MySpace


Rifka

Rifka Rifka


Last Updated: 11/17/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Female
Status: Single
Age: 100
Sign: Gemini

City: by the beach
State: California
Country: US
Signup Date: 5/24/2005

Blog Archive
[Older      Newer]
 /  / 
Thursday, November 19, 2009 
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 
Friday, May 29, 2009 

Category: Art and Photography
A certain shade of green,
Tell me, is that what you need?
All signs around say move ahead.
Could someone please explain to me
Your ever present lack of speed?
Are your muscles bound by ropes?
Or do crutches cloud your day?
My sources say the road is clear,
And street signs point the way.

Are you gonna stand around till 2012 A.D.?
What are you waiting for, a certain shade of green?
I think I grew a gray watching you procrastinate.
What are you waiting for, a certain shade of green?

Would a written invitation signed,
'Choose now or lose it all,' sedate your hesitation?
Or inflame and make you stall?
You've been raised in limitation,
But that glove never fit quite right.
The time has passed for hand-me-downs,
Choose anew, please evolve, take flight.

What are you waiting for?
A written invitation?
A public declaration?
A private consolation?

What are you waiting for ?



Wednesday, April 22, 2009 
Wednesday, April 15, 2009 

A friend sent this to me today and it's really worth reading...



Unconditional
love is the love we’re all seeking, all the time, whether we’re
aware of it or not, and in our ideal life, we’d be surrounded by it in
every circumstance. But how often do we inspect the quality of the love we
offer others? Often, we give it with expectations, assumptions, and
qualifiers; and we may then ask, is it still really love? Yes, it is,
it’s just that we may without realizing it hook needs of our own to
loving someone else; ideally, we will in the course of a lifetime (or many!)
learn to love purely, without those requirements or pre-conditions–but
how?


Our
expectations are often quite reasonable; for instance, we should expect to be treated well within
an intimate relationship, as healthy Self-respect and Self-regard demand it. We
run into a problem, though, when we say through our behavior, “I love
him; he’s rude, arrogant, thoughtless, and cheats on me, but because I
love him I must stay
engaged in the relationship and try to change his behavior.”  This
is based on the belief that everything
would be fine if he would just conform to the mate’s expectations of treatment.
We
feel justified in demanding this because, well, we say we love him. But what we
fail to realize is that love is beside the point; love can exist no matter the
behaviors of any of the parties, it’s intimate relationship that’s
where we must choose to be with those who treat us well–and we must do
this by recognizing and accepting another’s behavior as it is, not as we think it should be.


Too often
we are attracted to someone, draw closer, and then immediately begin to judge
their attitudes and behavior. We feel that we can criticize and demand changes because we claim to love the
individual–but what do we love if we don’t accept them as they are?


What we
must learn not to do is tie our own willingness to love another to how they
treat us, how they behave, or what they are out in the world; and we can only
love another by seeing and accepting who they are. What I’m saying is
this: we must learn to love without condition, even as we love ourselves enough
not to continue in relationship with those who don’t love and respect us.
It’s very simple: at the bottom of every successful and loving intimate
relationship is a love for Oneself that says, “I love you no matter what;
but to stay in intimate connection to me, you must continue to behave in a
loving and respectful manner.” If the partner doesn’t treat us
kindly, we can continue to love them, but we don’t need to remain in
an intimate relationship with them–in fact, we cannot stay in intimate relationship
with them if we love ourselves. Part of our weakness in loving both ourselves
and others is to confuse the two, to believe that a love relationship exists even
when our partner is behaving in an unloving way. It’s true that love may
exist, but a loving relationship does not–and that is the heart of how we
must choose our companions. It’s noble to continue to love someone who
mistreats you–it isn’t noble in the least to remain open to,
vulnerable to, and in intimate contact with someone who mistreats you. A truly
loving attitude toward others is not based in how they treat us, but a
relationship is.


One of
the most mature and loving things we can do for ourselves is to recognize when
we are in a close relationship where love and respect are not shown to us and
to say, as Buddha is reported to have done when confronted on the path by an
angry man, “I respectfully decline your gift of anger, and ask that
you keep it for yourself.” You see, we may love someone, but just
because they offer us something ugly or destructive doesn’t mean we must
accept it. To subject ourselves to the unloving denigration of others is
to treat ourselves in an unloving way–and if we don’t love
ourselves, we don’t have love to give others–because we simply
can’t give away what we don’t have, and if we don’t have a
resource for ourselves, tangible or intangible, we are unable to share that
resource with others. So, to remain in a relationship where we are treated
badly is to be unable to
love, since to continue involvement says we do not love ourselves, and so
cannot truly love another.


 

 

Wednesday, December 17, 2008 
Friday, February 09, 2007 

I've been trying to figure out what friendship means to other people, as it seems that my interpretaion of the word is not shared  by all of my friends. I like the definitions I found below and I'm very curious to see what everyone else understands from the word friendship.

..>..>

"One who multiplies joys, divides grief and whose honesty is inviolable."

"One who understands our silence."

"A volume of sympathy bound in cloth."

"A watch that beats true for all time and never runs down."

