My husband and I sleep in separate bedrooms — here’s why
I am pleased to see this story online. I am such a light and restless sleeper that I have always had to sleep separately from any partner. There are very few women who understand that, though. I do know what I am missing as I do enjoy lying cuddled up together at other times. Zoe is slim and only 5'1" tall so her small body fits very neatly into my cuddle
Influencer Taylor Paul shared a video revealing the reasons why she and her husband sleep in separate bedrooms.
Paul first explained that multiple times, her husband would search around their room at night looking for a shirt.
When he would go to another room to search for it, she suggested that he just sleep in the guest room so that she could go back to bed.
She explained that the nights he slept in the guest room, she would end up having a really good sleep.
“He also sleepwalks, sleep talks, and does some creepy s**t, so this just happened to work out,” she said.
Paul also said that she likes to sleep in warmer temperatures but her husband prefers it to be cooler.
Similarly, she likes to sleep in silence, yet he likes to use a white noise machine.
“I feel like this is the best situation for us,” she said. “We have a really healthy marriage, we get good sleep, and we both love our separate rooms.”
Giving her followers a tour of their separate rooms, she showed off her stunning bedroom, with perfect decorations, a large television, and a bathroom.
She laughed while showing off her husband’s much messier room, which had laundry thrown on the floor and his bedsheets stained from spray tans.
The couple has two children together and they believe that this sleep setup is the most beneficial for their marriage.
Viewers were split on the topic, saying: “I would never be able to!! I sleep better when he is next to me,” said one viewer, while another said: “We sleep in separate rooms because my husband snores so loud and I’m such a light sleeper.”
https://nypost.com/2022/04/25/my-husband-and-i-sleep-in-separate-bedrooms-some-think-its-weird/
*********************************************The CDC and Unmasking White Coat Supremacy
US district judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle has ruled that the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) had exceeded its authority in extending an airline mask mandate until May 3. As the judge noted, the CDC improperly invoked the “good cause exception,” allowing the federal agency to avoid public notification and comment. The CDC also allowed mask exemptions for some groups and not others. The White House announced an appeal, and the loudest voice against the judge’s ruling was chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci.
“For a court to come in and interfere in that is really unfortunate. It’s unfortunate because it’s against public health principles,” Dr. Fauci told reporters. “That’s no place for the courts to do that. This is a CDC decision.” Eric Boehm of Reason magazine took issue with the Biden advisor.
“Fauci’s belief that the CDC ought to exist outside of the constitutional limitations applied to government actions is stunning,” Boehm wrote. “This is either a complete misunderstanding of the American system’s basic functions or an expression of disdain toward the rule of law.” Boehm is right on both counts, as Dr. Fauci confirmed back in October of 2021.
In an event with McGill University in Canada, Dr. Fauci said, “you do have personal liberties for yourself and you should be in control of that. But you are a member of society, and as a member of society—reaping all the benefits of being a member of society—you have a responsibility to society. And I think each of us, particularly in the context of a pandemic that’s killing millions of people, you have got to look at it and say there comes a time when you do have to give up what you consider your individual right of making your own decision, for the greater good of society.”
The White House advisor thus makes it clear that he misunderstands the American system, disregards the rule of law, and dismisses the whole concept of personal liberty. The Biden advisor has also clarified that federal agencies do not know what is best for public health.
Dr. Fauci has changed his position on masks but now claims “I represent science,” and that those who criticize him are actually criticizing science. That sweeping claim calls for scrutiny.
Anthony Fauci earned a medical degree in 1966 but in 1968 he took a job with the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fauci’s bio shows no advanced degrees in molecular biology or biochemistry but in 1984, NIH made him head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a position he still holds.
Dr. Fauci never treated a COVID patient and ordered destructive lockdowns that caused widespread suffering. The Biden advisor now wants the CDC to override the courts, which calls for a look at Dr. Nancy Messonnier, former director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD).
In a series of telebriefings in early 2020, Dr. Messonnier praised the People’s Republic of China, a Communist dictatorship, and hailed CDC’s cooperation with the China-compliant World Health Organization (WHO). Dr. Messonnier never treated a COVID patient but when she suddenly retired to take a position with the Skoll Foundation, the CDC described her as a “true hero.”
