How The Crucification of Christ Change our Society, Families, and Businesses

katfrychatt • One day ago

Does Genetic Memory Play A Role in Modern Day Prejudices?

katfrychatt • 8 days ago

Does the Non-Binary Gender Movement Threaten the Recognition of Female Special Considerations?

katfrychatt • 15 days ago

Should Women Have an Absolute Right to An Abortion?

katfrychatt • 21 days ago

Why our raw genetics must become an integral part of our overall health plan

katfrychatt • 26 days ago

Why our raw genetics must become an integral part of our overall health plan

katfrychatt • 26 days ago

Would daily life really change if the Federal Government, as we know it, disappeared?

katfrychatt • One month ago

Are Fairy Tales Harmful, Or Do They Have A Productive Place In Modern Society? By Katherine Fry, CEO/President Mediafy Communications Group People have always had a fascination with fairy tales. To this day, they are still being reimagined in the general public’s imagination. The likes of Cinderella, Snow White, and Sleeping Beauty continue to inspire young women throughout the generations. Young girls, from a very early age, are read these stories about damsels in distress, and the prince that saves them from a long slumber with true love’s kiss. These girls also learn about the ensuing beautiful wedding, followed immediately by “happily ever after.” This then begs the question-are these fairy tales realistic, or do they create unhealthy stereotypes and expectations for our daughters? In essence, is encouraging our daughters to believe they need to be saved by a knight in shining armor a storyline that needs to be buried and forgotten? Growing up in the 1980’s, my generation received more than just stories. Disney pandered to our imaginations, bringing us movies, books, toys, and even theme parks, all easily available for our parents to purchase. Trips to the grocery store consisted of the obligatory stop in the magazine section to select our future fairy tale wedding dresses. Throughout all of these fantasies, the message remained clear-girls are princesses, and somewhere in the world lived our prince charming. In essence, life really began after we found him and married him. I distinctly remember the day, in 1981, when I realized princesses really exist. Walking through the grocery store with my mother, my eye caught a picture of Lady Diana Spencer on a magazine cover stating “Diana, Princess of Wales.” Suddenly, a light bulb switched on in my head. At that moment, I realized princesses really exist, and not just as fairy tale characters, but as real people making real differences; and my life changed. Princess Diana’s marriage to Prince Charles promised us a traditional fairy tale, but failed to deliver. As it turned out, our damsel in distress evolved into her own woman, who instead of conforming to a traditional role, chose instead to reinvent herself. This decision inspired countless women, including me, to looked up to her and follow suit. Instead of waiting for prince charming, many women emulated Diana’s sense of independence coupled with good deeds. For example, many of these women spent their time volunteering in soup kitchens and churches. A poignant moment occurred when Diana stated, “People think that at the end of the day, a man is the only answer. Actually, a fulfilling job is better for me.” The fairy tale had not ended but instead been reimagined, as a beautiful princess, bravely facing the world alone. The arrival of an independent, and dare I say, feminist Princess Diana, led to the reimagination of the fairy tale for many women around the world. Rather than planning our royal weddings, many of us began planning our own futures, and that future no longer relied upon finding a prince. I personally expressed to my mother that I would never get married, and instead began planning to successfully brave the world alone. Many women of my generation excelled in school, and then their careers, but continued viewing themselves as princesses. Nothing had changed, and yet everything had changed. This generation of women arguably navigated into uncharted territory. Girls born in the 1970’s, today represent some of the most independent women in history. They are CEO’s, physicians, professors, and priests, amongst other professions. Many are married, and many are not, but what distinctly stands out with this generation of women is their level of financial independence. Most of my female contemporaries emulated Princess Diana in some way at some point in their life, and still carry fond memories of her to this day. While dressed in the obligatory Diana dress and hat, we count ourselves amongst the highest levels of volunteerism. For us, the fairy tales read to us in childhood evolved into a representation of financial independence and professional success. Whether we married or not is now of little consequence, because we learned through Diana’s example that the knight in shining armor is no longer necessary. In essence, we did not need saving, because we saved ourselves. As a woman of the Princess Diana generation, I consider myself lucky to have learned how to reimagine the fairy tale for myself. Quite simply, this could not have been done without the fairy tales of my youth, coupled with the reality of Princess Diana’s life. For me and my generation, throwing out the fairy tales, and branding them unseemly, would have arguably negatively impacted our lives. Perhaps the fusion of fairy tales and feminism, that has so defined my generation, will serve as an example for future ones to come.

