All Global News on One Page

Most kids use a mobile phone. Most kids spend time online. Most schools prevent both. Our kids are online; it’s time their education was.
By the end of the decade most U.S. schools will blend online and onsite learning to customize learning and extend the day and year. Most high school students will do most of their work online. All students (and teachers) will have Internet access devices and broadband. Cloud-based school-as-a-service will provide 24/7 access. The good news is that digital learning won’t cost more and it will boost achievement and graduation rates.
It’s inevitable. We’re a decade behind where we should be in terms of innovation, improvement, and achievement, but the rate of change is increasing. Online learning is growing by more than 30% annually. Like college kids, high school students are blending their own learning where options exist.
And the options are about to get much more interesting. Second generation online learning will be customized to a students level, interests, and motivational profile.
The transition will be uneven depending on state and local leaders. Existing schools ditching textbooks and moving to personal digital learning. New charter schools offer interesting technology blends and themes. Where state funding follows the student to the course level, things will change fast.
This week I’ll be visiting with many of almost 900 charter authorizers. The National Association of Charter School Authorizers is leading the charge for better charter schools. I’ll mention that state policy makers can lead by updating their charter authorizing law (as noted in this blog on differentiated authorizing strategies) for innovative and online schools.
Qualified applicants with a strong hypothesis should be able to seek conditional approval for innovative school models that incorporate novel assessment systems, performance-based progress, unique staffing and compensation models, distributed learning, blended institutions and/or year-round learning. State commissioners could modify criteria to target specific reforms, populations, or geographies.
Reflecting the Internet’s ability to cross municipal and state borders, virtual and blended school operators should have the ability to enroll students statewide. Only 18 states have authorized statewide virtual charter schools. Lagging states have been protecting districts from competition by denying statewide virtual charters or by providing only a fraction of typical funding with weak rationale.
Susan Patrick from the International Association of K-12 Online Learning and I will encourage authorizers to lead the way in expanding high quality options for students and families.
Now that netbooks and tablets cost less than textbooks, it’s time for schools and districts to embrace digital learning. It’s time for more engagement, more time on task, more productivity. Our kids are online, it’s time their education was.

Follow Tom Vander Ark on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/tvanderark

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The US military has assembled a 120-member team to prepare for the expected publication of some 400,000 Iraq war documents on the Wikileaks website.
The documents are thought to concern battle activity, Iraqi security forces and civilian casualties.
The Pentagon said it wants the documents back to avoid potentially damaging information being released.

In a scene right out of a Frank Capra movie, the Sidney N.Y. Town Board fled its monthly town meeting after an overflow crowd began chanting “McCarthy must go! McCarthy must go!”
The ruckus exploded after Sidney Town Supervisor Bob McCarthy refused to apologize to a local Sufi Muslim community, Osmanl Nak-’bendi Hakkani Dergah, for claiming it broke unknown laws when it buried two of their own on their property, for wanting to force them to dig up the bodies — and for exposing the town to international ridicule.
The meeting was the climax of events dating to July, when Mr. McCarthy asked Town Attorney Joseph Ermeti how to stop further burials on the Dergah’s cemetery.
As one step followed another, Mr. McCarthy turned a tussle about bigotry and Islamophobia into a morality play about a rural town of fair-minded Americans that first elects, then turns against, a man who promised to turn around its declining fortunes, only to earn a reputation as a small-minded bully with no respect for the law, or the people he serves.
At the meeting the Sufis’ spokesman, Hans Hass, calmly exploded Mr. McCarthy’s version of events one by one, and then asked point-blank if he’d apologize. Mr. McCarthy gave a curt, “No.” That answer turned the mood of the overflow crowd from restive to surly, and Mr. McCarthy and the board soon left.
Earlier, Mr. McCarthy’s response to claims he’d caused the mess, and to demands for an apology, was, “Whatever.”
Mr. McCarthy probably wanted to leave it all behind him when he closed the meeting and followed the Board out of the room. Instead, the door he walked through opens on the next chapter of what promises to be a long struggle to remove him from office.
“He’s certainly done some things that are out-and-out illegal,” says Dawn Rivers Baker, first vice chair of the Delaware County Democratic Committee. “This Sufi thing is small change next to those things. They may seem small, but they add up.” Ms. Baker ran for Town Supervisor against Mr. McCarthy last November.
The day after the town meeting, there were serious local discussions about moving in state court to dismiss Mr. McCarthy, possibly under the state’s Public Officers law, according to Mr. Schimmerling, who’s representing the Sufi community pro bono.
The Sufi issue itself is in fact more or less over. The day before the meeting Town attorney Josesph Ermeti sent the Sufi’s lawyer, Thomas Schimmerling, a fax saying that the Town plans to take no action on the matter.
Before that, Mr. Ermeti had circulated a letter to Delaware County officials claiming that the Sufi cemetery violated a provision of the state cemetery law, an assertion that Mr. Schimmerling, in a letter in response sent to Mr. McCarthy, pointed out doesn’t apply to religious cemeteries.
In the same letter, Mr. Schimmerling threatened to sue the Town, and each Town officer, under Federal civil rights law. This would have inflated the town’s legal costs in the matter, which had been budgeted for $3,000, by a factor of 100. That in turn raised fears in the town that Mr. McCarthy, who’d campaigned on promises of lower taxes, would in fact wind up raising them to pay for legal fees his actions had provoked.
The Sufis’ spokesman, Mr. Hass, says his group still needs to be told clearly that the cemetery is legal, and still wants an apology. So does the Council of American-Islamic Relations. But as things stand, the Town has obviously backed down in hopes the matter will blow over, and any danger of action against the Dergah, when they conduct their next burial, is remote.
In truth, the cemetery on the Dergah’s land is perfectly legal. It took Town Attorney Joseph Ermeti four months to discover there are no laws in New York or Sidney governing religious cemeteries on private property, time that allowed pressures in the town over the issue to boil over.
Mr. McCarthy does have his supporters, including Robert Hunt, Republican leader of Sidney, Steve Anderson, the local Tea Party leader, and some town citizens who spoke up at the meeting.
But Mr. McCarthy’s behavior has turned the people of Sidney and of surrounding Delaware County almost solidly against him, and the support he has is dwarfed by opposition most local citizens say was created by Mr. McCarthy himself. Those turned against him include:
The Mayor and the Chamber of Commerce of the Village of Sidney, which is located in the town;
The local daily newspaper, The Daily Star, whose reporter, Patricia Breakey, first broke the story;
Forty area clergy;
The chair of the Delaware County GOP, Leonard Govern;
Two major local Tea Party leaders, Chuck Pinkey and Jim Losie, who said the issue has nothing to do with the Tea Party, and personally repudiated Mr. McCarthy’s original determination to disinter the two graves.
A letter from the Board, read in at the meeting by Town Clerk Lisa French, said in part that while he’s accomplished some positive things since he took office, Mr. McCarthy has to “…work on his people skills….” And interviews with waitresses, librarians, and town and village officials were unanimously against Mr. McCarthy personally, and for making Sidney an international laughing stock.
Among the things that may weigh against Mr. McCarthy:
A personal style that Sidney residents say leans heavily on insulting, humiliating, and brow-beating associates;
A general impression in the town that it’s his inclination to run the town on his own authority, as if it were his own business instead of a government run according to the rule of law;
A mysterious 50,000 check connected to the Sidney Hospital — now closed — that he says he knows nothing about. Sidney has gone through three different local bookkeeping companies since Mr. McCarthy took office in January.
Many in the area think Mr. McCarthy’s performance in this scandal has made clear that Mr. McCarthy either doesn’t understand the limits of his powers, or doesn’t care.
For example, Mr. McCarthy has never had any legal power to stop further burials in the Dergah’s cemetery, and certainly none to force the Sufis to dig up the graves. Because the cemetery had been approved by the town in 2005, the Dergah had valid permits for each burial, and Article 9 of the U.S. Constitution forbids so-called ex post facto laws.
That provision, forbidding laws created after an event that make said event illegal, means the best he could have hoped for would have been to forbid future cemeteries on private property — a step the town did in fact take at the meeting, when it proposed the first Town Law of the year, covering exactly that subject.
Observers likewise say that Mr. McCarthy’s management during this imbroglio has been, at best, remarkably ham-handed — even naive.
For instance, he got up at the recent County Republican dinner, claimed the Town Meeting minutes for August — which authorized Mr. Ermeti to act legally against the Sufis — were false, and read what he claimed were the real minutes — a document that conveniently made everything go away. Unexplained was why the Board, including Mr. McCarthy, approved the official August minutes in the first place if they were false. Calls to Messers McCarthy and Ermeti requesting comment were not returned.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Sitting down to supper as a 4-year-old, I recall my sisters’ ardent concerns about who was on their plates. Yes, you read that correctly: who.
“This isn’t Bluebell, is it?” they’d yell in unison. I was not old enough to have my own 4-H club livestock, but I was aware that Bluebell was a creature that days earlier I’d petted and loved. We lived on a little farm outside of Denver and knew many of our meals. We cleaned our plates, because it was good and because we did not wish to waste our friends’ lives.
Some of you might recoil at the idea of being on a first-name basis with your dinner. I understand that reaction. However, I think being intimately involved with your food is important and far more empowering than buying factory-farmed meat or produce shipped from another hemisphere. In the world of our family farm, eating was all part of the great circle of life. We fed our plants and animals so they could feed us.
The impact of growing up on a farm has served me well. I’m loath to waste food since I respect its source. I don’t take food for granted. I’m able to use almost everything from a plant or animal that’s usable. And I know the difference in the quality of local vs. trucked or shipped foods. I invite you to share those standards if you don’t already.
Remember the saying, “What you don’t know can’t hurt you?” Rubbish! What you don’t know about your food can certainly harm you, and a lot of us. Recently, the horrendous conditions for laying hens in Iowa caused a salmonella outbreak, massive egg recall and scandal. What is it about Iowa? Iowa is also the state that had kosher slaughterhouse corruption where the conditions were horrific, not only for the animals but people too.
The kosher designation is not only vital to observant Jews, but to those of us who believe in a spiritual or moral component to food preparation and consumption. OK, so there was apparently one bad rabbinical apple in that Iowa barrel; I still respect kosher as a consumer guidepost. But again, I must caution there’s a lot of skullduggery — an underused word that means deception and trickery — with our food producers and processors. Just because it says something on the label doesn’t mean it’s true.
Consumers still have enormous power in society, especially in the world of food. Since food is something we use to survive, we’ve all got a major steak — err, stake — in its sources. As a huge example of how we could really make a difference quickly, consider Costco.
If you like shopping at Costco, insist they only buy fish that is sustainable. Join the Greenpeace effort to hold Costco to account for its part in endangering fish stocks. Same thing with their meats and produce. Believe me, if Costco adopts a sustainable approach to the suppliers they use, we’ll see a huge shift in this country’s food supplies. And Costco is a great place to start because they have a reputation for being socially responsible. I vote them “Most Likely to Respond.”
Need fuel for your outrage? Read books like “The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals,” by Michael Pollan (or any of his books), or by watching the excellent documentary “Food, Inc.” Another author passionate about our food is Jonathan Safran Foer, who has just released “Eating Animals.” You may become a vegetarian from your research, or you may be like me, an often-conflicted yet steady omnivore deeply concerned about the care of our food sources. I go out of my way to “do the right thing,” to buy “organic” or “free range,” and I’m furious because, according to Safran Foer, consumers who try to be conscientious are being duped over what “cage free” or “free range” often means. Since there are no government standards for these terms, they can be abused.
While both Pollan and Safran Foer acknowledge that many of us won’t become strict vegetarians, what we can do is be more demanding about our food. A great way to get moral about food quickly is to educate your kids, if you have them. They’ll often keep you honest faster than any influence I know. Teach them about Alice Waters, the famous Bay Area chef, who has been the reigning queen of growing and eating locally for decades.
Use the Web to find local farmers markets and shop at them. And even with farmer’s markets things are not always as they seem; verify that the food at these markets is actually coming from real farms… not simply re-packaged food that’s normally supplied to the big grocery chains. A good starting place is pasadenafarmersmarket.org. Insist that the milk, eggs and meats you use carry the Certified Humane designation. A “certified humane” stamp means the food “meets the Humane Farm Animal Care program standards, which includes a nutritious diet without antibiotics or hormones, animals raised with shelter, resting areas, sufficient space and the ability to engage in natural behaviors.” Visit the Certified Humane site to see who your humane providers are.
If you can handle being vegan, do it. So far, I can’t, but you can certainly learn to make vegan dishes for your vegan loved ones. Meanwhile, I continue to thank Bluebell and every sentient being that has ever helped me grow and live.
Note: This post appears both here and in my column in the October 14, 2010 issue of the Pasadena Weekly, for which it was written.