Dr. Messonnier began her CDC career with the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS), tasked to prevent infectious diseases from arriving on American soil. In the case of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, the vaunted EIS failed completely. The CDC has been quiet on the EIS role, and if any EIS officers were demoted, disciplined, or lost their job.
This is the federal bureaucracy Dr. Fauci wants to override the courts, the Constitution, and individual liberty. Dr. Fauci thus unmasks white coat supremacy rule over the people by fallible medical bureaucrats unelected by the people. There comes a time when white coat supremacy must end if liberty is to endure.
https://blog.independent.org/2022/04/25/cdc-white-coat-supremacy/?omhide=true
********************************************Petulant liberals are melting down over the realization that they've lost the power to control and suppress everyone else's speech on Twitter
By Meghan Mccain
Twitter is and has long been the meanest, ugliest, and least fun of all the social media platforms.
I joined Twitter in 2008. And I have spent more time than I'd like to admit on the platform.
But I am a child of social media, like the rest of my fellow older millennials. For the most part, I don't regret my hours and energies spent on Twitter.
There was even a short period of time, from 2009-2012, when Twitter was still somewhat collegial. But after the Republican Party's nomination of Donald Trump all of that changed.
Twitter itself seemed to adopt the position that some speech is not just inappropriate – but immoral, dangerous, and evil.
It became a space utilized by trolls to harass, virtue-signal and vent their anger.
And its trending topics became something that meant a great deal to those working in media and almost nothing to the people working in the real world.
In fact, I have been seriously considering deactivating my account.
Personally, Twitter has too often become a vessel for abuse and harassment against me.
Look at the replies to my tweets about literally anything.
Most comments are about how fat, ugly, stupid, and disgusting I am, according to some random, anonymous troll, and the replies often stray into threats of violence and outright abuse.
By far my worst experience on Twitter occurred after the death of my father.
A photograph taken of me crying at my dad's casket was doctored to show a gun pointed at my head.
The image stayed on Twitter for days and was retweeted around the platform.
Twitter did not take any action to remove it until my husband started flipping out and demanding it be taken down.
It eventually was removed, and this sad episode ultimately led to a personal phone call and apology from Jack Dorsey.
I still appreciate the concern that he showed, but that ugly image stayed up far too long and caused unnecessary emotional distress at a time in my life when I was already broken from grief and sadness.
Put yourself in my situation. Imagine having to deal with not just an unresponsive Twitter but also the FBI and what amounted to a clear threat on my life.
I shouldn't have had to endure that, and I believe that if I were Sasha or Malia Obama, it would have been taken down immediately.
And therein lies the problem – Twitter has become a tool of the liberal elite status quo.
It has been long suspected that Twitter designed its' algorithms to favor liberal politicians, pundits, and personalities and their ideas, while at the same time censoring dissenting opinions.
Conservative personalities – including me – have suspected that Twitter has engaged in 'shadowbanning,' which is the secret suppression of an individuals' account without their knowledge.
Donald Trump and the satirical website The Babylon Bee were both deplatformed but Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei is still allowed to tweet out calls for genocide.
Some of the rules seem random, but too often, liberal and progressive sensibilities are protected, while conservatives are punished or ignored.
The obvious question is: Why did I stay on Twitter if it gotten so bad?
The truth is that I still believe in Twitter's potential to be a useful and positive force in the world.
Although most Americans are not on Twitter (it only has 38 million users in the United States as compared to the 221.6 million on Facebook), it is still a place where news, ideas, corporate messages and media narratives are crafted and spread.
I have stayed because it is still a great tool to distribute my work (like this column), opinions and ideas to a mass audience.
It is a good way to combat falsehoods and fight the spread of rumors.
*********************************************
Now chocolate is incorrect
"Pure" chocolate is derived from cacao, the name for the unprocessed bean. And once the bean has been processed, ground and roasted, it's known as cocoa.
But while the end product might be incomparably tasty, the production of the cacao bean has been linked to farmer exploitation, corporate apathy, and adult and child slave labour.
Cacao trees have been traced back to both the Mesoamerican region – present-day Mexico, the Yucatan Peninsula, Guatemala, Belize and Honduras – and also the Amazon river basin in South America, explains Ingrid Fromm, a researcher at the Bern University of Applied Sciences.