 Here is my favorite:

"A friend is the one who comes in when the whole world has gone out."


Thursday, January 01, 1981 
.. ..
.. ..




Home ..




Action Alerts ..




About Us




Good News




Quotes




Events




Store




Links





Tips







....









..

Do You Know?

  • Average and Total Numbers of Animals Killed to Feed Americans in 2006
    The following information comes from the Farm Animal Reform Movement (FARM):

    Chickens
    Total number killed for food: 8,449,959,000
    (8,034,880,000 for meat, 415,080,000 for eggs)
    Average number killed per American meat-eater: 29.0 (27.6 for meat,
    1.4 for eggs)
    Average number consumed per American lifetime: 2,258 (2,148 for meat ,
    110 for eggs)

    Turkeys
    Total number killed for food: 273,462,000
    Average number consumed per American meat-eater: 0.94
    Average number consumed per American lifetime: 73

    Pigs
    Total number killed for food: 115,139,000
    Average number consumed per American meat-eater: 0.40
    Average number consumed per American lifetime: 31

    Steers and Calves
    Total number killed for food: 42,394,000
    Average number consumed per American meat-eater: 0.15
    Average number consumed per American lifetime: 11.3

    Rabbits
    Total number killed for food: 2.4 million
    Average number consumed per American meat-eater: 0.008
    Average number consumed per American lifetime: 0.65

    Finfish
    Total number killed for food: 6.6 billion
    Average number consumed per American: 23
    Average number consumed per American lifetime: 1,800

    Shellfish
    Total number killed for food: 67 billion
    Average number consumed per American: 230
    Average number consumed per American lifetime: 18,000

    All Animals (Excluding Sea Animals)
    Total number killed for food: 8.9 billion
    Average number consumed per American: 30.5
    Average number consumed per American lifetime: 2,374

    All Animals (Including Sea Animals)
    Total number killed for food: 83 billion
    Average number consumed per American: 280
    Average number consumed per American lifetime: 22,000

  • Environmental footprint per person (US)
                                 Average   Saved by
    Vegan American Going Veg*
    Land (acres) 0.6 3.7 3.1
    Erosion (tons/yr) 3.6 6.3 2.7
    Water (kgal/yr) 73 168 95
    Polluted rivers (ft) 2.6 12 9.4
    Polluted lakes (sq ft) 230 1100 850
    Manure (tons/yr) 0 5.5 5.5
    Feed Grain (lbs/yr) 0 1900 1900
    Energy (gal gas/yr) 24 111 87=20
    Greenhouse gases 0.2 1.9 1.6=20
    (US tons CO2-equivalent/yr)

    * Subtractions may appear off due to independent rounding

    U.S. Animal Agriculture is responsible for:

    LAND USE: 1 billion acres of land. That's 43% of all U.S. land, and 83%
    of U.S. agricultural land.
    CROPS: 560 billion pounds of grain a year fed to U.S. livestock, enough
    to feed 840 million people.
    SOIL EROSION: 2 trillion pounds a year.
    ENERGY: The energy equivalent of burning 26 billion gallons of gas a
    year.
    GREENHOUSE GAS: Emissions equivalent to 1 trillion pounds of CO2 a year.
    EXCREMENT: 9 billion pounds a year, or as much in 3 days as produced by
    the U.S. human population in a year.
    WATER USE: 35 trillion gallons a year, more than half of all US water
    use, enough for every American to take 26 showers a day.
    WATER POLLUTION: 570,000 miles of U.S. streams and rivers and 6 million
    acres of U.S. lakes and reservoirs are polluted due to animal
    agriculture, comprising 15% of all streams, rivers, lakes, and
    reservoirs.
  • Origin of the Word "Vegetarian"
    The word vegetarian, coined by the founders of the British Vegetarian Society in 1842, comes from the Latin word vegetus, meaning "whole, sound, fresh, or lively," as in homo vegetus-a mentally and physically vigorous person. The original meaning of the word implies a balanced philosophical and moral sense of life, a lot more than just a diet of vegetables and fruits.

  • Origin of the Word "Vegan"
    The word vegan pronounced /ˈviːgən/ [vee-gun], was originally derived from vegetarian in 1944 when Elsie Shrigley and Donald Watson, frustrated that the term "vegetarianism" had come to include the eating of dairy products, founded the UK Vegan Society. "Vegan", which they saw as "the beginning and end of vegetarian", started and ended with the first three and last two letters of vegetarian.

  • Estate Planning For Pets
    Summary from the site: This web site is devoted to providing a broad-based information resource for pet owners, and the professionals who assist them, in estate planning for their pets. All too often, pet owners encounter professionals who are directly or indirectly dismissive of their desires to make sure their pets receive adequate care. The underlying assumption behind this web site is that the reader takes the issue of estate planning for pets seriously.

  • How to Write an Effective Letter
    A well-thought out and polite letter will carry much more weight than an hastily written, angry letter. When writing letters to the media or court offices, here are some guidelines to keep in mind...

  • Hitler Was Not A Vegetarian
    New York Times corrects article on Hitler and refutes longstanding myth that Hitler was a vegetarian.


..














[Quotes] [Store] [Links] [Tips]











..