Follow Ellen Snortland on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/snortland

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Watching Sports Center this morning while at the gym, I enjoyed the highlights of Saturday’s college football games. There were some major upsets and some tight contests, but all of it was good entertainment. (For the moment, I even forgot about the concussions the players were likely experiencing.) Then I thought about the latest scandal in college sports, the story in Sports Illustrated about sports agent Josh Luchs who paid college athletes in order to get them to sign with him. Of course, this came as no surprise to anyone who follows big time college sports. My next thought was to write still another blog about the hypocrisy of amateur college athletics and the futile efforts of the NCAA to protect its brand.
Instead of bemoaning the fate of the college game, however, consider this alternative idea: a free market answer to the restricted market that is forced upon college football players who aspire to play professional football. Think about a Junior NFL funded by some wealthy entrepreneurs, who want to “get into the game.” The Junior NFL would provide good, market-driven salaries and first-rate coaching to college-age football players. The new league would play each fall in competition with college games around the country.
The business plan requires that we consider the availability of talent and the probability of profits. There is an abundance of talented college football players, some of whom find the only option they have available – NCAA football — to be burdened with an academic component that is, frankly, unnecessary and totally unrelated to their talents and their aspirations to play NFL football. The college option limits their remuneration to tuition, room, board and books, things they may not particularly want and, in many cases, do not need. These young men could chose instead to play in the Junior NFL until the real NFL allows them to stand for the draft.
There is nothing in the NFL rules that requires those eligible for the draft to attend college. They are eligible for the draft when they are three or four years out of high school. They could spend those years making some money and learning football, instead of being a student. As a lifelong academic, it is hard for me to advise young men to avoid college, but today a college education can easily come later in life after these men have explored their sports options.
Would the Junior NFL find an audience? Assume for the moment that 10% or 20% of the very best high school and college players in the country would want to pursue this option. Is there any reason why games between teams of players of this caliber would not attract the public’s interest? The media would lead the way. These are not CFL players or Arena Football players of somewhat lesser quality. These are NFL players-to-be.
Would a television network televise this new league? There are so many cable outlets that someone would pick up this league and advertisers would line up as well. With adequate capital to hire quality coaches and create the necessary infrastructure, the Junior NFL could flourish. When the time came, the best players would be drafted by the NFL and more junior ballplayers would take their places.
How would all of this affect the colleges, our football factories? They would still recruit most of the star high school athletes who want to play for Notre Dame, et al., but some who do not meet the NCAA academic eligibility requirements or who would just want to play the game in preparation for their sports careers, might select this option. They would miss out on the college experience, but there will be compensation in exchange.
My guess is that college boosters would frown upon the idea, but the market would determine whether it would be a viable alternative. The college game works because of the level playing field, and losing out on a few young stars would not diminish the competition. If enough of the very best young players tried out for the Junior NFL, the college game might fall of its own weight, but that seems unlikely based on the frenzy of the crowds I saw at yesterday’s games.
The NCAA would probably oppose the Junior NFL because it would set up a rival to its monopoly control. Every cartel in history eventually succumbed to a better idea, and the fans will decide how important it is to believe that the young men who play each Saturday are just students taking some time off from their studies to play a friendly game of football.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Jackass 3-D grossed a whopping $50 million in its debut weekend, setting several records and setting punditry tongues wagging in the process. First of all, the film bested the $48.1 million opening weekend for Scary Movie 3 in 2003, taking the October opening weekend record. Second of all, the opening figure is far and away the best opening weekend for any kind of non-fiction/documentary film in history. If you count this series as a documentary franchise (which I do), then the third entry is now the fifth-highest grossing documentary in history in just three days. It stands behind Jackass: The Movie ($64 million), Jackass Number Two ($72 million), March of the Penguins ($77 million), and Fahrenheit 9/11 ($119 million). While the franchise has mediocre legs (part one had a 2.9x weekend-to-total multiplier in 2002 and part two had a 2.4x multiplier in 2006), thus making $100 million+ not quite a sure thing yet, there is little doubt that the film will end its domestic run as the second-highest grossing documentary/non-fiction film of all time. Still, 3-D films seem to have better legs than average (witness the useless My Soul to Take dropping just 53% in weekend two, as well as the inexplicably strong holds of Legends of the Guardians, now at $46 million), partially because they keep the bigger auditoriums for longer periods of time. If it can manage a mere 2.4x multiplier, it will in fact surpass the Michael Moore anti-Bush epic.
There will be much discussion this week about how much of an effect the 3-D format (and related ticket-price bump) had to do with this performance, and this is a rare case where it must be acknowledged. The opening weekends of Jackass: The Movie ($22 million) and Jackass Number Two ($29 million) aren’t anywhere near the debut for part III, even when adjusted for inflation (around $33 million apiece). It is difficult to deny that the appeal of watching Johnny Knoxville and the gang horribly maim themselves in actual (not converted) 3-D had a certain appeal to both hardcore fans and those who only casually followed the franchise. As I’ve said before, 3-D is a tool, not a genre in-and-of itself. More importantly, I’d argue, this is an R-rated film franchise (and a ten-year old television series) that has had countless young fans over the years. Even in the last four years between installments, any number of youngsters have devoured this TV series and film franchise on DVD and on MTV, while turning 17 in time to sample this newest installment in theaters. It’s the same phenomenon that gave Beavis and Butthead Do America its $20 million opening in 1996 (a few years past its peak in popularity, but by which time many of its uber-young fans had already turned 13). It’s what allowed Freddy Vs. Jason to explode in summer 2003 with a $37 million opening. And THAT, I’d argue, is why we’re getting Scream 4 next April.
Two last notes: We’re also going to be reading a lot in the next week about A) what the success of this film says about our decline as a culture and B) how the success of Jackass 3-D is somehow symptomatic of our current national mood, how our economic and political tribulations made us more likely to run towards the over-the-top stunts and goofball antics as opposed to more serious fare. Allow me to preemptively call bullshit on both. Our culture has always enjoyed the immature antics of people hurting themselves or failing in absurd tasks. America’s Funniest Home Videos turned getting hit in the crotch into a national sport, and even the classic Looney Tunes cartoons based much of its comedy on the humiliation or physical injury of a comic foil. I have never seen the Jackass series or any of the films, but that is my choice and I don’t begrudge anyone who enjoys the stuntwork involved. As I’ve often said, the older generation always decries the ‘for the masses’ entertainment of the younger generation, only to hold up their own ‘for the masses’ entertainment as the pinnacle of art from a bygone era.
As for the whole ‘we saw Jackass 3-D because we’re sad’ argument, mass-audience comedies have always been easier sells than high-toned dramas. Jackass opened in a field of critically-acclaimed and popular fare all aimed at mature and/or grownup moviegoers. We can decry the massive opening of Jackass 3-D, but we must also acknowledge that we’re drowning in (mostly) financially successful, generally intelligent films at this moment, be it The Town ($80 million), The Social Network ($63 million), Easy A ($52 million), Let Me In (alas, $11 million and at the second-run theaters in just three weekends), Waiting For Superman ($2.5 million for an education documentary), Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps ($47 million), and Secretariat (dropping just 25% in weekend two, now with $28 million). Complain all you want about audiences wanting simple, politically-incorrect 3D comedy in a time of strife, but you certainly can’t accuse them of ignoring the more sophisticated fare.
The only other major opener was Red, which rode a gangbusters cast and solid buzz to a $22 million debut. That makes it the second-biggest non-Twilight debut in Summit Entertainment history, behind the $24 million debut of Knowing in 2009. The film actually had a 3x weekend multiplier, again proving that films aimed at grownups play steadier than those playing toward younger audiences. Considering the older nature of the cast (Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, Ernest Borgnine, Brian Cox, Richard Dreyfuss, etc), it’s no surprise that the crowd-pleasing (A- from Cinemascore) played 58% to audiences over 35. The marketing campaign highlighted Malkovich dueling with a rocket-launcher and Helen Mirren firing a very large machine gun, and it was an uncommonly confident sell from the occasionally unfocused Summit marketing department. Expect the ads to start skewing younger, as this one should easily play for those who barely know most of the older stars and know Morgan Freeman as ‘that science guy from the Batman films’. The film cost $58 million, but Summit sold off the foreign rights, so their remaining $20 million exposure has already been recouped.
In limited release news, the right-wing economic documentary I Want Your Money opened with a pathetic $520 per each of its 537 screens. Clint Eastwood’s afterlife drama Hereafter opened on six screens and scored a decent $38,000 per screen. It goes wide next weekend. Also going wide (or wider) next weekend is the Oscar-bait Hillary Swank ‘based on a true story’ legal drama Conviction. Alas, this weekend saw just $10,000 per screen in its platform eleven-screen debut. Barring some Oscar love, Never Let Me Go is pretty much finished, having failed to capitalize on its status as the first awards-bait movie of the season. With $1.6 million on less than 250 screens after five weekends, this film seemingly fell victim to both its uber-downbeat premise and the fact that there was plenty of quality fare available at the megaplex without having to find a local arthouse theater.
And that’s about it for this weekend. Join us next weekend where the aforementioned Hereafter and Conviction go into wide release. But the big release of the weekend is Paranormal Activity 2, which will seek to recapture the lighting-in-a-bottle success of last year’s sensation. Will it be Scream 2 or Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows? We’ll know this time next week. For a look at what happened this weekend last year, click here.
Scott Mendelson

Follow Scott Mendelson on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/ScottMendelson