katfrychatt • One month ago

Why One Prominent Republican Finally Decided To Leave It.It has been hard for Eileen Padberg as a long-standing Republican and a woman. Incessantly questioned by her female friends and co-workers over the years for her political activism, Eileen nevertheless held firm. A believer in individual rights and liberties, the Republican Party seemed the right party for her when she registered over fifty years ago. Eileen proudly campaigned for Barry Goldwater in the 60’s, Richard Nixon in the 1970s. In the 1960’s she joined the John Birch Society and then led The Young Republicans. Eileen went on to campaign vigorously for the Republican Party on local, state and national levels, advocating the party’s core values that she held near and dear to her heart. Eileen first started questioning her loyalty to the Republican Party in the 1980s during debates for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). One Republican stated, “If we pass this bill, husbands will leave their wives for their secretaries, and everyone will have to use the same restroom.” (1) This absurd statement became a cathartic moment for Eileen. She realized that in politics, we need more women at the table, and that “if women are not at the table, they will be the main course.” (1) Most significantly, in that moment, Eileen Padberg became a Feminist. As the years went by, Eileen continued to hope that her Republican Party would change. She advocated for the removal of abortion from the party platform, considering it contrary to the Republican core values of individual rights and liberties. Eileen states, “How much more in your life can the government get? Abortion should be a personal decision-not one made by a white, male congressman.” (1) She also experienced the decimation of Title IX women’s insurance, including the removal of birth control as a covered benefit. Furthermore, Eileen and her fellow female constituents failed to receive support from the male-dominated Republican Party on most bills regarding environmental issues. As a result, she witnessed most environmental bills fail to pass, signaling an even greater divide between the two genders. The undertone surrounding these debates revealed a very dark, insidious, anti-woman rhetoric. These events left Eileen feeling utterly alone in the Republican Party, advocating for women’s rights and causes about which women generally felt strongly, but men generally did not. Eileen began to feel the Republican Party “dying by a million cuts.” She received a call four years ago from Loretta Sanchez, a former female congresswoman, stating “There are at least a hundred bills every day, on the floor of Congress, that are anti-woman and threaten women’s rights… in some shape or form”(1) Eileen went on to say that “We do not have enough Republican women to fight this. Last year we had 23 Republican women, This year we have 19. Republicans do not help women get elected. It is very disheartening.” (1) Indeed, women are sorely unrepresented in our country. Statistics released in 2017 reveal that the United States ranked 97th on the list of countries with adequate female representation, with 100 being the worst. (2) In fact, the US ranked as having the lowest representation of any developed country, just above Kurdistan. For example, Rwanda has 39% female representation, while Afghanistan has 27%, and the United States has 23%. (2) Eileen viewed these statistics as a reason to stay within the Republican Party, and to continue advocating for women’s rights. She states, “Equal representation of women in our Congress is essential. The fact that we do not have it is incredible to me. We have so much work to do in our own country.” (1) For as long as Eileen can remember, women candidates have lacked the support of her party. The Republican Party is still shaped by what is known as “the good ol boy’s network,” where men use their positions, power, and influence to help other men. This makes politics today more about who you know rather than what you know, which is alarming considering these are the men making decisions regarding our lives, businesses, and femininity. For Eileen, the Kavanaugh hearings represented the straw that broke the camel’s back. Eileen states, “I do not surmise that she (Christine Blasey Ford) was right or wrong, but …I know the Brett Kavanaugh’s of the world. I’ve met hundreds of them in my career. He is the ultimate party boy and probably did not think what he did was abusive or wrong. My point is, the treatment of her was so atrocious… She was a credible witness, not somebody looking for a job or to make money. Her family suffered. She had to flee her home. She suffered death threats. And Brett Kavanaugh? He was appointed to a lifetime position … to a position that is going to affect women for their whole lives… she suffered immensely.” (1) After the last day of the hearings, Eileen Padberg called and changed her voter’s registration from Republican to nonpartisan. She simply could not support a party that no longer supported her or her fellow women and treated them with such disrespect. Eileen Padberg, a woman with a stellar reputation in her party, a woman who supported her party against all odds, and a woman who tried repeatedly to assist her party in evolving and attracting more women, finally left it. She states, “people who found out were incredulous, but I could not take it.” (1) Following the Kavanaugh hearings, Eileen Padberg reflects on the future of the Republican Party and its relationship with women. When asked if she thinks the Republican Party will ever remove abortion from their platform, she answers, “No, and they are doomed until they do.” She goes on to assert that “The Republican Party has a huge problem with women. In this last election we really saw it. Anne Wagner, a well-known, vetted, and experienced politician was going to run for the National Republican Congressional Committee…Kevin McCarthy, the majority leader for Republicans would not support her. He picked (to support) a less experienced white guy. “ (1) In essence, despite her best efforts, nothing really has changed in the Republican Party regarding women. In the aftermath of Eileen’s resignation from the Republican Party, she has moved on to nonpartisan politics-specifically in the areas that will help her fellow women. Last weekend she helped organize and participate in a fundraiser for a women’s shelter called WISEPlace, which stands for “Women Inspired, Supportive, and Empowered.” This shelter assists unaccompanied, homeless women, and has provided such assistance for the past thirty-one years. The capital campaign, of which Eileen co-chaired, raised a quarter of a million dollars. Now that, Eileen, is something that WILL make a difference. Phone Interview, Eileen Padberg by Katherine Fry, December 10, 2018 http://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2017/4/women-in-politics-2017-map

