Psychedelic Psychotherapy

Once thought to be something that died out in the 60's, Psychedelic therapy is still being conducted today. It all began in 1943 when Albert Hoffmann of Sandoz Laboratories accidentally made (and ingested) LSD. As a result of his experience, he decided to utilize it for use as a therapeutic aid. This eventually caught on in the 1950's, and the results were actually pretty positive. Strange as it seems, Time Magazine even ended up publishing a few articles that didn't make the substance seem as if it were an evil byproduct of Satan and rock music.

The results of this peculiar brand of psychotherapy were mostly positive. Some studies have even shown that it has assisted in treating alcoholism. The former link states that, according to the NHS, "there is no evidence that LSD does any long-term damage to the body or mind." Both of these articles were written in 2006, several years after the substance gained such a horrible reputation.

There have been similar studies conducted with the hallucinogenic substance Ibogaine. The following video shows how it helped a heroin addict kick the habit.



Most recently, an article posted this year describes the positive effects of psychedelic psychotherapy on a 67 year old woman. The woman described in the article has ovarian cancer, and while the psychotherapy was not able to cure cancer, it was able to treat her cancer anxiety, as well as post-traumatic stress. The session was able to give her a very positive outlook regarding the remainder of her life.

Despite all of the evidence that psychedelics, when used in a controlled medical environment for psychotherapeutic purposes, have the potential to provide individuals with an improved psychological state, or help them kick addictions to harmful and addictive substances, they're still commonly regarded in an immensely negative light.

It's easy to see how the counter-culture movement of the 1960's left a bad taste in everyone's mouth regarding the use of psychedelics. Timothy Leary's mantra "Turn on, tune in, drop out" was commonly misinterpreted as an invitation for teenagers to drop out of school, abuse drugs, and contribute absolutely nothing to society. Leary later explained the true meaning of the phrase in an autobiography released in the early 1980's. "'Drop out' suggested an elective, selective, graceful process of detachment from involuntary or subconscious commitments. 'Drop out' meant self-reliance, a discovery of one's singularity, a commitment to mobility, choice, and change. Unhappily my explanations of this sequence of personal development were often misinterpreted to mean 'Get stoned and abandon all constructive activity.'"

Unfortunately this proved to be too little, too late, especially considering the fact that a massive amount of people really did just get stoned and abandon all constructive activity as a result of his mantra.

It still seems like a stretch to be using psychedelics for therapeutic purposes. However, the medical industry is constantly distributing dangerous drugs. Don't believe me? Well, check out the following commercial for Celebrex.



The narrator for the ad literally says that Celebrex can lead to death. Yet this substance is not only legal, but it's getting ad time on the air!

I'd like to make it clear that I'm not advocating the use of drugs for people to solve their problems. However, it seems that it would be more logical for the previously described psychedelics (none of which, according to NHS, have any deadly side effects) to be used in a medical setting than a substance that has a massive list of horrible side-effects.

Again, I'm not advocating the legalization of psychedelic substances at all, but it's been proven that they've been able to greatly assist people, and it's also been shown that many of the negative connotations associated with them are commonly attached to the counter-culture movement of the 1960's.

Considering the positive effects that these substances have had, perhaps it wouldn't be a ridiculous notion to give professionals of science and medicine the opportunity to research them for the sake of creating a safer alternative to many of our current pharmaceutical substances.

Facebook Becoming a Pay-Only Website?

According to a group on Facebook, members of the site will eventually have to pay to use the famous social networking site. To be honest, I thought I was having some sort of horrible nightmare when I read this. It couldn't be true. Facebook is a site for everyone, and nobody in their right mind would pay to use a site where Big Brother monitors each member's activities and then posts advertisements based on every individual's specific interests.

According to their group description, "This is a petition to stop Facebook from charging $14.99 a month starting from July 2010. Because of Facebook's huge popularity Mark Zuckerberg is getting a lot of offers from people wanting to buy Facebook. People who WILL turn it into a paysite."

Wow, this seems pretty legit. Despite the fact that there's no actual proof that it's true, and we only have the James Sullivan's (the creator of the group) word for it. A few seconds of further investigation show that there's a catch that goes with this group. The last paragraph of the description states the following, "Earn a free Apple iPad by working as a tester. They send you a free iPad, and you use it for a week and then write a 300 word review. They let you keep an iPad as a thank you for a work."

It seems pretty awkward to put that as a closing paragraph, especially when the group is backing a supposedly important cause. Especially when the previous paragraph was just one sentence stating, "WE WILL NOT PAY TO USE FACEBOOK!!!!"

Seems very odd. What could be their motivation? Why should the iPad have anything to do with someone buying out Facebook?

Let's check out the group's official website:

Wow, what a shock! This website has absolutely nothing to do with rallying up support for a petition that would end what would be a potentially horrible move for the social networking site, and absolutely everything to do with Apple's revolutionary new product, the iPad.

It's almost as if someone made a group with a threatening title in an effort to get several people to join. Then, once they're all in, they'll be lured by the promise of a free Apple iPad.