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

As he faces a critical juncture in his presidency, it is perhaps useful for President Obama to reflect upon an obscure but relevant anniversary. On October 17, 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt officially changed the name of the president’s residence to the “White House.” Significantly, this occurred on the day after his controversial White House dinner with black leader Booker T. Washington. Roosevelt had been in office six weeks following the September 6, 1901 shooting and subsequent death of President William McKinley. The dinner, as viewed by some in the black community, was supposed to signal a new receptivity by the white political establishment to engagement with African Americans. In fact, it achieved the opposite. The virulent reaction to breaking the racial mores of the time closed the door not only on Washington, but other black leaders for nearly 30 years. At the same time, a new political era was dawning not only in the black community but in the nation as a whole.
Ironically, these two elements — race and political transition — are haunting the current White House albeit with the historic dimension of an African American president at the helm. From the Henry Louis Gates and Shirley Sherrod incidents to the racialized antics of the Tea Party and right-wing media, bigotry has reared its head time and time again since Obama’s election. Fanatical attacks on Muslims and Latinos — the real targets of the New York City Mosque controversy and Arizona’s anti-immigration law — have been the public face of a far more troubling institutional discrimination that White House after White House have failed to address. In the areas of employment, health care, environmental degradation, education, and criminal justice, depressing and well-known disparities have persisted for decades.
A key measure of the Obama administration’s political audacity will be the degree to which it confronts these unpopular but critical issues amid predictable accusations of “reverse racism” and “his hatred of white people.” The Clinton and Bush formula that the benefits of prosperity are distributed fairly let alone based on unequal need is fundamentally flawed and must be rejected. The singular focus on the suffering middle-class, a true but narrowly-conceived and politically-driven framework, shamefully ignores the continuing crisis facing the urban, suburban, and rural poor, disproportionately African American and Latino.
Despite his close ties to Booker T. Washington, Roosevelt allowed the racist reaction of mostly Southern politicians and journalists — the Tea Party-like leaders of the era — to close the door on black social visitors to the White House for nearly three decades. More critical, Roosevelt’s administration retreated on challenging the barbaric lynchings, injurious segregation, and destructive racism pervasive in the United States during the period. President Roosevelt refused to initiate any policies that would address or provide specific remedies to the marginalized and oppressive situation faced by the nation’s black communities. After the storm of controversy over black Booker T. Washington dining with a white president at the White House, and for decades following, for African Americans, the newly-branded “White House” seemed whiter than ever.
But as noted above this was a period of transition. Soon the NAACP would form and leaders such as scholar W. E. B. Du Bois, journalist William Trotter, anti-lynching activist Ida B. Wells, Pan Africanist advocate Marcus Garvey and countless others would emerge to challenge the racial status quo. More broadly, the seeds of division between Southern and Northern Democrats also began to grow culminating, in another historic irony, with the election of Republican Theodore’s distant cousin Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, in 1932. Grassroots activism and a national crisis would eventually push the second Roosevelt to implement progressive radical policies that transformed the nation and national politics.
Today, to confront the issue of rising racial animosity as well as the likely changed political environment that he will face after the November 2010 elections, Obama will need the one thing that Theodore Roosevelt’s White House lacked: courage. Congressional Republicans and the conservative movement will relentlessly pursue an agenda of obstructionism, rollback, and anti-progressivism. The White House can continue to chase a fruitless strategy of bi-partisanship or realize that in the 2-6 years it has left, it is in an ideological and political battle for the future of the nation. Whatever the configuration of Congress turns out to be, President Obama must employ all the powers of his office, both real and symbolic, to push through policies that genuinely advance the nation’s interest and those of the people in it.
It will be critical to mobilize the millions who believe that government should play a responsible and interventionist role in addressing the job, home foreclosure, and climate change crises. Despite their shrillness and obscene visibility, followers of the Tea Party and Glenn Beck do not represent the tens of millions who are in jeopardy but whose voices have been politically silenced. Both the White House and progressive civil society must bring pressure like never before on Congress regardless of who is in charge.
Few remember or care what the final vote was that pushed through Society Security, unemployment insurance, the Voting Rights Act and other pivotal legislation that changed the country. As President Obama himself has noted, it will be better to be a one-term president that wins important policy achievements, even amid controversy and partisanship, than a two-term one who achieves little.
In a symbolic sense, the White House is no longer white; the “whites-only” signs have been removed. Now, it is time for real change and a real commitment to making the White House the People’s House.
Dr. Clarence Lusane is an Associate Professor of Political Science in the School of International Service at American University where he teaches and researches on international human rights, comparative race relations, social movements and electoral politics. He is also an activist, scholar, lecturer, journalist and author of several books; his most recent is “The Black History of The White House” published in the Open Media Series by City Lights Books, CityLights.com.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

On Saturday night, Vitali Klitschko defended his WBC heavyweight title against Shannon Briggs in Hamburg, Germany. In the process, Klitschko both established himself as one of the most dominant heavyweight of his era and inadvertently hammered out an argument for reform in his beloved sport.
Like his younger and smaller brother, Wladimir, the six-foot-seven Vitali is a pile- driving puncher. Since he retired from his retirement in 2008, he has not, I believe, lost a round. And he certainly got the best of every stanza on Saturday when he pounded the all too gritty Shannon Briggs almost at will. Unable to provide any meaningful offense, Briggs absorbed scores of right hands and left hooks that would have surely shorted the neural circuits of less durable humans. Early on, Briggs showed some good lateral movement. He landed some respectable right hooks to the body, and even though he was getting the worst of it, there was a glimmer of hope that maybe he could make this a fight. However, after about six rounds, it was evident that Briggs’s power had been sapped, and that even a lucky punch was out of the question.
To their credit, as the bout wore on the commentators on ESPN-3 wondered aloud why neither Briggs’s corner nor the ref would put a halt to the massacre. By the end, it was clear that the experts talking us through the fight were appalled that the fight continued.
After the bout in which all justly praised Briggs’s toughness, the Brooklyn-born fighter went to the hospital where he was put in the ICU. There are reports of fractures in both of his eye sockets and conflicting accounts about possible brain trauma. We can only pray that this courageous former champion will soon be able to walk out of the hospital. However, most of the damage in boxing takes years to accumulate. It is often only when fighters enter their fifties that it becomes time to pay up for all of the punches they have bought. And anyone who has ever attended a large gathering of former professional boxers will know just how hefty that price can be. Having closely observed the terrible thumping that Briggs took from the giant Klitschko, it is hard to imagine that the challenger in this fight will not face serious challenges down the road of a very different sort than gloved fists. And for what?
Boxers don’t pull any punches and neither should those of us who train and write about these fearless warriors. Whether a championship is at stake or not, one- sided bouts in which a devastating puncher is at work must be halted, if not by the corner, then by the referee or doctor. Boxers must be protected from their bravery. The punishment that Briggs suffered on Saturday was so egregious and unnecessary that it was a blow to the gut to watch. It was enough to make a person feel guilty about being involved in the sport

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

You wouldn’t think a hit Broadway show would be a pop-emo musical about Andrew Jackson, played as if Jackson had the looks and sex appeal of Jim Morrison combined with the soul of Karl Rove. Or that it would be about our political predicament today.
I saw the show last night and it’s amazingly good, raucous, and, in my opinion, terribly sad. (My 20 year old cousin is one of the amazing talents in it).
Despite the terrific pounding musical score (the actors,and band are fantastic), this show is really about the moment America went off the rails. Andrew Jackson was the first major American political figure whose career was based on building that fake kind of class resentment that predominates today — upside-down class resentment designed to rip us all off to put money in the bank accounts of the real elites.
Jackson hated the people in Washington (and Indians and blacks) and got his followers to believe that the only thing standing in the way of their “taking their country back” was by replacing the old political order with people whose sole qualification for office was hating the existing order. And knowing nothing about governance.
Jackson believed in the innate smarts of the people, so long as they (in their ignorance) endorsed his disastrous schemes (like Indian genocide, slavery, and eliminating the Bank of the United States — that last led directly to the economic crash of 1837).
In fact, as the show points out, it didn’t matter what Jackson believed so long as he pitted himself against those more educated and serious politicians who actually believed the federal government could do some good.
The sheer brilliance of this show is that it gets that American politics is essentially a repulsive cartoon, one in which buffoons appeal to the basest instincts and win. “The people” in the show’s point of view are morons and will choose morons to represent them. Morons R Us.
Harsh, yes. But as we wait for the Nov. 2 election, we see that the show’s creators have it right. Unfortunately, however, we don’t live on stage. Faux-populism is about to run us over. Thanks, Andy Jackson.
And thanks to the people who created this show for making the impending disaster so amazingly entertaining!

Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Two weeks into the Tarara Pioneers camp and my sister and I would return home talking about our dips in the ocean. But this time it would be different, because we would be part of an activity to show someone very important that this area that was once private houses was now a place for the enjoyment of the workers’ children. On the lawn beside the stream we clasped hands and, dressed in the clothes typical of each region, made five large circles representing the continents. It fell to me to be Lithuanian.
My mother rented the costumes from a store in Galiano Street — all that remains of it now is a sewer pit draining onto the sidewalk. I had to wear a long-sleeved blouse with a colorfully embroidered thick cloth vest over it, plus a decorated headband and gaiters over my shoes. The outfit was totally inappropriate for the blistering sun of July 1984, but I stood it for several days out of curiosity over who the distinguished visitor would be. Nearby, some of my fellow classmates were dying of the heat, stuffed into multi-colored Mongolian pomp. The leader was blowing a whistle while we had to turn this way and that on the cut grass, waiting for those distinguished eyes that would watch us spin.
On the day planned for our live world dance performance, I discovered that someone in the hostel had stolen one of my gaiters, and my sister was showing the first signs of heat stroke. We reluctantly danced our rounds, while the rumor flew that the Maximum Leader’s brother would show up at any moment. A convoy of fast cars — three green Alfa Romeos — crossed the bridge over the Tarara River. A minute later we were told we could abandon our formation; the eminent visitor was already gone. Raul Castro, as in the Spanish film Welcome Mr. Marshall, had left us all dressed up, choreography rehearsed.
Yoani’s blog, Generation Y, can be read here in English translation.
Translating Cuba is a new compilation blog with Yoani and other Cuban bloggers in English.

Follow Yoani Sanchez on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/yoanisanchez

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I read that Angelo R.Mozilo of Countrywide Financial fame is paying a $67.5 million fine of which Countrywide is paying $20 million. It reminds me of the old story that lawyers are wont to tell. A petty thief is charged with stealing a watch. He vehemently denies it. He is convicted and sentenced to probation. As he is walking out of court, he turns to his lawyer and says: “Does this mean that I can keep the watch?” I expect that Mr. Mozilo turned to his lawyer and asked: “Does this mean that I can keep the remaining $100 million?”
There is now talk of a foreclosure moratorium and a criminal investigation, because it appears that papers submitted in support of foreclosures have been submitted without verification or valid notarization. Let us start with the obvious. Foreclosure is a devastating event for anyone. Being forced to move from one’s home because of the inability to meet payments must be one of the most devastating experiences. However, the reaction to the foreclosure process seems to be a little overblown.
Whoever certifies or swears that a mortgage is in default undoubtedly relies on some computer printout indicating how much is due and how much has been paid. It is difficult to envision how there could be any independent verification, particularly since the mortgages have been bundled, resold and resold. Furthermore, foreclosures do not start with a forced sale of the premises. They are preceded by notices of default, threats, court papers, notices and numerous opportunities to object or defend. The foreclosures of the wrong house or paid mortgage are rare. Borrowers know whether or not they are in default. How much may be a matter of dispute, but not the fact of default.
I certainly do not want to appear as an advocate for mortgage foreclosures in these dire times, and I certainly do not intend to condone the use of false notarizations of signatures nor the submission of inaccurate information to obtain foreclosure judgments, but a moratorium may not be warranted and could make matters worse. If it serves to prompt mortgage holders to renegotiate loans and permit persons to remain in their homes it is a good thing. But if it permits persons to remain in their homes without paying or if it permits abandoned homes to remain unsaleable, it is a bad thing. Although foreclosures bring down surrounding property values, abandoned, unkempt and trashed houses do so likewise. Further, allowing millions of mortgages to continue without payment or foreclosure is certain to cause further economic disaster and possibly more bank failures.
Mortgage holders must strive for accuracy and honesty in foreclosure proceedings. Congress should not stoop to “touching up the X-rays” by making illegal notarizations easier to accomplish, an effort which President Obama pocket-vetoed. It is easy to feel no sympathy for the “evil” banks who granted mortgages to people who could not afford to maintain them. But a person who purchases an auto on time should not be able to keep it without keeping up the payments no matter what the sales pitch, and the same must be true for homeowners. While our hearts may cry out to those who are forced to lose their homes because of their inability to make payments, our economic (and legal) system will collapse if promises made are not required to be kept. If purchase money mortgages were involved (loans made by the seller to the purchaser) we would not hesitate to uphold the seller’s right to foreclose. It cannot be different, no matter how angry we are at the banks, because it is an institution rather than a person that holds the mortgage.
Maybe lenders convinced borrowers to take out mortgages they could not pay, or maybe borrowers took out mortgages they knew they could not afford. In either instance, absent a modification by agreement, the right to foreclose cannot be foreclosed. We should do everything humanly and economically possible to aid those who are in danger of losing their homes, but failing that, the dire and sad consequences of a foreclosure are inescapable. A promise is a promise even if made by the good guys to the bad guys.
In the meantime, the guy who stole the watch shouldn’t be allowed to keep it, except possibly in the company of some fellow inmates.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