katfrychatt • One month ago

Children in the United States are taught early on, that suicide is unacceptable. In school, they are taught that it is a symptom of mental illness. In church, they are taught that it is a sin against God. In Sunday school, American children are taught that only God can decide when their lives are to end, and taking such a decision upon themselves is both inappropriate and possibly unforgivable. In essence, God decides when our life is to end. The decision to end one’s life is most certainly not a personal choice. In many parts of the world, suicide is criminalized. The criminalization of suicide has a historical basis. Louis XIV of France issued an ordinance stating that the body of persons who committed suicide should be “drawn through the streets, face down, and then hung or thrown on a garbage heap.” Additionally, the state confiscated all of the person’s personal property, depriving their heirs of an inheritance. (1) In other parts of the world, including the US, it is illegal to assist or even encourage others to commit suicide. Doing so can result in a felony, accompanied by heavy fines and jail time. For the person attempting suicide, an unsuccessful suicide attempt can result in involuntary confinement in a mental institution, and involuntary psychiatric treatment. Continuous treatment plans are put in place, that must be followed by the patient, or involuntary treatment will again ensue My “foster brother” killed himself in 2013. He had been at odds with my family for quite a while. Living in my parent’s basement, he never contributed financially, despite being in his late 40’s. My father, being the kind soul that he is, took my foster brother in as an adult, and offered to assist in putting him through nursing school. However, despite my father’s best efforts, my foster brother failed out of school, with my father having co-signed the student loan. Beginning nursing school again elsewhere, my parent’s hopes remained high. They continued to believe that this relatively young man would graduate, get a good job, and ultimately pay back his student loans. However, this desired result did not occur. Instead, my foster brother committed suicide, leaving my parent’s “holding the bag.” When my parent’s first told me of my foster brother’s suicide, my feelings emerged as conflicted. An episode of Jerry Springer came to mind, because of the sheer insanity he had wrought upon my family. But soon, the reality set into my mind. This individual, who had once been a dear friend, had left this life of his own accord, by suffocating himself with a helium-filled bag. On the verge of failing, yet again, out of nursing school, he had perhaps seen no other alternative but to take his own life. Or had done it to get back at us? One family member stated, “He killed himself because he was a loser and he knew it.” Our friendship had ended, and my father had given him a non-negotiable move-out date. A million questions went through my mind. The families of suicide victims are often left with a plethora of questions, and no definitive answers. In essence, this became our reality. In 2016, the United States recorded 44,965 suicides. (2) This represented the highest rate recorded in twenty years. Risk factors include “depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, personality disorders, and substance abuse. “ (2) Other reasons include exorbitant debt, divorce, break-ups-essentially the list is endless. One of the hardest parts is the reason may never truly be known. Many people believe suicide should be a right. “The right to die is a concept based on the opinion that a human being is entitled to end their own life or to undergo voluntary euthanasia. Possession of this right is often understood to mean that a person with a terminal illness, or without the will to continue living, should be allowed to end their own life…” (2) Many people disagree. When my foster brother committed suicide, I refused to attend the memorial service, because my hurt, disbelief, and disgust, all compiled together, resulted in me stating, “We are not allowed to kill ourselves, so why is the church even giving him a memorial service?” My mother responded by stating that the church no longer viewed suicide as a sin, but instead as a symptom of a very severe mental illness. In light of this suicide epidemic, many have begun to suffer from “suicide fatigue.” The sheer number of people threatening it, to whoever will listen and offer them sympathy, has resulted in what some have called a backlash. One member of my family has stated, “I do not believe in suicide prevention. If you want to kill yourself, go ahead and do it. Just please don’t talk to me about it.” It has been stated that when a person is truly suicidal they simply do it, telling no one. This remains the case with my foster brother who told no one of his deadly plans. Is my relative unreasonable in her statement regarding suicide? There is something to be said for “calling someone’s bluff.” For literally a year, a friend of mine told me consistently of her desire to kill herself. When I eventually told her to go ahead and do it if that is truly what she wanted, she immediately ended our friendship. I can only surmise that suicide is not truly what she wanted, and that her words to me expressing otherwise represented half-hearted attempts at attention that resulted in words from me she did not want to hear. The debate over whether or not human beings should be able to kill themselves is still very real and ongoing. Some believe it is a right, while others consider it a crime. The epidemic of suicide in the United States has resulted in criminal legislation and mental health reforms. Once regarded as a crime, it is today largely decriminalized, and viewed by many as a sign of mental illness. Others, however, feel fatigued even discussing it, preferring to view suicide as an individual right. Wherever one stands on the spectrum, this largely explosive issue promises to remain a hot topic for many years to come.