One would think that Apple was behind this, but the website offering out the free iPad states that "Freebieape.com is not affiliated with Apple(R) All Apple(R) trademarks are the property of Apple(R) and Freebieape.com does not, in any way, claim to represent or own any of the Apple(R) trademarks or rights."

So, at first it seemed as if Facebook was behind this, and then it seemed like Apple was pulling all the strings, but in reality it was a strange website called "Freebieape.com." This proved to be a conspiracy within a conspiracy within a conspiracy. Which is arguably pretty cool, but I still don't quite think I understand the motive. Maybe all three companies are in on it?

According to an article from Telegraph.co.uk, a spokesman for Facebook said that "We have no plans to charge users for Facebook's basic services. Facebook is a free service for its 350 million users."

So, it looks like the whole thing was based on a lie. Who knew?

Either way, the group has more than 300,000 members. So it looks like everyone's safe.

I, Robot?

The times, they are a changin', and so is technology. A recent article on CNN discusses how robot technology may have the potential to change the future. The article is essentially an interview with someone from the CNN website and the professor of robotics and artificial intelligence at the University of Sheffield in the UK; Noel Sharkey. The interviewer from CNN asks pretty much asks every kind of question that someone would want to ask an individual who is knowledgeable of the latest robot technology.

According to Sharkey, "What's real about robots today is they're not intelligent. I quite often say they're not bright enough to be called stupid." This quote seems to thwart any kind of Asimov inspired conspiracies perpetuated by paranoid people. As the interview goes on, however, we find that there are some terrifying uses for these machines.

Sharkey openly discusses the fact that the military has been contacting him regarding the use of military robots.

"A military robot might go out," begins Sharkey, "and if it finds insurgents, it kills them, because there's a rule saying 'only kill them if it's an insurgent.'"

Sharkey exposes a flaw in this plan by describing an incident where a group of marines refused to kill an insurgent, out of respect, because they were carrying a coffin.

"You could program the robot that if they saw insurgents with a coffin," says Sharkey, "don't kill them. But then you're going to have every insurgent carrying a coffin. It's as simple as that. This thing about being able to discriminate. It requires common sense. And something robots don't have is common sense."

It may seem simultaneously frightening and exciting that robots are being considered for use as killing machines, but it doesn't stop there. There's a group out there called The Venus Project that plans on changing the world in a very drastic manner.

The Venus Project may sound unfamiliar to most, but many more people are familiar with a popular video created by supporters and members of The Venus Project's movement: Zeitgeist.

The above video is the sequel to Zeitgeist. Both Zeitgeist and its sequel take several conspiracy theories and lump them all up into one huge, awesome, monstrosity of a conspiracy theory. The film takes footage from other films like "Network" in an effort to rally supporters for The Venus Project.

So, for those of you who aren't familiar with The Venus Project, I'd recommend you read up on it. They have some interesting ideas, and some terrifying ideas. The interesting idea is that they want to get rid of the monetary system (and the above video shows a somewhat legitimate justification for this) and create a Utopian world where everyone lives in peace. The terrifying idea is that they want to utilize robots for coming up with political decisions. There was a PDF file available on the Zeitgeist website (which I'm currently having trouble locating) that was about 80 pages long, and it described the entire goal of The Venus Project. Once I started reading it, I thought it was revolutionary in some ways, but as I worked my way through it, I saw the plan fall apart. They actually think that, by programming a machine with the knowledge of Plato and Aristotle, it will be able to mathematically come up with good decisions for a democracy.

That sounds like a pretty terrifying notion, but even if The Venus Project's vision were to be fully realized, it would be very unlikely if it happened in our lifetimes, and it also would be pretty unlikely if it were to be exactly as the group's members had planned.

The idea of the military utilizing robotic killing machines, however, is pretty scary.

Obama Cursed With Low Approval Ratings

As far-fetched as it may seem, Obama's current approval rating is showing that Americans are beginning to lose hope in the current president. According to Rasmussen Reports, the presidential tracking poll for today shows that "27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index Rating of -15." These results give the impression that, despite the overwhelmingly positive response to Obama's election campaign, many are beginning to lose faith in his abilities as a president.

During his election campaign, Obama was known for giving moving and passionate speeches about bringing hope and change to America. Though his speeches obviously weren't the only thing going for him, it could easily be argued that they played a significant role in getting him elected.

I can personally admit that I was easily swayed by this aspect of his campaign. I was fortunate enough to be able to attend one of these speeches. Obama spoke in Bangor, Maine (photo courtesy of myself) during his campaign, and after witnessing the speech there was hardly a doubt in my mind that Obama had the potential to do great things for the America.

Granted, it has been about two years since said speech, but since it was the first time I'd witnessed a speech by a presidential candidate, it left a lasting impression.The speech occurred at a school, and he opened by conveniently stating that he was going to make a huge effort to help out teachers and schools. He then stated that he was going to focus on bringing both liberals and conservatives together in an effort to unite the citizens of America.

I think he also threw in something about ending the current war as soon as possible.

Those who oppose Obama would say that he didn't follow through with any of these things, and that he was elected solely because of his charm. This is pretty logical criticism, considering that the war is still going, and also that his presidency has created a band of conservatives who oppose him and any liberals that support him. It could also be argued that hardly any politicians truly keep their promises once they're elected.