When’s the last time you sat down and had a meal with your family? And what defines a family anymore, anyway? On a cool, crisp New England afternoon at the infamous R.J. Julia’s independent bookstore in Connecticut, I had a chance to sit down with Food Network superstar Tyler Florence. We talked about the many versions of family in his life — from his kids to the staff at his restaurants to his friends and neighbors who gather for sumptuous potlucks, he loves to feed them all. Florence recently released a wonderful “cookbook for the soul” called Family Meal: Bringing People Together Never Tasted Better.
According to Florence, “Today, there is no single way to define a family. In the simplest terms, it’s the people you spend a great deal of time with, care for deeply and trust with everything. Now more than ever, families need to stick together.”
To make your mouth water, check out this quick video of Florence describing his personal take on the importance of a family meal:
Touch. The fact that I interviewed a famous chef was something of a joke to my family. As my kids will attest, I can’t bake even the simplest Pillsbury cookies pre-made in plastic wrap without burning them, and once I tried a recipe for “chocolate bird’s nest” cookies that looked exactly like teeny piles of dog poo. I am adequate at cooking, but I can tell you, I love to eat, and I love to have meals with friends and family together. It is the ritual of sitting down together around a table that nourishes more than the morsels on the plate. Besides, the comedy of some of my creations makes for fabulous dinner conversation!
Home-made food calms us down. Sitting down to a share meal releases the left brain’s dominance and allows the gastric juices to soften the edges. Casual conversation blossoms, laughter is easier, and our brains begin to think more creatively after having a break from screens, deadlines and crazy schedules. It has been proven that there’s a direct relationship between the well-being of your kids and how often you have regularly scheduled family meals. I also believe a neighborhood that eats together sticks together, and co-workers who share meals have stronger and more productive working relationships.
Let’s explore each area of family one by one.
Nuclear Family
Having a family meal together couldn’t be more vital these days. Many families have delegated the dining room table to store bills, projects and junk and haven’t pulled out a roasting pan in years. As kids get older, the teen years are a frantic sprint from one event to another, with lots of meals in the car along the way. Yet studies continue to show that making time to sit down together at a dinner table sets an important foundation for life.
The National Center for Addiction at Columbia University released a decade-long study in 2008 that remains true in showing teens who have dinner with their families fewer than three times per week are twice as likely to use tobacco and marijuana than teens who have more frequent dinners, and that infrequent family dinners raises the risk of depression and eating disorders. “It is a tragedy that family dinners decline as teens get older,” said Joseph A. Califano, Jr., chairman and president of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University.
Even if the meal feels more like bickering than languishing, a foundation of connection, comfort and security is being created when a family sits around the table together on a regular basis. Clear off the dining-room table, grab the cloth napkins, light some candles and dish up the mac ‘n’ cheese — who cares? Start the meal by asking everyone to share something for which they are grateful, and watch the atmosphere change for the better.
Family of Friends and Neighbors
Vive le potluck! Whether we live in an apartment complex, home or condo, the people who live around us either become a support network or a reminder of isolation. I find it tragic to weave through so many pre-planned neighborhoods filled with neighbors who daily drive into their garages, close the door, and do not know one another. In such challenging times, neighbors can support each other simply by coming together over shared meals.
Many of us get stressed out thinking that in order to invite anyone over, the house has to be immaculate and the meal a Martha Stewart perfection. Forget it! Instead, try the “stone soup” potluck: call a few friends on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon, and invite them to bring over whatever they were going to have for dinner and share it as a big smorgasbord. Our neighborhood did this last week, and we had a hilarious combination of pork chops, meatballs, chili, salads and chips and salsa. The kids had a blast, the parents unwound with a few beers, everyone pitched in to clean, and all left deeply satiated.
Family at Work
In my work in training and community development, I have seen time and again that food can be used as the magic glue that brings everyone together in a way that is more authentic and satisfying than can often be achieved in traditional professional settings. Let’s face it, most of the food we eat at work sucks! Power bars for breakfast, soggy sandwich pinwheels for lunch, Snickers bars for snack and coffee, coffee, coffee to fill the gaps. Instead, choose someone on your staff to prepare a home-made specialty for the next committee or board meeting, and watch the energy change dramatically.
A friend and colleague of mine teaches medical residents at Yale Medical School. Each year, he asks the students to prepare a meal from their historical roots, and hosts a poolside BBQ that has become the event of the year. With such a cultural diversity, the meal is a mouthwatering blend of Asian, Italian, Indian and American treats that push the stresses of the hospital to the side and tightens the bonds between colleagues used to unrelenting stress.
How about you, HuffPost readers? Do you make time to share a meal with your friends and loved ones? Who do you consider to be your family? Pull up a chair at our table, grab a glass, and let’s share a few stories in the comments below.
For weekly updates from me, click “Become a Fan” at the top of this page. Feel free to share this post with your cyber families on Twitter and Facebook!

Follow Kari Henley on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/karihenley

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

As Chileans and the world wait for the miners’ safe recovery, this startling reminder of the importance of one’s waistline is an opportunity to review the health risks of our increasing girth.
Having followed the story of the Chilean miners since the beginning, I would like to share this reflection about the importance of our waistlines as predictors of our health.
Originally published on NJ Voices
Imagine if you had to pass this simple test: If your waistline is equal to or less than 35 inches, you could lead a healthy life; if not, you must begin a regime to trim down, because the clock is ticking.
Given all of the health risks associated with our waistlines, 35 inches may not be an unreasonable limit, but this is the reality that the trapped miners in Chile must face because of the dimensions of the escape tunnel that is under construction. Thankfully, from news reports, it doesn’t seem this will be a major problem for them.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that the average waistline is 40 inches for men and is 37 inches for women, so more than 50 percent of Americans would fail the 35-inch survival test. CDC scientists concluded that abdominal obesity has “increased continuously during the past 15 years”.
Visceral fat, especially the fat around our middle, is associated with a host of diseases, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia, asthma, breast cancer and colorectal cancer.
Below is a snapshot of some of these risks: (source: Harvard Health Publications)
•An increase of two inches to a healthy woman’s waist size is estimated to increase the risk for cardiovascular disease by 10 percent.
•More than 80 percent of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese.
•Your risk for dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, could triple with high levels of abdominal fat.
•Even with normal body weight, your risk for asthma could increase by almost 40 percent if your waist exceeds 35 inches (for women).
•Risks for both breast cancer and colorectal cancer increase with higher levels of abdominal fat; colorectal cancer risks can triple.
When I heard this story, I thought if it were not for my inclination to overindulge every now and then, to enjoying dessert after dinner, I would be in that 35 inch or less club, but I am not. I would fail this test, even if by less than one inch … OK, an inch — well, I am working on it — really. Better get to those sit-ups!
Let us all give our thoughts, and if you’re so inclined, prayers, for the safe recovery of the Chilean miners.

Follow Dr. Jeffrey H. Toney on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/jefftoney