katfrychatt • 2 months ago

During the reign of Henry VIII, Queen Anne Boleyn reigned supreme, while her sister Mary suffered banishment from the royal court. Mary, formerly the King’s mistress and mother to two of his children, betrothed a low-level courtier in an unsanctioned marriage. This marriage caused a major uproar, resulting in the banishment of Mary and the removal of both children from her custody. Katherine and Henry Carey, the two children shared by Mary and King Henry, thus fell into the care of Queen Anne, their beloved aunt and step-mother. Mary Boleyn, separated from all near and dear to her, nevertheless survived the massive pillage of her family. Her father, sister-in-law, and even her cherished sister Queen Anne, all lost their lives to the executioner’s ax. Mary’s banishment resulted in her survival, and her children lived on in the court of Queen Elizabeth I. Both children made fabulous marital matches, ultimately bearing children of their own. Yet the memory of Mary, living far away from court, lived on through her enigmatic nickname of “the great and infamous whore.” The royal courts thought they had seen the last of Mary Boleyn. Dead six years after her banishment, her children resembled their father enough to evoke a certain degree of deference. Their cousin and half-sister, Queen Elizabeth I, a niece of Mary Boleyn, died childless, effectively ensuring that no Boleyns would ever again sit on the royal throne. Indeed, the Stewart’s came to power, and the Boleyns retreated to the background of history. However, a closer examination reveals that sometimes history is not all that it seems. History has a funny way of favoring the underdog. The least expected outcome is often the one that takes center stage. This certainly seems to be the case with the likes of Mary Boleyn. With her humble beginnings as a royal mistress, to her disgraced exit from her family and the royal court, Mary Boleyn seems the least likely candidate to make any sort of meaningful appearance again in the pages of history. And yet, here she is, staring us in the face-or rather, her 12th great-granddaughter, stares at us through the papers and our televisions, as our very own very Queen Elizabeth II. Yes-a 12th great granddaughter of “the infamous whore” Mary Boleyn, sits on the throne of England. Through her mother, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Queen Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of Mary Boleyn through her daughter Katherine Carey. It’s as though Mary Boleyn has reached out from the grave, assuring that her bloodline remains on the throne of England. As a matter of fact, the late Princess Diana is a descendant, as is Sarah Ferguson, the ex-wife of Prince Andrew, the Queen’s second son, and mother to his two daughters. Kate Middleton, the wife of Prince William, third in line to the throne, is also a descendant. In essence, catastrophic deaths could hit the royal family of England, and Mary Boleyn’s descendants would still sit on the throne of England, as her descendants are heirs from nearly every direction. This is quite incredible for a shunned, and disgraced ex-mistress to King Henry VIII. Like Mary Boleyn, women have emerged as the underdog in today’s business world. Previously relegated to positions of either the Madonna (Queen Anne) or the whore (Mary Boleyn), within the realms of the bedroom and/or the realm of childrearing, women have now emerged as leaders within the business world. From Facebook and Yahoo, to Hewlett-Packard and eBay, women have proven themselves as more than capable of leading businesses to financial success. Just as Mary Boleyn reaches out from the grave into the modern-day royal family, so do the late women who entered the business world in WWII as temporary replacements for men serving abroad. History has a way of constantly favoring the underdog. As the “great and infamous whore,” Henry VIII banished Mary Boleyn to the footnotes of history. But her descendants have gone on to the comprise the contemporary house of Windsor. Just as Mary Boleyn rose from the grave, modern-day working women also represent the rise of the underdog. While initially considered merely temporary replacements for men serving abroad in WWII, today’s women can be found in all four corners of the business world. Like the modern-day royal family and the presence of Mary Boleyn, a catastrophe could hit the business world and women would still emerge as leaders. Like Mary Boleyn, against all odds, women in the workforce are here to stay.