In pre-Hispanic times, the Mayans, Aztecs and Olmec cultures greatly valued cacao. They consumed it crushed up in a thick and bitter beverage, says Dr Fromm, who is also a board member of the Swiss Platform for Sustainable Cocoa.
Spanish conquistadors who came to Mexico in the 16th century brought the exotic drink back to Spain. From there, cacao was transported into the rest of Europe, she explains.
Then, in the late 19th century, Switzerland became the first country to add milk powder to the cocoa, creating milk chocolate and the first chocolate bars.
"This was a huge breakthrough for the market of cocoa and for industrialised food products," Ms Off, who is the author of Bitter Chocolate: Investigating the Dark Side of the World's Most Seductive Sweet, says.
"Not only was it something that was easy to sell, and to transport and to package, but it was also affordable to the masses."
And that's when the trouble began.
As the popularity of chocolate grew, so too did the demand for cacao beans. To keep up, cacao was transported from the Americas to the African continent.
In 1855, the Portuguese brought cacao to the island of Sao Tome off the West African coast, where a very humid, tropical climate was ideal for cacao production, Dr Fromm says.
Eventually, the bean made its way from the island to the mainland.
Today 70 per cent of cacao production takes place in Ghana, Ivory Coast, Nigeria and Cameroon.
And as at 2021, about 5 million tonnes of processed cacao beans were produced worldwide.
Dr Fromm says cacao is mainly produced by small-scale and "very resource-poor" producers.
These farmers do not have the same economic power as the large chocolate corporations, and the price they're able to get for their cacao beans has been decreasing.
Molly Harriss Olson, CEO of Fairtrade Australia and New Zealand, and the former chair of the global board of Fairtrade, said its 2015 report showed that in the cocoa industry "farmers everywhere in the world are living below [the] $1-a-day poverty line".
She says farmers who lack power or influence in their supply chains "are really forced to take the price that these very large companies can force through their power in the marketplace".
That means "family-type labour" is common in West Africa, and particularly Ghana and the Ivory Coast, Dr Fromm says.
"If you're a producer that has maybe more than two hectares of land, you may hire labour for that particular season, the harvest season, but it tends to be family labour.
"This is why we also know that there are cases of child labour. And this also has to do with the fact that the producers are paid very little money for the cacao beans, and poverty is also a driving force behind child labour," she says.
In 2012, the then-CEO of World Vision Tim Costello said that 61 per cent of the children who work on cocoa farms didn't get to go to school "so we get to eat cheap chocolate".
Indeed research undertaken by Tulane University in New Orleans found that in 2013/14, 2.26 million children were working in cocoa production in the Ivory Coast and Ghana.
Ms Off says chocolate companies denied knowledge of such practices when NGOs first raised alarms.
"[The NGOs reported] that it appeared there was a form of slave labour and ... children being moved from not just other regions, but other countries, into the cocoa-producing regions in order to work on these farms for no money," she says.
As pressure mounted in the early 2000s, including within the US Congress, "it became a political interest to question whether the chocolate companies were involved in some pretty bad practices in order to produce their product", Ms Off says.
But, in 2008, Fortune magazine reported that "little progress has been made". And according to the same publication in 2016, approximately 2.1 million children in West Africa "still do the dangerous and physically taxing work of harvesting cocoa".
There has been some improvement since then, says Dr Fromm. Today many bigger companies are working to ensure that farmers are paid a living income. She hopes that income continues to increase over the next decade.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
1 comment:
And most of the "child labor" used to raise Cacao is family farms so any movement to not buy from those countries is simply going to cause those farmers to have an even smaller income, even less buying power and puts their children who have labored for them at risk of starvation.
A better solution would be to put a floor price for Cacao from those countries and encourage companies to buy a percentage of their Cacao from those countries to encourage those farmers and even to let them earn enough that they can afford to hire adults to work for them.
However a floor price should be only for small farmers and not for corporation who would simply buy or steal large tracts of land in those countries in order to benefit from those higher prices and effectively shut out those small farms also causing the exact problem we are trying to prevent.
Post a Comment