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I don’t have to tell you how devastating it would be if the United States House and Senate turned against stem cell research–and the disability community– in November.
It could easily happen, if we let our friends stand alone.
In California, for example, Barbara Boxer (D) is opposed by the massively-funded Carly Fiorina (R) darling of the Tea Party and the Religious Right. (Karl Rove recently authorized another million out-of-state dollars for attack ads against her.)
On stem cells (my key issue) Boxer is a leader and a champion: pushing the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Acts of 2003 and 2007, both of which passed the Senate before being vetoed by President Bush; she also helped prevent passage of several versions of extraordinarily hurtful laws which would literally have put scientists in jail for stem cell research.
Most recently, she and Senator Dianne Feinstein co-authored Senator Arlen Specter’s bill, S. 3766, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2010. She is not waiting to see which way the wind is blowing; she is acting now. (She is very right to do so: we need that bill to be passed into law during the “lame duck” session, or risk losing all federal funds for the research we support. Waiting till the next session begins could be fatal to our best hopes for cure.)
Now Barbara Boxer is a fighter for California. Not a headline-grabber, not someone out to get her name put on buildings, but the kind of person who will stand beside you through thick and thin. She figures out the right thing to do, and does it, come Hell or high water. You may not agree with every stand she takes, but you will always know where she stands, and if she gives her word, that’s it.
Let me share a brief conversation I had with Senator Boxer, in Sacramento, years ago. A small incident, but as a fingerprint reveals a person, sometimes even a few words can offer a glimpse of character.
She was standing in the hallway of our beautiful capitol building in Sacramento, and I was trying to get her support for the first Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
She cut me off, mid-sentence–to tell me, first, that OF COURSE she supported the bill.
And then she added something that stuck with me.
“What you really need is a billion dollars for stem cell research–and that is something I cannot get for you, as long as the current administration is in power.”
This was before Prop 71 was even a $3 billion gleam in California’s eye.
That is typical of Boxer. She did not sugar-coat the message, just said flatly where she stood.
How many politicians are that honest?
And Fiorina?
Carly Fiorina is famous for having been fired, as the head of Hewlett-Packard. The millions she got as her severance package (estimates range from $42-$100 million) is how she became rich.
She does not vote a lot. From 1997 to 2005 she was registered to vote in New Jersey, but did not vote, so was dropped from the polls as “inactive”. So democracy has not been super important to her until very recently, when she decided she wanted to take a leadership role.
Where does she stand on stem cell research?
First, remember California supports embryonic stem cell research all the way. In 2004, the state voted to invest serious money in the research. Thanks to Prop 71, California’s investment in the future, we are home to what is undoubtedly the greatest stem cell research resource in the world.
With the FDA’s long awaited approval of the Geron human trials for embryonic stem cell research, the biomedical industry is on the verge of major growth, pivotal to California’s emergence from the world-wide recession.
Lifted by California’s success, the biomedical industry is growing stronger every day. Just last quarter, the money invested in these businesses by venture capitalists grew 52%– despite the tough economy, they have faith in our future.
Fiorina knows this. I doubt she would agree (publicly) with the goal of the pro-life groups which endorsed her–shutting down our research. If Republicans succeed in putting “a ban on all embryonic stem cell research, public and private”, California’s magnificent stem cell program would be at risk, as would the entire biomedical industry.
So Ms. Fiorina will say “…I’m not an expert”, and dance around the issue, soft-pedaling her anti-research stance on one of the most important and beloved issues in the Golden State. There are millions of citizens suffering incurable disease or disability, and we support research for cure.
But look closely at her statements, and it is clear she is against it. She desperately wants the energy of the Religious Right behind her, so she speaks in “code”, saying stuff like “I am 100% pro-life; life begins at conception.” Those are not lightly chosen words. It is pretty close to an endorsement of the personhood movement, which would grant full citizenship to blastocysts, even in a petri dish. If enacted into law, the personhood philosophy would shut down not only embryonic stem cell research, but also most forms of birth control, and the entire in Vitro Fertility (iVF) procedure, which has brought joy to so many childless families.
Here is some language from her.
(Interviewer) “In the past, Democrats have suggested that pro-life positions on issues like embryonic stem-cell research are ‘anti-science.”
(Fiorina responds) “It is a cynical political calculation to pit science against the pro-life movement or to try and pit science against morality.
“… scientific advances in embryology, to take one example, are maturing our moral perspective on the sanctity of human life: we’re learning that the fetus is viable at a very early stage…
“It’s false to suggest that people who are scientifically-oriented must be pro-embryonic stem-cell research and pro-choice. Adult stem-cell research is a perfect example of how science is helping to mature our moral compass. It’s probably more viable, more cost-effective and may even have better results–though I’m no expert on this.” ~ National Catholic Register, Joan Frawley Desmond, “Ready to go 12 Rounds with Boxer”, posted 6/21/10
“Cynical political calculation”? She just compared a fetus (unborn baby in the womb) to embryonic stem cells–dots in a petri dish which can never become a child–to my mind that is a deliberate deception.
Now while I support cure research 100%, I also want our citizens with disabilities to be helped now, so that they can be fully participating citizens, not shunted aside by inadequate accommodation.
Where does Fiorina stand on disability rights? It’s hard to tell. We can get a hint, though, from her friends and endorsers.
As the Tea Party candidate, Ms. Fiorina undoubtedly wants to cut the education budget–of which about 20% ($12 billion of the entire $64 billion budget) goes to fund education for disabled k-12 students. And if a disabled person wants help going to college, the Pell Grant ($27 billion) offers scholarships and loans to deserving students with a disability.
Where does Senator Boxer stand on disability issues? That is not hard to find out. I wrote to her office, and asked. They sent me this.
Highlights of the Boxer Record on Issues of Interest to Americans with Disabilities
Senator Boxer is committed to helping Americans with disabilities participate fully in our national life.
Americans with Disabilities Act. Senator Boxer strongly supported the reauthorization of the Americans with Disabilities Act – the landmark legislation that prohibits discrimination against disabled Americans and helps remove barriers to employment and basic services for Americans with disabilities so they can participate more fully in national life.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Senator Boxer believes in the importance of providing schools with the resources they need to serve all of their students, including students with special needs. She strongly supports full funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and consistently advocated to increase funding for schools to provide quality special education.
Tax-Exempt Savings Accounts. Senator Boxer has supported the creation of tax-exempt savings accounts to help people with disabilities plan and pay for education, medical care, and job training.
Ed Roberts Campus. During 2004 to 2008, Senator Boxer secured funding to help build the Ed Roberts Campus in Berkeley, CA, a national center on disability and independent living that serves people with disabilities and their families. ERC also advocates for the improvement of accessibility for people with disabilities to health, transportation and other essential services.
Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act. Senator Boxer is proud to have voted for health care reform, which created the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program. CLASS is a new voluntary insurance program that will help expand options for people who become disabled and require long-term help.
Rosa’s Law. Senator Boxer cosponsored Rosa’s Law, which President Obama recently signed into law. This measure will replace the terms “mental retardation” and “mentally retarded” with “intellectual disability” and “individual with an intellectual disability” throughout federal health, education and labor statutes.
Folks, Barbara Boxer is a champion for California, for individuals with a disability, and for all who see hope in stem cell research.
I support her 100%.
Now California will almost certainly re-elect Barbara Boxer, no matter how many millions of dollars the opposition spends.
We know her: who she is, what she stands for. She IS California, caring, future-oriented, full of hope and determination, passionate in her convictions, and dedicated to fair play for all.
But not every stem cell research supporting leader is as well-known as she. Also, when she is re-elected, we need to be sure she has friends in the Senate to work with, and in the House of Representatives, so we do not have good bills that the Senate passes and the House blocks, or vice versa.
Accordingly…
Here are 21 stem cell races in the House and Senate, where a friend of the research is at risk, and their opponent is someone against the research.
Find your state, and pick someone to help.
HOUSE RACES:
Friends of research come first, as they should.
CA: Jerry McNerney, vs. David Harmer, District 11
CA: Ami Bera vs. Daniel Lungren District 3
FL: Joe Garcia vs. David Rivera, District 25
IL: Dan Seals vs.Robert Dold, District 10
MN: Tarryl Clark v. Michele Bachmann, District 8
NH: Carol Shea-Porter v. Frank Guinta, District 01
NV: Dina Titus v. Joe Heck, District 3
NY: John Hall v. Nan Hayworth, District 19
OH: Mary Jo Kilroy v. Stivers, District 15
WI: Julie Lassa v. Sean Duffy, District 7
SENATE RACES:
CA: Barbara Boxer vs. Carly Fiorina
CO: Michael Bennet vs. Ken Buck
DE: Chris Coons v.Christine Odonnell
KY: Jack Conway vs. Rand Paul
MO: Robin Carnahan vs. Roy Blunt
NH: Paul Hodes vs. Kelly Ayotte
NV: Harry Reid vs. Sharron Angle
OH: Lee Fisher vs. Rob Portman
PA: Joe Sestak vs. Pat Toomey
WA: Patty Murray vs. Dino Rossi
WI: Russ Feingold vs. Ron Johnson
Remember, sometimes a crucial bill can be decided by a single vote. Pick somebody from that list, and help him or her. Support them financially if you can, lend energy if you cannot: walk door to door for them, send emails to friends, do phone-banking–but help them.
BRING A SIGN– “Support Stem Cell Research!” to the rallies–make sure everyone knows where your candidate stands on the research for cure.
If you are one of America’s 51.2 million citizens with a disability (U.S. Census Bureau statistic) or chronic disease– or if you love someone who does–be active now.
Or risk losing our best friends for cure.

Follow Don C. Reed on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/diverdonreed

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

My PR agency, which creates and manages campaigns for technology firms and entrepreneurial ventures, has been around for 20 years. We’ve got 15 staff and about $2 million in annual revenue. I’ve also written 12 books and spend half my time doing speaking engagements, and so I’ve made influential connections. I’m guessing a lot of people view me as an authority in a bunch of fields, and so I get sought out a lot for plain old everyday advice. The trouble is the Internet has made it too easy to contact people and that ease translates to inherent laziness.
Back when we sent messages through the U.S. mail, about a million years ago, we all needed to think through what we wanted to say. Now our written communication is disposable. We push buttons — our thoughts appear and vanish like spit on a griddle — and we rarely, if ever, consider how our messages are received. As a result, I lose half of my day dealing with emails from time-wasters who have nothing to offer to me or to my company. So I’ve made it my mission to reeducate the writers of crap email on the etiquette of basic communication.
I make it my job to “scour the waterfront” and to research the latest trends in media and other areas that I’m immersed in, looking for material that I can point out to my clients and contacts. So I’ll often send an email with some thoughts on an issue, or a link to a news story that might interest a fellow executive I’ve met or befriended. It’s amazing how many of them don’t even bother to respond with a “thank you” — this is just the way it is now. Then two years later they’ll email me asking for work or an introduction on LinkedIn or Facebook. Meanwhile, I’m thinking, “Where were you before — or is that not the issue?”
Other times strangers will write me with the vaguest of requests. One guy sent me a message on Twitter the other day with: “I’m trying to move from real estate into the film PR industry, and someone [I don't even really like] said you could help me.”
How does one respond to that question? I attempted anyway, asking, “What do you mean I can help you? Do you want me to write your resum and take you to Brooks Brothers for a fitting? How about an actual question that merits a realistic answer?”
He unfollowed me.
What about me?
I’m a busy guy — I am proud of my social life; who the Hell has one these days? — and I just don’t have time to help anyone unless I stand to gain something (anything) from them. So when people write asking me for favors — like help with finding an agent or writing a book proposal — I’ll write back with the Dictionary.com definition of quid pro quo: “one thing in return for another.” Sometimes I’ll just send them to the fabulous site Let Me Google That for You.
I don’t care how important they are. I’ve sent the same advice to CEOs who’ve asked me for help after ignoring me when I solicited their companies for PR work. They rarely appreciate my bluntness. They inevitably complain in a passive aggressive way via a third party; it turns out they’ll never work with me. I’ll write them — often in the form of a note card in the mail — with, “Hey. Can you have the person who replaces you call me? Please.”
I’m very polite, see. I really am.
There’s no such thing as a favor in business. Clients pay in cash and in G-d we trust. So if a stranger or acquaintance requests a favor, I’ll shoot back, “Why? Really, why? Is there a reason I need to help you?”
If that person lobs a good answer over the net, then I’ll lend a hand. It is, after all, just time. But I want to make sure he knows what it is he’s asking, and that it requires a sacrifice on my part. People forget. It’s almost as if there’s this “You’re there, why not?” attitude.
I’m well-versed in how people respond to communication — that’s what I think and write and tweet about every day of my young life. I am half of The Bad Pitch Blog, where we rain all over PR reps’ (and journalists’) awful writing and horrendous behavior. I know what makes people laugh, and I know what pisses them off. So if someone’s angering me, I’ll make sure she knows it. (I also tell people when they crack me up. Quid pro quo and all!)
The vast majority of people get ticked off when I tell them that they’re being rude. They’re not used to their obnoxious behavior being called out. What they don’t get is that I really want them to get better at business — or at least a little better at being a person. No one else is going to tell them the truth. Life is short.
My long-term partner always asks me “Why bother? You can’t wizen up a chump.”
But I’ve found that one out of every 50 lazy-asses can be changed — there are a lot of old dogs out there. Every now and then, one of my, ahem, pupils will say, “Thanks for telling me that. I didn’t realize I was offending anyone.” That, to me, seems worth the effort. Man, I hope I’m not kidding myself.
Twitter @laermer. Let’s get this debate started.