katfrychatt • 2 months ago

Before the advent of WWII, men comprised the majority of the workforce. These men encompassed the backbone of industry in America, and represented what we call today “men’s men.” Individuals such as these lived by the unspoken standard of “boys don’t cry,” and “work… is… not a place for (the) display of emotion.”(1) When the US government called these men to war, they left their positions, as well as that mentality, to the women who stepped up and took over their professional positions. The country thrust these women into environments where the philosophy advocated, “work should be a place of logical, rational thought, where you don’t give in to emotional thinking.” Furthermore, these working environments asserted that one “certainly (does) not display any emotions… (because) it’s both not professional and leaves (one) too vulnerable.” (1) However, then and now, women have often struggled to follow these unspoken rules of how they should conduct themselves in the workplace. Scientific studies have shown that men and women are different physiologically. In essence, we process information differently. For example, one study showed that the “neural circuitry recruited during emotion processing differed between the sexes. Women showed neural activity in the anterior insula cortex, which processes bodily sensations. This means that they deeply experienced emotions within their bodies. Men, on the other hand, showed neural responses in the visual cortex. While processing these images, male brains immediately activated circuitry involved in regulating shifts of attention to the world (i.e., the dorsal anterior insula cortex and the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). This allowed them to shift the emotional impact of the images away from themselves.” (2) Essentially, women feel emotions deeply-even physically-while men are able to shift their thought processes away from an emotional response and deal with the matter at hand. With differences like this now being unveiled by science, and with women comprising 47% of the total workforce, is it really fair to expect women to think like men? And is this line of thought what is best for the workplace as a whole? (3) Critics argue that differences such as these make the workplace better suited for men, then for women. Others argue that women bring authenticity to the workplace, in line with the “woke” movement or the “authentic living movement.” (4) Either way, it can be argued that it is not realistic to require women to literally change the way their brains process information. But if women are being held to an unreasonable standard, then what is the solution regarding their inclusion in the workforce? One solution for women in the workplace is learning to disassociate themselves from emotion. Some scientists argue that this is an adaptation women can learn, and thus contribute to a rational and logical workplace for all. Indeed, learning to remove personal feelings for others in the workplace can help women prevent burnout and feelings of being overwhelmed. Learning to categorize thoughts and responses can lead to an overall less dramatic work environment. However, women who fall short of this expectation often are categorized as “crazy” when they display emotion, and women who don’t display emotion are categorized as “lacking empathy.” One can also argue that, since men and women spend more than half of their lives at work, this lack of emotion can and will bleed into our homes and society. “Such distancing….allows one to ignore the pain of others or to freely inflict such pain with little distress to oneself. Such distancing may be adaptive for combat, torture, or cruelty, but can prove problematic for developing prosocial competencies.” (2) Is a workplace and thus a society without empathy really what is best for humankind? Another solution lies in compassion training for both genders. If women process emotion deeply-even physically, and men dissociate themselves from feelings of emotion, then “such training allows both sexes to learn to disengage in a manner that fosters benevolent action rather than succumbing to overwhelm or resorting to uncaring dissociation.” (2) Thus, with both genders learning to show compassion to others in a benevolent way, a more harmonious and empathetic workforce may likely result. In conclusion, men and women process information differently, leading to conflicts in the workforce over proper standards of behavior. While most men dissociate themselves from emotion, most women process emotions in a deep, often physical level. Such differences can, arguably, be reconciled through compassion training for both genders. Such training teaches men and women to disengage in a manner that is benevolent rather than one lacking empathy. The result may well be a more realistic standard of behavior for both genders and a more authentic workplace for all.

