Image via Wikipedia

Posted at Grant Lawrence–Bodhi Thunder

There are differing meditative techniques that produce differing brain wave functions.

Focused attention produces (Tibetan Loving Kindness)
a more wakeful beta state.

Automatic Self Transcending (transcendental meditation) produces a slower brain wave that would be similar to that produced from a contemplative walk.

Open monitoring (Zen Buddhist Meditation, Mindfulness) produces an even slower brain wave activity that is similar to the effect one gets while driving down the highway and the person experiences no memory of the event.

Grant

…A new paper published in Consciousness and Cognition discusses three categories to organize and better understand meditation:

1. Focused attention—concentrating on an object or emotion;
2. Open monitoring—being mindful of one’s breath or thoughts;
3. Automatic self-transcending—meditations that transcend their own activity—a new category introduced by the authors.

Each category was assigned EEG bands, based on reported brain patterns during mental tasks, and meditations were categorized based on their reported EEG.

“The idea is that meditation is, in a sense, a ‘cognitive task,’ and EEG frequencies are known for different tasks,” said Fred Travis, Ph.D., co-author, and Director of the Center for Brain, Consciousness, and Cognition at Maharishi University of Management.

Focused attention, characterized by beta/gamma activity, included meditations from Tibetan Buddhist (loving kindness and compassion), Buddhist (Zen and Diamond Way), and Chinese (Qigong) traditions.

Open monitoring, characterized by theta activity, included meditations from Buddhist (Mindfulness, and ZaZen), Chinese (Qigong), and Vedic (Sahaja Yoga) traditions.

Automatic self-transcending, characterized by alpha1 activity, included meditations from Vedic (Transcendental Meditation) and Chinese (Qigong) traditions…..(source: eureka alert)

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Posted at Grant Lawrence–Bodhi Thunder

Paul Craig Roberts, economist and former Reagan Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, has a plan to turn the American economy around. He points out the major problems of economic globalization and outsourcing as the problem.

Roberts says that a sane tax policy on corporations could begin to transform the economy.
He also advises the end to unfair trade and the protection of American assets.

But he thinks it might be too late to save the American economy. The money and the propaganda is too powerful and the American people have been unable to think beyond the programming.

Grant

Image via Wikipedia

By Grant Lawrence

Bodhi Thunder

There is a bill before Congress introduced by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) that would toughen safety standards for beauty products and require regular government testing for hazardous ingredients.

Presently the FDA, as I have previously reported, does little to regulate beauty products, such as make-up, lip stick, and hair dies. The ingredients can sometimes contain chemicals linked to cancer and other health problems.

Stacy Malkan is co-founder of Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, author of Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry.

In an interview on Democracy Now, Malkan exposes some of the dangers found in beauty products.

“…..Well, we tested a bunch of lipsticks and found that they contained lead. As John mentioned, FDA did a study. To call it a comprehensive study is a gross misrepresentation. The FDA did no type of safety assessment to determine the safety of lead in lipstick. They took two years to analyze lipsticks for lead, and then they reported, yes, guess what, lipsticks contain lead. Some brands—and they happen to be the most popular brands on the market—L’Oréal, CoverGirl, Revlon, Maybelline—had much higher levels than many other brands. And so, yeah, I think it’s a good idea to establish good manufacturing practices and say to those companies, “Hey, let’s figure out how to get rid of this problem,” because any amount of lead— is dangerous. We know that from the science…

…Well, the United States is much further behind than most other countries, industrialized countries, when it comes to cosmetics safety. Europe has banned about 1,100 chemicals that are known or highly suspected of causing cancer or birth defects. And many other countries have followed suit. Japan has banned formaldehyde. These are chemicals—some of them are still being used in the United States. For example, we find dibutyl phthalate in nail polish, coal tar in dandruff shampoo, lead acetate in men’s hair dyes. Those are products you wouldn’t find in Europe. And so, the US is much further behind. Canada is further ahead. They’re setting up a hotlist of chemicals that need to be phased out of cosmetics. And those are good steps….” (source: democracy now)

Amazingly many cosmetic companies engage in what has been called “pinkwashing.”