Follow Richard Laermer on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/laermer

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Beninoise singer Angelique Kidjo has had a spectacular year. In April she released her newest album, OYO, where she revisited the music that inspired her as a young girl in West Africa and featured collaborations with Roy Hargrove, John Legend, Dianne Reeves, and Bono. In May, she performed for UNICEF in Dublin, her first concert ever in Ireland. In June, she appeared at the Official World Cup Kick-Off Concert in South Africa in front of a cheering, packed stadium and millions more watching on television all over the world. On November 11th, she’ll present The Sound of the Drum at Carnegie Hall in New York City, an inspirational tribute to the African roots of music.
Kidjo was dubbed “Africa’s premier diva” by Time Magazine and won a Best Contemporary World Music Grammy Award for her 2007 release Djin Djin. She has served as a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador since 2002 and set up her own foundation, Batonga, to promote secondary school and higher education for girls in Africa. The foundation grants scholarships, works on improving teaching standards, builds schools and provides school supplies, and generally advocates for community awareness of the value of education for girls. In a recent New York Times editorial, Angelique (whose own mother was educated, a rarity) wrote, “My dream is to see every little girl in Benin have the chance I had right after independence: access to a great and sustained education.” It’s a cause she’ll never stop working for. She explained that as an African girl, once you reach puberty, marriage is usually next. “We need highly educated women in Africa, we need women to take the lead in their own lives, we need them to stop being accessories…It’s just vital for the future of Africa and the future of the world.”
Anglique told me that when she first heard about slavery in her childhood, she vowed to become either a human rights lawyer or a musician. “Through music, I would try to build a bridge to communicate… How come human beings tend to hate one another so much? The beauty of music transcends because it is a universal language.” She first started singing and performing at the age of six (inspired by James Brown and Aretha Franklin) and was the last daughter born into a group of eleven children – with three sisters and seven brothers. The young Angelique toured with her mother’s theatre troupe throughout West Africa and by the age of nine she was a seasoned performer. “When I was a kid, I said, one day I’m going to be James Brown… I’m going to be Jimi Hendrix, watch me!” It was a big family, and a loving one. She always felt completely secure, “knowing that you were loved, that nothing could happen to you, that you were protected.” Her parents encouraged and believed in her and her siblings, although it was challenging at times being in such a large family. “Imagine a crowded subway – fighting for every bit of space!” she laughed.
Kidjo was a tomboy, climbing trees, taking the heads off her Barbie dolls, and playing soccer with her brothers. “My mom was desperate to catch me and fix my hair… (she’d say) I was looking for a third girl and I have a boy!” Her adoration of soccer made performing at the World Cup Concert this summer all the more special. “Oooh girlfriend, it was good, it feel so good! The feeling that I had at that time was a collectiveness feeling, to celebrate something we thought we’d never see. To see Africa differently instead of seeing it through the mirror of misery,” Angelique mused, still marveling over the entire experience.
Kidjo’s Carnegie Hall Concert on November 11th, The Sound of the Drum, takes as its focus the first musical instrument ever invented. Drums were first used for communication, as well as in religious ceremonies as a sacred device to call forth the divine. “Drums for me have always been at the center of every piece of music I write and I do,” said Angelique. “The beats are part of an ancient science of my country called geomancy. I cannot resist the sound of a drum. Everything starts with the beat! You don’t have the beat, you might as well be dead!” she laughed heartily. “The whole concept of the show is to prove that we’re all one.” The evening will celebrate the beauty and diversity of African drums and chants with various musical traditions throughout the Americas – from from Jimi Hendrix to Celia Cruz, James Brown to Gilberto Gil, Stax to Memphis to the Haitian Kompa. She’ll be joined onstage by Omara Portuondo (from the Buena Vista Social Club), Youssou N’Dour, and Dianne Reeves, along with a few other special guests yet unannounced. It will be a night to remember and one which will no doubt equally inspire the heart and soul – and feet. As the great Nigerian percussionist, Babatunde Olatunji, once observed, “Rhythm is the soul of life. The whole universe revolves in rhythm. Every thing and every human action revolves in rhythm.”
Buy tickets for The Sound of the Drum with Angelique Kidjo here
Learn more about the Batonga Foundation here
Visit Angelique Kidjo’s website here

Follow Holly Cara Price on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/hollycara

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

In my previous post I wrote about a rising social psychosis that’s visible in three areas of our society. It’s likely to prevail for some time, but I think it’s like a wave that’s crested and will crash to the shore. The reason is that the social psychosis is a backlash against a steadily growing consciousness and behavior that refocuses personal lives and public policies towards promoting the common good.
By the “common good” I’m referring to a broad evolution beyond values and actions that serve narrow self-interest, and towards those guided by inclusiveness — supporting well-being, economic success, security, human rights and stewardship of resources for the benefit of all, rather than just for some.
It’s like a stealth operation, because it hasn’t become highly visible yet. But polls, surveys and research data reveal several strands of change that are coalescing in this overall direction. I describe each of them below. They may appear to be unrelated, but I think they’re driven by an underlying perspective that we’re all like organs of the same body, and the body doesn’t thrive if any of the organs is neglected or diseased.
It’s an awareness of interconnection of all lives on this planet, and a pull towards acting upon that reality in a range of ways. They include rethinking personal relationships, the responsibility of business to society, and the role of government in an interdependent world.
A 21st-Century Mindset
The rise of the common good reflects a sense of global citizenship and an obligation to be a good ancestor to future generations who inhabit this planet. In fact, it embodies behavior and policies that fit the needs for effective functioning — both personal and political — in our post-9/11, post-economic meltdown world.
That is, in previous posts I’ve argued that this new era of unpredictable change in a non-equilibrium world requires new criteria for psychological health and resiliency, beyond just effective stress management and coping. Others have emphasized the new mindset that’s needed for effective business and leadership strategies in this interconnected era.
For example, Matt Bai has described in the New York Times that “[n]ow we live in an integrated world where American jobs rely on the economic policies of governments in Asia or Latin America, while our security is subject to the whims of a cleric living in a cave,” and, “[w]ith global interdependence comes a certain lack of control, a vulnerability to disparate influence.”
Similarly, CUNY professor and blogger Jeff Jarvis refers to a “great restructuring of the economy and society, starting with a fundamental change in our relationships — how we are linked and intertwined and how we act.”
And Umair Haque writes in his Harvard Business School blog about the new principles of a new economy “built around stewardship, trusteeship, guardianship, leadership, partnership,” adding that “[a]s interaction explodes, the costs of evil are starting to outweigh the benefits.” In effect, transparency will become the antidote to evil.
Let’s look at some of the seemingly disparate themes of the massive shift underway that has spawned the current social psychosis.
The New Norm of Racial-Ethnic Diversity
As you read these words, the country is becoming more diverse. Some demographers believe that 2010 could be the first year that most children born in the country will be non-white. Already, five states have a majority non-white population. New York Times columnist Charles Blow captured a slice of this at the time of the passage of health care legislation, writing that “[a] woman [Nancy Pelosi] pushed the health care bill through the House. The bill’s most visible and vocal proponents included a gay man [Barney Frank] and a Jew [Anthony Weiner]. And the black man in the White House signed the bill into law. It’s enough to make a good old boy go crazy.”
Nearly 20 percent of counties in the U.S. have, or are close to, a nonwhite majority. This shift is steadily changing the social landscape. The trend is towards movement in the direction of tolerance, acceptance and valuing — rather than fearing or hating — the increasingly diverse composition of American society. And that includes the rising numbers of those with multi-racial/ethnic backgrounds. Moreover, research finds that the latter group tends to be open-minded and more oriented to inclusiveness and openness.
Volunteer Service
Data show that the number of volunteers is steadily growing among all age groups. During 2009, about 64 million Americans did volunteer work (defined as unpaid volunteer activities through an organization.) That’s nearly 27 percent of the populations and reflects a steady year-by-year increase, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics report. And a rapid rise of volunteerism has occurred in the last decade among men and women in their 30s and 40s. Today, people describe volunteerism as part of their sense of responsibility to help others in need, not something for padding their resume.
Donations of Organs by Living Donors to Strangers
That number is steadily rising. For example, kidney donations from living donors have outnumbered those from deceased donors since 2003. Some states, such as Wisconsin, offer tax deductions for expenses related to living organ donations.
Hands-On Philanthropy
This trend is towards wanting contributions to have visible, direct impact upon people’s lives. More are turning away from writing checks to well-heeled organizations like universities or cultural centers. This trend is visible among venture capitalists who bring a high-impact perspective to venture philanthropy as well as among average citizens, who increasingly contribute to international organizations that help people become more self-sufficient in daily life — for example, through micro finance (providing small loans to individuals starting businesses in impoverished countries), or purchasing a goat for a family that relies on small farming for their livelihood, or paying the salary of a schoolteacher in an impoverished part of the world.
Responsibility for a Healthy Planet
Despite the continued denial of the reality of climate change and the human contributions to it by the GOP, a denial unmatched among major political parties around the globe, pressure continues to build, both politically and on a grassroots level, for actions that reverse or halt climate change and promote sustainable living. Among the latter are groups like 350.org, the Alliance for Climate Protection and community alliances of citizens, businesses and government such as Bethesda Green, in Bethesda, Md. This trend is underscored by the steadily rising financial contributions to environmental organizations.
Support For Human Rights
Data show a steady increase of both financial contributions to and membership in such organizations as Human Rights Watch, Save the Children, Amnesty International, Mercy Corps International and others. Even in the absence of effective action, consciousness continues to build around the perspective that violations of rights to safety, dignity and personal freedom for another — anywhere in the world — affect oneself, as well. In addition, the view of security and human rights is expanding to include not only freedom from violence and terrorism, but also the rights to health care, support of older citizens, rights to adequate housing, food, fair wages and other conditions. A recent U.N. report examines these issues with respect to responsibilities and actions of member nations.
Personal Success
I’ve written previously that men and women increasingly want a “4.0 career”: one that provides more than personal recognition, power and financial reward. They want meaningful work, opportunities for continued learning and growth, a positive management culture and a team-oriented, ethical environment. They want to have impact on something larger than just their own personal success. These themes are especially pronounced among younger workers.
The Social Impact of Business
Business leaders have already bought into the need for sustainability, and many are contributing to the rise of a new business model, one that addresses social problems and serves the common good as well as achieving financial success. The “green business” movement reflects this shift, along with the concept of the “triple bottom line.” Related trends include sustainable investing, social entrepreneurialism, corporate social responsibility, building a psychologically healthy management culture, and transparency via open access to information and corporate disclosure policies.
Acceptance of Gay Relationships and Gay Marriage
Acceptance of gay relationships has steadily increased, while opposition to gay marriage has steadily decreased, when tracked over the last several years, according to data from the Pew Research Center. Between one-quarter and one-third of gay and lesbian couples are raising children, a steadily rising number. And the most current surveys indicate that about half of all Americans support gay marriage.
Families And Relationships Are Transforming
A majority of Americans now say their definition of family includes same-sex couples with children, as well as married gay and lesbian couples. Regarding intimate relationships, surveys by the Gallup organization and other groups find that the quality of the relationship is more important to people today than simple allegiance to the institution of marriage. Census statistics and other data confirm this, showing, for example, a steady decline in the marriage rate over the last several decades, while cohabitation has steadily risen in each of those same decades. About half of all households today are headed by people who are single. And unmarried couples are as likely as married couples to be raising children: it’s currently approaching 50 percent.
Some surveys report that at least 30 percent of those polled admit to having had an affair. Whether that’s accurate or not, the upshot is that affairs are no longer viewed as immoral in today’s culture. Moreover, attitudes towards prostitution are also shifting towards greater acceptance and focus on the rights of sex workers.
So, these are just some of the pervasive shifts underway. My read is that they link around an underlying theme that our culture is evolving in both consciousness and action, and that evolution will grow and strengthen over time. That’s why the current social psychosis will fade. That’s not only hopeful but important: The rise of the common good is both a necessary path for survival and security on an interdependent planet and the path towards personal psychological health, success and well being in this new world era.
Douglas LaBier, Ph.D., a business psychologist and psychotherapist, is Director of the Center for Progressive Development, in Washington, D.C. You may contact him at dlabier@CenterProgressive.org.