katfrychatt • 2 months ago

By Katherine Fry, CEO/President of Mediafy Communications Group

katfrychatt • 2 months ago

Seventeenth century France at the Palace of Versailles represented the best of times and the worst of times. Behind the glittering parties and hallways lined with gold, lay a very dirty, ugly reality. While the royal family smiled on the outside, their internal smiles often hid rotten, infected, and missing teeth. At this time, the term oral hygiene did not yet exist-that is, until it wreaked death and misfortune on royal generations to come. Louis XIV’s severe dental problems led to the appointment of the world’s first official dentist. At the beginning of Louis XIV’s reign, dentistry remained the practice of charlatans. Tonics, bloodletting, leeching, and the extraction of teeth represented the entirety of this largely ineffective practice. After several bouts with severe toothaches, followed by several tooth removals, a major infection took over the king’s mouth. Because of this infection, more teeth had to be subsequently removed. This incident led to the King appointing a special dentist in 1712, with the exclusive job of preserving the few teeth he had left. (1) Nevertheless, the King’s special dentist relied upon the traditional practices of the day, which unfortunately remained largely ineffective. Dental infections not only affected the king but also contributed to the high infant mortality rate experienced by the royal court. Queen Marie-Therese, the wife of Louis XIV, suffered from rotten teeth, with her remaining ones completely blackened. (1) The queen’s body weakened and riddled with constant infections originating in her mouth, she lost five children shortly after childbirth or in early infancy. Only one of her children survived to adulthood. (3) In 1741, Queen Marie-Therese’s grandson, Louis XV realizing the overall health significance of caring for one’s teeth, issued a royal decree giving dentists ” a status of their own and no longer… count(ing) them among the odd charlatans.” (1) Louis XV’s granddaughter, Princess Marie-Therese, born on July 19, 1746, died before reaching the age of two. She had fallen victim of a “toothache too brutal” and was grossly “ill-treated.” (2) The death of the little girl represented true heartbreak for the crown prince, as she represented the only link he still had to his late first wife. (2) In an effort to forestall such future calamities, in 1755, Dr. Julien Botot, the official royal court dentist, presented Louis XV with a new invention; a paste that one applies to their teeth, for the exclusive purpose of keeping them healthy. In addition to that, he also concocted an oral rinse, with the aspiration of assisting in removing unseemly odors. He called the paste “toothpaste” and the rinse “mouthwash.” (1). News of these new inventions spread throughout the royal court, across the country, and then ultimately throughout Europe, contributing significantly to our dental practices today. The twenty-first century led to a plethora of challenges in the dental industry. New, inventive toothpaste and mouthwashes hit the burgeoning market. Teeth become whiter, straighter, and longer lasting, largely because of more stringent standards of cleanliness. However, in 2005, the World Health Organization released a paper advocating the reduction of mercury in the cleaning solutions of hospitals. (4) This factor, coupled with the systematic overuse of antibiotics, (5) contributed to the rise of superbugs, or virulent microorganisms, including Stepelococous, Staph, and Candida. (6) Today, our mouths represent the most effective way for these superbugs to enter our bodies, and the results are catastrophic. Systemic health effects include “cardiovascular disease, bacterial pneumonia, diabetes mellitus, and low birth weight.” (7) The most vulnerable members of our society are at greatest risk-that is, seniors wearing partials, and children wearing braces or other orally insertable devices. The reality of systemic health problems affecting our most vulnerable has led to further innovations in the dental industry. One company making great strides in this area is Soluria. With their highly advanced cleaners, specifically made for orally inserted devices, Soluria is contributing greatly to the halt of microorganisms and systemic diseases originating in the mouth. (8) Just as the death of Marie-Therese led to the creation of toothpaste and mouthwash, the rise of modern-day superbugs has led to new highly effective cleaners for both teeth and orally inserted devices. These liquids represent the newest generation of dental cleansers, stepping far beyond traditional toothpaste and mouthwashes. As the superbugs of today continue to evolve and change, so must the dental industry. The industry must stay steps ahead, especially in regard to cleaning oral devices, as they are continually used by society’s most vulnerable. The severe dental problems experienced by the royal court of Versailles ultimately led to great advances in the dental industry as well as personal hygiene. From the recognition of the industry in 1712, to the invention of toothpaste in 1755, dentistry evolved and changed initially within the confines of the royal court. (1) Their new smiles infected those around them, in a good way, with the advances spreading throughout the nobles, the townspeople, Europe, and ultimately the world, changing the teeth of everyone for the better. Today, with the rise of superbugs, and the appearance of virulent oral microorganisms, Soluria is making advances in the dental industry for those wearing removable oral devices of all types, especially the new innovations in clear braces. With specialized products like Smile Saver™, created specifically for these devices, Soluria is making the latest advances in helping these patients have a better experience and begin to look at ways to help win the fight against oral systemic health issues. (8) For further information about the latest advancements in cleaners and sanitizers for removable oral devices in a highly desired on-the-go format, please go to soluria.com

