?
When giving adults a behavior pass, it becomes easier to comprehend why people overlooked and ignored Sandusky’s actions. When we are to honor parents/adults unquestionably, this is a prescription for the Sandusky scandal and coverup. Abuse of women, children, and those who weren’t like "us," has occurred for aeons. Modern times now question past precepts and now we disparage such actions. Whoever wrote "The Ten Commandments" was unaware of human nature and how it would evolve from such decrees.
We must ask what kind of person really wrote The Ten Commandments, and just how naive was Charlton Heston? I mean Moses. Are the ones who fashioned that document the same kinds as those in the United States Congress who fashion laws to benefit themselves and hurt citizens?
Many, who were young adults during the era of three networks, protested to end the Vietnam War. Those in the Occupy movements are now doing so to end political thievery. It seems the time has come to wake up to injustices.
Does this, 2011 Four (4) year, allow for being (Moved) to make changes and be (Made Victorious) over wrongheaded thinking? So, though we are "Future Shock" (ing) ourselves into stupors, perhaps, too much information is better for making decisions than little information where we couldn’t make them, properly, either.
There, I said it. So, go ahead and "unfollow" me. It’s only my one opinion of many.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)