Follow Douglas LaBier on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/douglaslabier

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) sponsored a poetry contest to promote Stem Cell Awareness Day last Wednesday, and the seemingly innocuous event kicked up a serious controversy.
One of the winning poems, published on CIRM’s website and in a national publication, utilizes the language of the Christian ceremony of communion to make its point. Here’s the full text of that poem, entitled “Stem C.,” by Tyson Anderson:
Anderson’s poem doesn’t strike me as being deliberately provocative — its tone is clearly heartfelt. But using the language considered sacred by most opponents of stem cell research in order to promote the research is, well, provocative. The Life Legal Defense Fund, which has opposed CIRM since its founding in 2004, was, it’s safe to say, provoked:
If Anderson is bothered by the Life Legal Defense Fund’s hyperbole, it should comfort him that the group thought enough of his “shoddy pep piece” to use it as a basis for expanding their argument: “The poem’s premise is that the embryo is a person wishing to give its life, but why we should assume that the embryo is saying, ‘Let me help,’ rather than ‘Let me live’?”
This seemed the start of an enlightening debate, but CIRM chose not to continue it, instead removing the poem from its website and apologizing.
The AP covered the story this past week but was laughably off base in its description of the poetry contest as “an attempt to lighten up the heavy subject of stem cells through poetry.” There is nothing light about Anderson’s poem. And it has resulted in people taking a harder look at the moral implications of both the promotion and suspension of stem cell research. For that, Anderson should consider his poem a success.
Feel free to share your viewpoint in the comments section below.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Crisis. The very word makes people nervous. Yet that’s what lots of us feel these days, a sense of imminent threat. Add in the effects of the economic crisis cutting the heart out of the American middle class, and people feel crisis as an everyday thing.
So what do you do if your kid is sick and has to get to the doctor, you’ll be late to work in a job you fear you might lose, there’s a huge highway traffic tie-up and you just recognized your uncle’s funeral is next week, 200 miles away, and you have to work that day?
The answer: get your brain under control and put in the groove. You do that using the power of active rest, using your brain the way it’s designed to be used:
1. First, cut down your anxiety so that your brain can do its job. Many active rest techniques can help. Start with deep breathing. Stand up straight and breathe in to the count of four, out to the count of eight. Repeat for five breaths.
Next, try paradoxical relaxation: concentrate on small muscles in your face and head. Note one that is slightly more tense than the one next to it. Now, pay complete attention to this muscle, feeling and sensing it alone; this will then get the rest of the body to relax. With practice, both deep breathing and paradoxical relaxation can be done very successfully in 30 to 60 seconds. (Other quick attention-active rest techniques, like ear popping and rapid self-hypnosis, are also quickly learned.)
2. Determine if your crisis is life- or career-threatening. When overwhelmed, people often believe their crisis is truly critical until they begin to slow down and think.
3. Use quick social connects for advice. Contact a few friends and family you really trust and admire, and ask if you can call them for advice, anytime, anywhere. Most family and friends will say yes, but it is best to ask well in advance. Use quick social connects to quickly calm anxiety and improve social rest, a major factor in health and survival, even in non-crisis times.
Social support is also crucial to emotional release. Keep with you a list of friends, family, smart acquaintances and work colleagues you can call or contact when you feel stressed — and call them when you’re not in crisis.
4. Make a quick priority list. Take the seconds you need to write down all the things you “have to” do and quickly prioritize them one by one. Quickly move to priority one (it may be getting your kid to the doctor) and feel good if you accomplish that one thing.
5. If unable to act effectively, repeat techniques like deep breathing and paradoxical relaxation, or try different ones like ear popping. Remember, these techniques can be done in under a minute.
6. After dealing with your major everyday crises, try to find five minutes to get outside and walk. Nature can calm people within five minutes, and it will give you a chance to think through your priorities and what you can do next. Walk with colleagues at lunchtime so other brains can help you out.
7. Train your brain to think of solutions instead of problems. Start by taking three to four minutes that day to write down what’s really bugging you and how you plan to tackle it. When writing down solutions, consider a) what you can do to prevent similar problems; b) who can help you deal with them; and c) evaluating how well you coped that day.
8. Learn quick spiritual rest techniques like appreciating “suchness” or moving through time and space as ways to rapidly relax and provide perspective for daily challenges. With practice these techniques also become instant stress reducers.
You always need to control your brain. Though we have not dealt here with major crises like life-threatening illnesses or losing a job, try these things to cope: give yourself enough active rest time that you can think straight, because without proper rest, you die; use social support for advice and emotional survival; obtain perspective on a daily basis; and train the brain to think in terms of solutions, not problems.
Problems will always be with us. Having processes that make creative solutions an ordinary part of life builds confidence. Then it eventually becomes fun. Once you know how to really rest, you know how to revitalize yourself — and avoid the crises of the future.

Follow Matthew Edlund, M.D. on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/therestdoctor

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Things heated up this summer with love and romance, and there’s no reason it can’t continue into the fall. Here are some tips for autumn romance.
PHOTOS:
Join In On Football Season
1 of 14
Awarding for Ability, Not Disability
Memoirs On Depression: Autobiographical Writings On The Illness That Affects Millions (PHOTOS, VIDEO)
16 Quotes From Tony Robbins On How To Live A Happy, Successful Life (PHOTOS)
7 Healthy Cooking Secrets (PHOTOS)
A Place For Solutions, Not Problems
Stories Of Resilience From Around The News (PHOTOS, VIDEOS)
For many men, “Fall” is just another name for “Football season.” Since you can’t beat ‘em, you might as well join ‘em! Get tickets to a local game, pack a tailgate picnic and head out to the stadium. Be sure to bring a warm blanket for the two of you to snuggle under, and maybe a thermos-full of hot chocolate laced with coffee liqueur for half-time.
comments(0)
<>
Total comments: 0 | Post a Comment
Rate This Tip
Rank #2 | Average: 8.6
Freezing
Sizzling!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Current Top Autumn Romance Ideas
loading…
Choose your Top Autumn Romance Ideas
UserName
| Become a fan
Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow
loading…
Top User Slides
<>
| Become a fan
Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow
loading…
Users who voted on this slide
<>
loading…

Follow Lissa Coffey on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/coffeytalk

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

After ten years in prison on a mandatory drug charge, a new life.
Abrigal Forrester served 10 years without parole for his first offense, a drug charge. He was inside from age 21 to 31. He had a daughter, was married and divorced, and paid child support during that time. When he got out, he immediately got a job as a janitor at MIT, and ultimately became Program Coordinator for Street Safe Boston, an organization working to reduce violence in the most dangerous areas of the city. He works from the Roxbury Boys’ and Girls’ Club.
TOM: So tell me a little bit about what happened.
ABRIGAL: It was from 1991 to 2001 that I was in state prison. Long story short, I ended up getting a 10-year mandatory sentence for drug charges.I went from Walpole to Concord to Shirley. If I’d gone to the federal system, it would have been three years, eight months. But I wouldn’t become a government informant. And the state already had implemented mandatory sentences, and January ’91 was when they implemented that whole no-statutory good-behavior time rule.
TOM: How old were you were when you got there?
ABRIGAL: I was going on 21.
TOM: Jesus. So you got out when you were 31?
ABRIGAL: Yeah. I got out when I was 31, yeah. For me, personally, the whole process of being incarcerated helped me — not because of the incarceration, but because of my own drive to make changes in my life and to grow and develop. Over that time period, I pretty much committed myself to change.
TOM: Did you find help inside?
ABRIGAL: I found help from older men who were willing to get engaged and question your thinking. But you have to seek that out. The system itself didn’t provide anything. It’s really about whether or not you want to change.
Around year six, I did some college courses and stuff. But then I went to a minimum institution, which meant that I had to sacrifice the education track I was on. I went because I didn’t want my family to have to keep going through that whole shakedown when they came in.
When I came home in 2001, I swent to Roxbury Community College, started working, got a job at MIT — my first job. I was making $16.21 an hour, because I did some networking on the inside with a family friend who told me what I would need to learn in order to become a maintenance person, or what they called a maintenance technician, which is really just a janitor, but (laughs) that’s a good title for it.
I always stayed ahead of my job. My thing was, get the skill set so that I can transfer the skill set outside to this other job that I’m trying to prepare myself for. And it worked. The superintendent offered to write me a recommendation letter.
I went to MIT, I interviewed, they hired me. My first nine months home, I was working from 11 p.m. to 7 in the morning, going home for two hours, going to school from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m., picking my daughter up from school, sleeping from 5 p.m. to, like, 10 — and doing that for nine months. Just to get myself acclimated.
And then, in the ninth month home, September, I got an offer for a job at this organization called Strive. They were more of a social service, a nonprofit, community-based organization trying to work with people and get them jobs, train them for jobs.
I ended up taking that job, then graduated with my associate’s degree from RCC. I then matriculated over to UMass Boston for undergrad in psychology, and I got that degree in 2008. Then I continued on the professional track, worked for Strive for five and a half years, did some stuff with them, and helped them build out an ex-offender training program that I supported in developing and facilitating.
The sheriff of the county jail here, Sheriff Cabral, wanted to bring the job-training component to the House of Corrections, so I helped build that. I did the training in the House of Corrections for two and a half years, then moved on to the Urban League to manage their employment resource center, which is just right across the street. And now I’m at StreetSafe Boston.
TOM: What does StreetSafe Boston do?
ABRIGAL: StreetSafe Boston is a violence-intervention program. The goal of StreetSafe is to work with five primary neighborhoods that have been identified through a Harvard research study as having the most violence in the metro Boston area.
The goal is to target those neighborhoods, target those individuals based on intelligence information. To try to intervene in violence, try to help support and extract those individuals, and then provide them with support for their basic needs, whether that be education, employment, mental-health services, housing, recreation, or health services.
TOM: And so you have one daughter?
ABRIGAL: Yes. I have a daughter, and I have a son. My daughter is 19, and my son is 5. My daughter was born six months before I was incarcerated.
TOM: And what’s the situation with the mom now?
ABRIGAL: We get along well. I paid child support to my daughter when I was incarcerated, because I tried to be as responsible as possible. There were jobs you could get that paid you $50 a week, which were like the highest-paying jobs in the institution. I was fortunate enough to work my way to those jobs.
So at every end of the month, I would send her at least $125.
TOM: Wow, that’s crazy. That’s great. So your daughter is all grown up now.
ABRIGAL: She’s all grown up now. It’s an interesting place to be. (Laughs.) I was on the phone with her this morning for about two hours. She’s just starting college, Palm Beach State. But she’s living in Lauderhills. And there’s a transportation issue. She’s struggling with getting a vehicle, all this stuff. Hopefully, once I get past this house situation, I’m going to try to drive my car down there and give her that.
TOM: What was your childhood like? Where did you grow up?
ABRIGAL: I grew up in Dorchester, on Regina Road, between Codman Square and Four Corners, which were two high-profile neighborhoods for crime and violence back in the ’80s.
TOM: Were your parents around?
ABRIGAL: My mom. My father was around — diabolically enough, he lived right up the street but had a whole different family.
TOM: Really?
ABRIGAL: Yeah. I’d say I was, like, five blocks away. It was pretty much me and my mom. My sisters were much older than me. By the time I was nine or 10, they were pretty much out of the house, which created a somewhat vulnerable situation for me as a young boy growing up in a very socially threatening neighborhood. I was very astute in academics from age one, grade one to five. But then, middle school was different. I went to one of the toughest middle schools in the city, which was Woodrow Wilson. And that’s when a lot of changes started to take place for me.
TOM: There are 10 questions we ask everybody. First, who do you think taught you about manhood?
ABRIGAL: My understanding of manhood only began to develop when I went to prison, to be honest. Prior to that, I was in what we would call the state of just being a male — still living life by my desires, what I missed and what I didn’t have as a kid. You see a lot of grown men who have their priorities confused. They live at home with mom but they got a $30,000 car outside. I don’t consider that to be manhood.
You know, when I went to prison and met men who were doing long sentences, for some reason these were the men that I associated with. These were men that I could have conversations with. They would question my thinking. And so it was really then, I believe, that manhood became a serious question for me.
TOM: How has romantic love shaped you as a man?
ABRIGAL: Oh, man. Romantic love. You know, I don’t know if I could say romantic love has shaped me as a man, as much as getting to a place where, as a man, monogamy has begun to shape me. Being at a place where being with one person and fighting yourself and desires and all that good stuff to try to stay and be with that one person. Because when you’re monogamous, it’s not always about running. It’s not always about leaving quickly.
I was married to my daughter’s mother once — while I was incarcerated. We got married when I was incarcerated and divorced while I was incarcerated.
There was the sense of her being romantically in love with me, and us thinking we could still build a future, and then me trying to convince her even before we got married, “You need to move on.” But she was like, “No, I want to be with you.” And we got married. And then three years later, she realized, “I can’t do this whole 10 [years], you know?” She needed romance, and she needed to move on. And me in a position where I could not even fight for the love that I have for her.
It was like sitting at a place with your hands tied, your feet tied, your voice tied, no speech, paralyzed, watching someone that you love just walk away. You know you love them, you know they love you, but you can’t do anything.
TOM: Right.
ABRIGAL: So that was my first experience, and then I came home, got married to my son’s mother, and that didn’t work out. You know, that was a tough assignment. And what I understood was that I didn’t know myself and I didn’t give myself time to understand myself. I think that the more you know yourself, you understand — you begin to understand the kind of relationships you need to get in.
When I met my son’s mother, she was very new to relationships, monogamous relationships, pretty much a virgin. And me, I had experience. But sometimes, an experienced person with a non-experienced person, it’s overwhelming. It doesn’t become just a thing about romance or love and growth. It becomes almost like puppy love, and if you’re at a place where you’re past that phase in your life, you’re now wanting room, and they want to cuddle, right? Or they want all your time.
And so, there can be a frustration in that kind of relationship. When I look back, I think that was the biggest challenge, was that my experience and her limited experience, it clashed.
And now I’m married again. (Laughs)
TOM: What two words describe your dad?
ABRIGAL: My dad? I don’t know if I want to say stern — I would say rigid when it comes to what he thinks is right. But he still has his own way of going about his life. It’s hard for me to label it. My father was very interesting, because he wanted to be on deck in a certain kind of way, but at the same time, he abandoned many of the responsibilities.
TOM: How are you most unlike your dad?
ABRIGAL: I think my commitment to responsibility, regardless of the turmoil or tribulations. My father’s the type that if he wasn’t getting along with someone, like my mom, then he was M.I.A. I’m not that type. Compared to my father, it’s my stick-to-it-iveness.
TOM: From what mistake did you learn the most?
ABRIGAL: Criminal life, you know? Making bad choices, going to prison. Having people tell you this is the pathway to your dream, your hope, your desire, and not researching enough. Or not being able to look at the reality of it. So now, I do more research. I look into things a bit more before I make a final decision, because other people can make a lot of things look really good.
TOM: How would the women in your life describe you, and is it true?
ABRIGAL: Ah, they’d probably describe me as stubborn. I stand firm on certain things. But not because I think I’m right. I stand firm because I do the research.
TOM: Who’s the best father you know, and why do you think so?
ABRIGAL: A gentleman named Stanley Green. He’s faced some of the same challenges as I have, and I’ve watched how he’s fought hard to raise his son. His son is an athletic star. He has the ability, even through a rocky relationship with his son’s mother, to stick and stay and fight it through. He has really been on deck. I think being a good parent is just being on deck, you know? That is what parenting is all about.
TOM: This isn’t on my list, but why do you think so many fathers either aren’t physically there, or aren’t mentally there?
ABRIGAL: You know, it’s work.
TOM: Tell me about it, dude.
ABRIGAL: Yeah, it really is. And it’s a different kind of work, because the work is so encompassing. It changes all the time, it’s not one-dimensional. Like, you go to your job, that work is one-dimensional. You get into a bottom line, you’re just working. But a husband and a father — today your work might be emotional. Tomorrow, your work might be getting up at 2 in the morning and going to the store. The next day, it might be that you’re being attacked financially.
It changes, it evolves, day to day. And if you’re not stable, if you don’t have a support system, you’ll run, because of your own insecurities in that work. Because there are times where you may not have the answer.
TOM: That’s why we’re starting with this conversation about manhood among men, because what the hell, we can’t figure it out ourselves.
ABRIGAL: Yeah. How can you teach what you don’t know? In my younger years, no one talked to me about manhood. When you really start to understand manhood, you see that when you go into a situation, you need to ask yourself what is it that you’re doing.
TOM: So what advice would you give teenage boys now, about manhood?
ABRIGAL: A 16-year-old has to understand what responsibility means at 16. It’s different from what it means at … For instance, my son is five. My responsibility is to teach him: You need to pick up your toys and put them away. You need to put things in the trash. When you finish, you don’t throw it on the ground. If we’re riding in the car, you don’t throw trash out the window. Those are responsibilities right there, but then he’ll get that. And then he’ll become 10 and his responsibilities will shift, and it will increase over time.
Manhood is something that is developed. It’s about understanding what it means to be responsible in different phases of your development. That’s how you become a man.
TOM: When was the last time you cried?
ABRIGAL: About two weeks ago, in my therapy session.
TOM: What was it about?
ABRIGAL: We were reflecting on some of my experiences when I was incarcerated. I was talking about my relationship with my daughter’s mother, and losing that relationship that I had, and it brought tears to my eyes. And then I was starting to understand a little bit more about love. I was taught to shut down that love thing. You know, like, “Don’t love no one.” That’s how I was taught in my neighborhood. Like, “You love a chick, you going to be a mess, man.” When I finally got to a place where I started to understand what love felt like, I got incarcerated. So I never even got to express that love.
TOM: Last question. What’s your favorite man ritual, guy ritual?
ABRIGAL: Favorite guy ritual? Hmm, I love sports, man. I’m a sports fanatic. That’s my thing.