katfrychatt • 2 months ago

The heroes of yesterday were rugged, unforgiving, and victorious. The majority of early leaders got to their positions of power by whatever means necessary. They were outspoken, abrasive, and even violent, but during that day and age, those qualities were revered. Those were the qualities successful men had. However, as time marches on, many individuals argue that these heroes are undeserving of our adoration and/or attention because of their behavior. Are these people putting a modern filter on the actions of yesteryear and trying to reprehend history instead of embracing the past? In today’s modern age, many of our traditional heroes are being attacked. Winston Churchill, the man heralded by many as the “man of the century,” is now criticized by his detractors as a racist. As a young lady, my father explained to me, “Had it not been for Winston Churchill, we would all be speaking German today.” Indeed, Churchill stood up to the tyrant Adolf Hitler, while his parliamentary contemporaries wanted to “sue for peace.” As a result, the Tory party replaced British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, with Winston Churchill, and with the support of the king and ultimately his party, Great Britain and the western world triumphantly defeated “the axis of evil.” Nevertheless, as many point out, Churchill had a dark side. “I hate Indians,” he once trumpeted. “They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” And so therein lay the contradiction-the man who dared stand up to Hitler, and galvanized the world to ultimately follow his lead, nevertheless did so by whatever means necessary. Should his success be belittled in today’s society because he would be deemed racist? Following this bandwagon, General Patton, a man instrumental in leading U.S. forces during WWII, is today criticized as a bad husband, an uncaring father, and insensitive to soldiers bludgeoned by war and inflicted with PTSD. Patton had a hard-driving personality and a strong disbelief in the medical condition “combat stress reaction,” also then called “shell shock.” Should his lack of compassion for the people around him discredit the success he had in the military? It is not only men that are in danger of the scrutiny of today’s society. Eleanor Roosevelt is criticized by the LGBT community for being a closeted lesbian. Jacqueline Kennedy is criticized for truly achieving nothing except dressing well and “riding on the coattails of her husband.” Even the memory of the beloved Princess Diana is under siege. As a young lady, Princess Diana represented my role model of choice and is still significant in my life today. While navigating puberty, anxiety, depression, and teenage rebellion, my role model provided a much needed stabilizing factor. Today, her loving nature and forgiving heart are still ideals I try to emulate. My dreams and future plans are still influenced by her; indeed, even my vacations to Europe reflect her spirit. Without the role model of Princess Diana in my life, I would not be the person I am today. With all of this historical revision occurring, it is daring us to take a closer look at our heroes. Should we hold history to today’s standards? The young girl who would listen to her father’s stories about the bravery of Winston Churchill is now a grown woman leading a digital marketing company. Shaped by the stories of my youth, and influenced by the role model of my choice, I am proud of who I am and what I have accomplished. The theme of my life has been greatly influenced by many of the traditional heroes of the past and present. Young men and women growing up in the contemporary world face a plethora of challenges. From broken families, and drug addiction, to other modern day stresses, traditional role models often provide an outline for how to live one’s life well. While this is most certainly a personal choice, one can argue that the very fabric of our society, and daresay, our being, is the result of stories passed down through the generations. In a world full of troubles, for many, they represent a beacon of light. If we destroy our heroes, one can argue that we have very little left. It can be said that everyone and everything has a dark side of some sort. No one is downy white, and the world comes in shades of gray. We would do well to remember this when judging those from the past with the ideals of today. I for one am willing to look past the dark side of my role models. Instead, I choose to look toward their inherent goodness and be aware that, like my role model, I too am inherently flawed… and for me, that is okay.

katfrychatt • 2 months ago