“....Pinkwashing is when companies present themselves as advocates for women’s health in the fight against breast cancer and yet continue to use chemicals that are linked to cancer. Annie talks about that in the film, and she mentions Estée Lauder. Revlon, Avon are also companies that have pink ribbon events and give money to breast cancer charities. And that’s great, but how these companies could really be champions for women’s health would be to stop buying carcinogens from the chemical companies. And, unfortunately, we see that all three of those companies have products with high toxicities, dozens of products that rank an eight or higher in our Skin Deep database, and products that contain chemicals like formaldehyde, releasing preservatives and chemicals that are ethoxylated, which are often contaminated with 1,4-dioxane and which use in the processing a known breast carcinogen, ethylene oxide, which may be causing worker exposures. And so, you know, we just need to get carcinogens out of these products and for these companies to stand—the first one to stand up and say they’re going to be the one to do it, I think, is one that is going to be making a smart move, because consumers do not want to be buying products with carcinogens. And I think those three companies have a particular responsibility to clean up their act….” (source)

The beauty industry now says that it supports some regulation. But the companies want to do the testing and tell the FDA what chemicals are safe and unsafe.

John Bailey is a Chief Scientist at the Personal Care Products Council and a member of the ‘revolving door club’, which means he formerly worked at the FDA. This ‘revolving door,’ as we should know, is a common problem. Those that are supposed to regulate an industry end up working for that industry, and then also sometimes return to the government.

Baily says:

“….Where I think we differ is that FDA cannot—it’s simply not something they’re able to do—assess all of these ingredients and make a determination of safe, unsafe. That’s really best done by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review. The idea of classification of ingredients as safe or unsafe is not a simple process. It really has to take into account the ingredient, how it’s used, how it’s controlled, and so forth. So, I think that what we know about the Schakowsky bill—and frankly, we haven’t seen it yet—it goes far beyond what’s really necessary….” (source)

Actress Fran Drescher, Cancer Survivor, and founder of the Cancer Schmancer Movement sums it up.

“….Well, I became aware of the fact that the European Union has much stricter regulations than the United States does, and the European Union had eliminated 1,100 chemicals from their skin care compositions and formulations, and the United States eliminated eleven. So I thought, hmm, there’s something wrong here. And then, as I investigated further, I realized that this is a self-regulating industry, which is basically the fox guarding the henhouse. So I thought, well, I am not opposed to certain regulations, because I fear that when certain manufacturers, given the choice between doing the right thing on behalf of the consumer or compromising safety in the interest of profit, and particularly when they are answerable to, you know, shareholders and their profit margin, I suspect that a lot of manufacturers are going to err on the side of greed rather than what’s the right thing to do. And that’s why we now have child labor laws.

And that’s why we should have had more regulations for Wall Street and the banking industry to answer to, and perhaps we wouldn’t be in this economic crisis today. So, and it was regulations that were put in, instituted after the big stock market crash of 1929, and then, in the ’90s it was uplifted, and now here we are in 2010 in another economic crisis as a result. So, clearly, people, where there’s money involved, can’t be trusted. I’m sure that there are people that can be, and they’re out there, and they’re presently involved in doing green products, but as a general rule, there’s too many out there that are not.

And so, I say that our elected officials, who represent we the people, need to step up to the plate and support the Safe Cosmetics for 2010 Initiative. And I will be in Washington personally lobbying for this. And I hope that members on both sides of the party line will support this bill, because this is a nonpartisan issue. This is a human issue, and it affects all of us.” (source: democracy now)

Image via WikipediaBy Grant Lawrence

Bodhi Thunder

According to The former MI5 Director General Eliza Manningham-Buller, Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein posed little threat to Britain or the West. Manningham-Buller made these statements to a British inquiry investigating the reasons for the Iraq War.

.…In evidence that undermined the case for war presented by the former prime minister Tony Blair, she was asked whether it was feared Saddam could have linked terrorists to weapons of mass destruction, facilitating their use against the west.“It certainly wasn’t of concern in either the short term or the medium term to me or my colleagues,” she replied….(source: guardian.co.uk)

The former MI5 Director also says that as the result of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a whole generation of radicalized Muslims being created throughout the world.

So why did the United States and its Allies invade Iraq?

Well obviously we wouldn’t be there if there weren’t the oil and the strategic positioning.

But on a larger scale the invasion on Iraq was done to expand Empire. The elite and the political puppets have called this Empire the “New World Order.”

But don’t take my word for it.

Watch the video below and you will hear the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown explain that the Iraqi War was implemented and maintained for the “New World Order.”

See Video HERE

Image via Wikipedia