A related story of how an original contributor to The Good Men Project anthology, Julio Medina, is helping ex-cons reintegrate can be found here.
Read this and more from Tom Matlack on The Good Men Project Magazine.

Follow Tom Matlack on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/tmatlack

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Have you ever found yourself standing in front of the mirror, pinching fat off your stomach, arms or thighs? Do you understand what it feels like to be completely disgusted with your body and longing for a change? A lot of people find themselves in this position and resolve to, “doing something about it.” Before you step out into any plan of action, you may want to take a closer look at the reasons why weight loss is so important to you.
If your reasons are unclear, superficial or undefined — your efforts could be doomed before you begin. Your weight loss journey can be a miserable trip, if you hate your body in the process. Hating your body will only make you gain weight. If you continuously criticize yourself, you will eventually sabotage your weight loss.
Before you begin any weight loss plan, it’s imperative to make peace with yourself and forgive yourself for gaining weight in the first place. Don’t say to yourself, “I can’t believe I let myself get this fat.” This kind of thinking puts your focus on the problem and not the solution. It’s better to say to yourself, “This is the way I am now, but I’m going to eat healthy and exercise to get better.”
Define the reason why you’re going to lose the weight. This is important because if you lose weight for the wrong reason you’ll gain it all back, plus more. If you lose weight for the sole purpose of gaining acceptance from others, this reason is not strong enough to keep you strong when diet and exercise becomes difficult.
At some point you’re going to have to push yourself to eat healthfully and do diligent exercise when you really don’t feel like it. If you’re working hard to lose weight only to make others happy, it’s easy to give up and feel like it’s not worth the trouble. Research shows that people who lose weight to get healthier are more successful at keeping the weight off.
So let the health benefits of losing weight motivate you. Lose weight for a longer life span, increased energy levels and increased self-esteem. These are far better motives than impressing other people. Make peace with yourself and define your personal motives before you try to lose weight that way you will not be in such a rush and you’ll transform into a slimmer person gracefully.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Bonnie Mechelle is a professionally certified fitness instructor, holistic nutritionist and Christian counselor who has naturally lost over 100 pounds and has an unrelenting passion for helping women enhance their lives and uplift their self-esteem. She’s also the Editor at Large for Healthtopia Magazine, learn more at www.myhealthtopia.com
ABOUT THE INNER WEIGH BLOG
The Inner Weigh Blog is hosted by Dr. Dave Smiley, clinical psychologist and creator of the soon to be released documentary film,The Inner Weigh . In the film, 20 of the top experts in the fields of nutrition, weight loss, spirituality, and the mind all come together to show you how to lose weight by using the Law of Attraction and tapping into the power of the Subconscious Mind. Each week, The Inner Weigh Blog will bring you new posts by these experts to help you create the body and the life that you want! If you or someone you love has been struggling with food, body image, and self-esteem, check out The Inner Weigh trailer! Become a fan and don’t miss any of our posts..

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

A new study from CS Mott Children’s Hospital finds that 89 percent of parents think vaccine safety is the most important topic in medical research today. That makes sense, since the American pediatric vaccine schedule now includes 48 vaccinations before the age of six. Parents are facing vaccination choice issues at every pediatric visit.
Dr. Paul Offit, MD, whose RotaTeq vaccine is manufactured by Merck, and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), have failed to convince the public that vaccines are fully safe and should be taken without question despite their full court press. You can check out Dr. Offit’s presentation to the AAP on how and why to combat informed parental choice How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens America’s Children for yourself.
I imagine that many (perhaps a majority) of Huffington Post readers are pro-choice and respect a woman’s right to choose. Should a woman lose the right to make appropriate, safe medical choices in conjunction with her pediatrician for her child once she becomes a mother? If you are pro-life, does a mother’s right to protect her child end when the baby is born?
Beating parents over the head with the “disease is only a plane ride away” has failed.
Clobbering parents with the concept of “herd immunity” rings hollow when your baby calf is the one who falls.
Bludgeoning parents of autistic children has failed to connect with parents in its utter transparency to protect corporate and governmental interests.
The vaccine safety community doesn’t have big gun PR firms to coax the media into doing our bidding. There’s no government support via PBS programs like New Sid the Science Kid Flu Vaccination Special Episode Now Available for Free Download on Flu.gov, enticing kids to get vaccines as if you’re selling breakfast cereal.
How does Dr. Offit claim the “anti-vaccine movement” has a Svengali-like power over the media when the head of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius stated during the H1N1 vaccine campaign last spring in Reader’s Digest “We have reached out to media outlets to try to get them to not give the views of these people equal weight in their reporting to what science has shown and continues to show about the safety of vaccines.”
We have no glossy published books sent free to pediatricians to make sure they preach their talking points in lockstep. (Sure wish they’d get a copy of this book.)
Read the full article about the study in the University of Michigan Health System HERE .

Follow Kim Stagliano on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/KimStagliano

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

A hiker has died after being attacked by a mountain goat in the US state of Washington, officials have said.
Robert Boardman was gored in the leg by the goat while out walking on Saturday with his wife and a friend on Klahhane Ridge in Olympic National Park.
The 63-year-old was transported by US Coast Guard helicopter to a hospital in Port Angeles, where he was pronounced dead.
Rangers later killed the goat, which was known for its aggressive behaviour.
Barb Maynes, park spokeswoman, told the Peninsula Daily News that in the past ranger had tried “hazing” the ram – inducing it to be frightened of people – by shooting it with bean bags and throwing rocks.
But there had been no reports of any incidents which would have warranted killing the goat, she added.
Witnesses said Mr Boardman, his wife and friend had stopped for lunch on Klahhane Ridge when the ram appeared and moved towards them.
Mr Boardman tried to shoo the animal away but it instead attacked him. After goring the hiker the goat stood over him, and had to be pelted with rocks by a ranger before finally moving away.
Some 300 mountain goats live in Olympic National Park. Found only in North America, they usually stand about 3ft (0.9m) at the shoulder and can weigh up to 300lbs (136kg).

Source:BBC