Obama may not have ended the war, and he may not have pleased conservatives with his allegedly "socialist" healthcare plan. Still, it's not like he's wasting his time on vacation. His plan for the gradual reduction of nuclear weapons seems to be pretty promising.

Regardless, it goes without saying that there are several individuals out there who absolutely loathe President Obama.

This may seem like a pretty disorganized post, and that's because it totally is. The bottom line is that I really don't think Obama deserves such a low approval rating, even if he may have exaggerated a few things before becoming president.

iPad Launches This Weekend

Yesterday marks the release of Apple's new iPad. The iPad was unveiled by Steve Jobs earlier in the year. The following video features Jobs unloading the iPad on a group of sheep so loyal to Apple that they began clapping before the actual product was shown.



Jobs begins by describing how it has the remarkable ability of allowing the user to change the background. Seriously, he describes desktop background technology as if it's some sort of incredible futuristic breakthrough. He then goes on to discuss how incredible it is to browse the internet with the iPad. He describes the iPad's online access as "the best browsing experience you've ever had." He backs this assertion up by smashing several positive adjectives (such as unbelievable, great, and phenomenal) together and then stating that it's "much better than a laptop."

The features don't stop there, though. Believe it or not, it gets even better. Jobs goes on to unveil the phenomenal e-mail feature. He describes the touch screen keyboard as being "almost life-size," and a "dream to type on."

The iPad comes with a relatively small amount of storage space. iPads with a 16 GB hard drive cost $499.00. It costs another hundred dollars just to add 16 more GB, and for yet another hundred dollars, you can add 32 GB on that to get a whopping 64 GB of storage.

According to an article from cnet news, most people who dished out $500 for the iPad did so for the following reasons: the applications, the ease of use for the computer-averse, they didn't have a laptop, to use for a device on a coffee table, the sheer novelty, the fact that it wasn't a computer, and just as an impulse buy.

Perhaps I'm just a poor college student who feels that none of these reasons justify spending half a grand on what seems to be a giant iPhone endowed with Steve Jobs' blessing. I've yet to see, touch, or experience an iPad in person. So maybe this is all just very biased.

Either way, Apple made a lot of money this weekend.

Battlefield Earth Dubbed Worst Movie of the Decade

J. D. Shapiro recently received a "Razzie" for writing the screenplay to "Battlefield Earth." Razzie is short for "Golden Raspberry Award," and it's annually awarded to the absolute worst in film. Shapiro recently wrote an article for The New York Post in which he apologized for writing the movie.

Battlefield Earth is based on a novel written by L. Ron Hubbard, who is now more commonly known as the creator of Scientology.

"I had read an article in Premiere magazine saying that the Celebrity Center, the Scientology Epicenter in Los Angeles, was a great place to meet women," admits Shapiro. "I didn't find any eligible women at first, but I did meet Karen Hollander, president of the center... Karen called me a few days later asking if I'd be interested in turning any of L. Ron Hubbard's books into movies."

The rest, as they say, was history. One of the worst movies of the decade was apparently the result of one screenwriter trying to pick up chicks at the Scientology Epicenter. What's even more ridiculous is that when John Travolta first read the script, he called it "The 'Schindler's List' of Sci-Fi."

Though, in Shapiro's defense, he stated that his script was "very, VERY different than what ended up on the screen."



Everything started to go downhill when Shapiro received a batch of notes asking him to essentially change the entire movie. According to some gossip, L. Ron Hubbard apparently wanted Battlefield Earth to be made into a movie more than any of his other books. He "wrote extensive notes" on how he envisioned the film.

The movie was ruined. Shapiro only watched it once, and states that even that was "one too many times."

Facebook's Frightening New Feature

It goes without saying that an overwhelming percentage of us are on Facebook (photo courtesy of the Facebook website). It has it's benefits, that's for sure. Some of us may use it to keep in touch with old High School friends, and others may use it for business reasons. Whatever the case is, it does keep people connected.

However, there's a dark side to the social networking site. Facebook uses your personal information. Though there are privacy settings, there are several loopholes that Facebook uses to its benefit. Many applications such as "Farmville" or "Social Interview" also utilize your personal information.

To make matters worse, Facebook will soon have a new feature of Orwellian proportions: the "Place" feature. The "Place" feature allows you to post a link to where you are in your status, much like how you can post a friend's name in a status and it will link to their profile. Friends also have the ability to tag you in a particular place.

The following is a direct quote from Facebook's Privacy Policy page.

"Information from other users. We may collect information about you from other Facebook users, such as when a friend tags you in a photo, video, or place, provides friend details, or indicates a relationship with you."

Though the notion of having all of your friends know where you are may seem fascinating, it comes hand-in-hand with a ridiculous amount of privacy invasion. Now Facebook will have the potential to give away the names of your favorite music, books and movies, your address, phone number, interests, pictures, and current location.

Possibly the most frightening aspect of the situation is that Facebook's blatant invasion of privacy is practically common knowledge. Most of us are aware of Facebook's privacy stealing tactics, yet all of us (myself included) are still willingly checking our Facebook multiple times a day.